AUTHOR
Andras Kornai

ABSTRACT

Whether viewed as a Rawlsian primary good or as the building material of an entire Infosphere, the notion of _information_ plays a fundamental role in the development of CE. In the proposed paper we take a critical look at this notion from the monosemic perspective of lexical semantics (Ruhl 1989) and offer a formal definition that gives a suitable basis for CE work.

Everyday use of the term _information_ seems to rely on a metaphor of the “precious fluid”, related both to ordinary liquids like water and to less tangible but nevertheless appealing notions like energy, electricity, or chi (life force). Information can _flow_ from a source to a recipient over a _channel_, _pipe_, or other conduit, can be diluted, compressed, or stored in vessels of specific capacity, and so on: much of classical information theory can be viewed as a rational reconstruction of the fluid metaphor, with the bit as the fundamental volumetric unit from which other units such as channel capacity (bitrate) are derived by standard dimensional analysis (in this case, as bits/sec). This reconstruction turns the metaphor into a reliable tool for engineering communications devices, storage area networks, and the like, yet it leaves the “precious” aspect of the notion unexplored: from the engineering perspective any data stream is information, and it is quite unclear how one could ascribe any value, let alone an ethically central value, to bits. Yet animistic statements like `our higher being is pure information’ or `information wants to be free’ abound in the CE discourse, indeed, for many people these statements provide the main reason for engaging in the discourse in the first place. To capture these ideas one must ascribe to information some kind of identity, sentience, and volition.

1. Identity. It is one of the most striking aspects of fluids that they lack identity: pouring two glasses of wine in a pitcher results in a mixture from which the original varieties can no longer be recovered, and subparts (drops) of one fluid are indistinguishable from one another. From the perspective of everyday ontology, fluids are best viewed as mereological entities, infinitely divisible, the polar opposites of individuals (which are, by definition, indivisible). Water is H20 no matter where we find it — information, on the other hand, can generally be traced to specific _sources_ or _leaks_ based on its composition. In fact, there is a whole field of human endeavor, philology, that is largely devoted to developing methods that enable tracing various pieces of information to their sources. Since the pieces are individuated by cutting the bitstream at carefully selected points, we conclude that _linear organization_ is a defining characteristic of information. The strings AB and BA are not identical, even if their components are the same.

2. Sentience. To say that Einstein would turn in his grave, or that the principles of special relativity are violated, by faster than light travel, is to say that a specific theory (some kind of structured set of information entities or axioms) is capable of sensing something that goes against it. We do not have to take a naive animistic view of theories (just as we do not have to believe in Poseidon to believe that the sea is a dangerous place) whereby theories can sense actual events — it is enough for theories to be sensitive to statements of events. In other words, a theory imposes, by means of deductive rules, a classification on statements, which can (i) follow from the axioms (ii) their negation can follow from the axioms or (iii) be undecidable relative to the axioms. Thus we conclude that information entities come, implicitly or explicitly, with rules of composition (deduction).

3. Volition. Fermat’s Last Theorem has acquired a proof — the Riemann Hypothesis is still in need of one. The Axiom of Choice needs to be approached with care. One must respect the words of the sages. This assumption will bite you in the ass. Everyday expressions like the preceding make sense only if we take it for granted that information entities have desires and powers on their own, the way genies in bottles do. The whole meme/gene trope is meaningless without ascribing not only sentience (deductive capabilities) but also powers to change their environment, to (structured sets of) information. The absolute minimum that we need to posit is the capability of some piece of information to _override_ some other piece, and a rational reconstruction of this notion will of necessity invoke some version of default or defeasible logic.

In sum, to define information in a manner consistent with the everyday use of this term (where `everyday’ aspires at the inclusion of not just day to day discussion but the whole philosophical debate concerning CE) we must replace the classical (Shannon) notion of information by a more nuanced definition which presumes not just elementary messages that can follow each other in arbitrary order, as in the classical model, but rather structured sets of such information pieces endowed with their own deductive apparatus. Further, this apparatus must be capable of carrying not just classical but also non-monotonic inference. These considerations do not narrow down the range of possibilities to a single logical theory of identity, sentience, and volition: the full paper will use Ginsberg’s (1986) “system D” as a suitably rich metatheory to formalize the pre-theoretical notion of information in a manner suitable for capturing CE arguments.

