Ethics online

Reviewer: Joseph S. Fulda

Unlike most critiques of the Internet, which are at least partly uninformed and, where informed, do not get to the heart of the matter—how communication via the Internet is different from other forms of communication—Johnson's paper is fully informed and goes right to the heart of the matter. Communication via the internet, Johnson tells us, differs from offline communication in three essential ways: scope, anonymity, and reproducibility. By “scope” she means the combination of vast reach, interactivity, and immediacy, which together allow anyone to broadcast anything to millions of people and have them respond by the millions almost immediately. This scope, Johnson points out, gives the communicator unprecedented power. Second, the medium lends itself to anonymous or pseudo nymous communication, thereby divorcing the message from the messenger and thus freeing the messenger from responsibility for the message. Third, reproducibility means that it is possible, at no cost, to take a message from anyone and send multiple copies of it anywhere, altered or unaltered, while leaving the original intact, without any sign that it has been reproduced. Johnson convincingly argues that it is these three aspects of communication online that set it apart from communication offline and, therefore, make an ethical difference. As legislators grapple with the complex questions of fraud, identity theft, copyright violation, invasion of privacy, spamming, harassment, and defamation online, they would do well to consider the roles these three factors play. The more they are in evidence, the more likely it is that new legislation, narrowly tailored to mitigate their effects, will be called for.

Reviewer: Andrew Robert Huber

Offline behavior cannot be controlled only by laws or technology. Why should online behavior be any different__?__ Johnson argues that since offline behavior is ruled by established social norms, similar norms for online behavior must be established. Johnson identifies three special aspects of online communication: scope, anonymity, and reproducibility. While these exist in offline communication, they tend to have different online characteristics (especially defaults) and reinforce each other. For example, offline communication is typically not reproducible without special action (such as videotaping), whereas online messages are automatically reproducible. With the anonymity available online, reproducibility makes it simple to copy or alter communications, spreading either real or forged versions widely. Johnson's solution is twofold. First, since these three characteristics can be both beneficial and dangerous, establish varied modes of communications (such as chat rooms or bulletin boards) with different degrees of these attributes. These can vary the degree of anonymity provided and allowed. Second, make the rules of communication explicit before communication begins, including the norms for anonymity and other attributes. Finally, Johnson offers three general online rules: know and follow the rules; respect the privacy and property rights of others; and r<__?__Pub Caret>espect the individuals with whom you communicate and those affected by your communication. While the paper is well written and Johnson's case is clearly made, her solution seems simplistic. She leaves unanswered the question of what to do with those who do not follow the rules. Also, to establish norms, users must agree on the rules. This is difficult to accomplish offline, let alone online. Respecting the privacy and property rights of others requires agreement on what those rights are. Spammers claim the right to send commercial email to anyone, which many recipients reject. While Johnson offers some initial norms, she gives little help on the more difficult task of getting a diverse global online community to agree on these or any norms.