REFERENCES

Ginsberg, M.L. Multi-valued logics. In Ginsberg (ed): Readings in Non-monotonic Reasoning. Morgan Kauffman, San Mateo CA pp 251–255

Ruhl, C. 1989: On Monosemy: A Study in Linguistic Semantics. SUNY Press, Albany

AUTHOR
Krystyna Górniak-Kocikowska

ABSTRACT

The ETHICOMP 2008 – Call For Papers contains the following passage: “In 1885, Rogerson and Bynum wrote: ‘The information revolution has become a tidal wave that threatens to engulf and change all human values.’ (…) This issue is still prevalent today. Indeed, Professor Virginio Cantoni of the University of Pavia writes: ‘In the era of globalization, it is essential to develop qualities like adaptability and ease of social integration.’”

I will address the problem pointed out by Bynum and Rogerson, namely, that the information revolution could change all human values. I will do so by exploring the way computer revolution might change the social perception of knowledge, including the way societies value knowledge – in particular, the scientific knowledge. (By science, I mean here the natural/empirical sciences.) Such a change has the potential to affect the ICT-based global society in a way that would require “adaptability and ease of social integration,” as Virginio Cantoni worded it.

The character of the proposed paper will be conceptual; basically, the paper will present a thought experiment of sorts. I will follow the vision offered by Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia: “Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.” (Wales, 2007) I intend to examine some of the possible implications of making this vision a reality.

The key terms in the above quotation are ‘every single person on the planet,’ ‘free access,’ and ‘sum of all human knowledge.’ They all refer to matters of crucial importance for the future of the ICT-based global society. They also generate several interesting problems. Two of these problems are indicated below.

1. The global society with “every single person” having “free access to the sum of all human knowledge” has to be a democratic one; otherwise, the free universal access to all knowledge would be most likely meaningless.

The definition of democracy used in the paper covers “government by the people” as well as “a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges” and “political and social equality, democratic spirit” (Webster’s Dictionary). A democratic global society would be, therefore, truly of the people, by the people, and for the people; whereas ‘the people’ would include “every single person on the planet.” (Wales)

The problem is that some kinds of knowledge, including scientific knowledge, do not have a democratic character (I will discuss this issue more thoroughly in the paper). Therefore, scientific knowledge could create a challenge for the democratic character of the ICT-based global society.

One of the possible solutions to this problem could be the revision of the concept of scientific knowledge so that it could fit into the concept of a democratic ICT-based global society. If implemented, this too could be a challenge; namely, a challenge to demonstrate the “adaptability and ease of social integration” (Cantoni) of the concept of scientific knowledge, and of science.

2. The second problem is related to the issue of application/utilization of knowledge. It mainly has an ethical, but also socio-economic and political character. If “every single person on the planet” in a democratic ICT-based global society had a “free access to the sum of all human knowledge,” what would the humankind choose to do with that knowledge? Which values would the members of the democratic ICT-based global society choose to live by? Is there a certainty that people would declare the scientific knowledge to be most important of all human knowledge? What if the scientific knowledge doesn’t serve the protection of values most treasured by the majority of people? If the majority of people preferred non-scientific knowledge, and the concept of reality based on such knowledge; and if they chose this concept freely – shouldn’t they have the right to do so? In a democratic society, wouldn’t they have the right to make this choice, and wouldn’t they also have the right to make further decisions based on this choice, including decisions affecting the entire global society?

Since the scientific revolution, individuals with little mastery of the knowledge ‘officially’ approved as correct, i.e., knowledge defined as “justified true belief” (Encyclopedia, 4, 345) and – more importantly – with little or no free access to the means of dissemination of information, had little chance to influence the public decision making process. (I will substantiate this statement in my paper.) In the ICT-based global society, however, ‘every single person on the planet’ could make his/her views known to all people. If these views would be appealing enough to the majority of the human population in the democratic global society, they could influence even the most important public decisions. This, too, like in the first case, could mean a profound change in the socially preferred values; and it would create a challenge to demonstrate the “adaptability and ease of social integration” (Cantoni) of the proponents of scientific knowledge.

These, and several other situations generated by the hypothetical fulfillment of the vision created by Jimmy Wales could be possible, and even probable, in a reality in which computer-based ICT is a ubiquitous part of everyday life. Should any of this happen, the hegemony of scientific knowledge in the public realm could be seriously jeopardized thanks to its own ‘ungrateful children,’ the computer revolution and ICT.

REFERENCES

Edwards, P. (Editor in Chief), 1972, The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Macmillan Publishing & The Free Press, New York, Collier Macmillan Publishers, London.

ETHICOMP 2008 – Call For Papers, 2007, an email message from CCSR Web Master (ccsr@dmu.ac.uk) sent on July 9, 2007.

Wales, J., An interview, 2007, http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/en, accessed on December 27, 2007.

Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, 1996, Barnes & Noble Books, New York.

AUTHOR
Kimppa, K. K.

ABSTRACT

Terms used

Donor = the person to whom the voice belongs
Producer = the producer of the speech synthesis software
User = the party using the software for synthesizing speech (of the donor).

Introduction

A research group1 at the University of Turku is developing a speech synthesis software which can synthesize the voice of anyone based on a set of rules used. The project has raised certain ethically relevant questions, such as who owns a voice of a person, if anyone? What kinds of rights, if any to a voice can anyone have? The development of the software and other similar softwares is active and these questions are bound to rise in the near future; if not now.

In this paper we aim to look at the problem from an ethical perspective. The aim is to show that the rights of a person to their voice, rights of someone using such software and rights (typically copyrights and patents) of the producer of the software seem to create tensions for the use of such softwares – tensions, which need to be resolved. The supposed level of the software is that of synthesizing voice which is indistinguishable from the actual voice of a person, either by hearing the synthesizer producing sentences or, even by technical means.

Technical background

Speech synthesis systems have been available for decades, and several ways to produce synthesized speech have emerged. The study at hand concerns an older method of creating artificial speech, a rule-based speech synthesis. A rule-based speech synthesis may be considered a truly synthetic way to produce speech since it does not make use of any samples of natural, human speech as most of the other synthesis methods do. On the other hand, the rule-based speech synthesis is commonly considered to be the most challenging way to produce high-quality synthetic speech. However, the latest studies of our own have shown promising results to overcome the unnatural quality of rule-based artificial speech. In fact, it may be problematic even to tell a natural speaker apart from a synthetic speech sample. There are also other synthesis methods, which have a high level of naturalness, e.g. HMM-based synthesizers.

Following diagram demonstrates the steps included in the speech synthesis. Transcription translates an orthographic text into phonetic alphabets. After the transcription the written text is in the form of pronunciation. The transcription with setting of durations and fundamental frequency is often referred as the syntagmatic part of creating speech synthesis. The intonation is generated in the syntagmatic steps. The following phoneme rules are acoustic models for each speech sound. The synthetic speech is produced and played back after the acoustic model of each sound is generated. The audio signal is generated using a Klatt-type signal generator (Klatt 1980). The system design is described in greater detail in Saarni et al (2006).

Diagram 1. Steps in generating a rule-based synthetic speech

Ethical questions raised

The main question seems to be whether a person has a natural right to their voice. Does a person have an innate, unquestionable right to any uses of their voice or not. Some exceptions to this have apparently been made, e.g. imitator’s use the voice of political figures often enough in their shows, often in a sarcastic context. However, the context in which it is used is also identifiable as a show. Applications such as answering machine voices recorded by an imitator to imitate celebrity voices are closer to the problem presented. Do the persons whose voices are being used have a right to control the use of their voice in this kind of applications?

The second apparent question is whether the speech of a person can be misused. Should it be, that for example Osama Bin Laden actually is dead (as no video independently confirmed to be current of him has been seen for quite some time now) a synthesis software could easily enough be used to propagate the same ideas he has been known to support. The authenticity of some recordings which are claimed to be made by him have actually been questioned2.

Having these questions in mind, does the producer have some ethical responsibilities, and if, what are these responsibilities? Should the product of the synthesizer be water marked in some way to distinguish it from the original speech of the person? Is the responsibility producer’s or user’s? Should the donor be automatically compensated for the use of their voice? Should they be able to control how and for what purposes their voice is used? Should the system resemble the copyright system, in which the main argument is the right to exclude others from using the ‘work’, here the voice of the person in question? If so, how to control this?

In this paper we will consider the questions from the perspective of the rights of the person whose voice is being used, from the perspective of the rights (if any) of the producer and the user of the software. We will also look into the duties such software undoubtedly puts to the users of the software and the possible duties which fall to the producer. Finally, we will look into the consequences, both in a utilitarian and economic sense such software would and will introduce.

Although Howley et al (2002) consider specifically privacy enhancing technologies, in a similar manner system design personnel need to be aware of the possible uses and consequences of these uses of speech simulation software (for Stakeholder theory, see e.g. Bowern et al (2004)). The software cannot be released before a study of the effects is done. In a competitive environment, the pressures to release early, without considering all the implications of the release are considerable (Powers, 2002). However, the consequences of a release of an unfinished product that does not support abuse of the software can also be considerable.

If ownership of even such minor immaterial objects as items in a computer game (see e.g. Reynolds 2002, or Kimppa and Bissett 2005) can be considered to be a major issue, surely ownership of ones voice and its (perfect) imitation is a central question for ones self.

Many similar issues arise with the use of someone’s voice as do with the sue of a picture of someone, although some ethical issues are also specific and novel to voice synthesis. Questions such as are similar to those raising with pictures: Who owns the product of the voice synthetisator? What role does consent play in the use of someone’s perfectly imitated voice? What moral rights must be considered? In this paper we will look at these issues amongst others and compare them to the ones presented for image usage (see e.g. Weckert and Adeney, 1994 or Evans and Mahoney 2004).

Preliminarily, it would seem evident that misuses of such software are possible, if not even probable. Thus, the design of the software should already minimize the possibility of such misuse, be it natural rights of the donor, duties toward the donor by the users and producers or just plain consequences of the use of such software.

REFERENCES

Bowern, M., McDonald, C. and Weckert J. (2004) Stakeholder theory in practice: Building better software systems. Ethicomp 2004, University of the Aegean, Syros, Greece, 14 to16 April 2004, pp. 157—169.

Evans, Jill, and Mahoney, John (2004), Ethical and Legal Aspects of Using Digital Images of People: Impact on Learning and Teaching. Ethicomp 2004, University of the Aegean, Syros, Greece, 14 to16 April 2004, pp. 289—297.

Howley, Richard, Rogerson, Simon, Fairweather N. B. and Pratchett, Lawrence (2002), The Role of Information Systems Personnel in the Provision for Privacy and Data Protection in Organisations and Within Information Systems. Ethicomp 2002, Universidade Lusíada, Lisbon, Portugal, 13-15 November 2002, pp. 169—180.

Kimppa, K. K. and Bissett, A. (2005), Is cheating in network computer games a question worth raising? CEPE 2005, July 17-19, Enschede, The Netherlands, pp. 259—267.

Klatt, D. H. (1980): Software for a Cascade/Parallel Formant Synthesizer. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 67, 971–995.

Powers, Thomas M. (2002), Responsibility in Software Engineering: Uncovering an Ethical Model. Ethicomp 2002, Universidade Lusíada, Lisbon, Portugal, 13-15 November 2002, pp. 247—257.

Reynolds, Ren (2002), Intellectual Property Rights in Community Based Video Games. Ethicomp 2002, Universidade Lusíada, Lisbon, Portugal, 13-15 November 2002, pp. 455—470.

Saarni, T., Paakkulainen, J., Mäkilä, T., Hakokari, J., Aaltonen, O., Isoaho, J. & Salakoski, T. (2006): Implementing a Rule-based Speech Synthesizer on a Mobile Platform. T. Salakoski et al. (Eds.): FinTAL 2006, LNAI 4139, pp. 349 – 355.

Weckert, John and Adeney, Douglas (1994), Ethics in Electronic Image Manipulation. Ethics in the computer age, Galtinburg, Tennessee, United States, pp. 113—114.

AUTHOR
Kimppa, K. K. and Bissett, A

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses a new phenomenon in the virtual world called ‘Gold Farming’. Gold farming consists of playing an online computer game for the purpose of gaining items of value within the internal economy of the game, and selling these to other players for real currency such as US Dollars or Euros. Such items may be in-game money (where the game internal economy allows this), desirable items, or highly developed game characters amongst other things. The selling is done through web sites or online auctions. An estimate for 2009 puts the in-game gold market at US$ 7 billion

This phenomenon, following the spread of the Internet and online computer games, is widely practiced in low average income level countries such as China (where there are thought to be half a million gold farmers) or Mexico that have relatively good access to Internet. Although this phenomenon can be considered as ‘just’ a new form of sweatshop labour (which it undoubtedly is), there are some differences and even clear benefits for the gold farmer compared to the ‘traditional’ sweatshops.

Before looking at the phenomenon in more detail, we outline the computer game context – a huge and lucrative industry. We then describe in detail the work, the ‘labour’, that gold farmers undertake. This usually involves some kind of repetitive action on the part of the gold farmer, although we briefly discuss the role of automated labour, using in-game ‘robots’ (automated scripts performing some of the functions of the game) to assist in the gold farming.

After describing the ways in which gold farmers generate items of value, we discuss how such items are sold. It is argued that gold farming violates the feel of the game, and as the selling of gold is done outside of the actual game and is not agreed upon implicitly when a game is entered, it could be considered cheating in the sense that Kimppa and Bissett (2005a and 2005b) have argued. The issue is not clear, but certainly some distortions are introduced into the gaming environment: thousands of accounts tied to gold farming are banned, with millions of gold pieces, worth tens of thousands of dollars in the game-external markets, frozen.

Having anatomised the phenomenon we discuss its origination, drawing in part on the concept of ‘globalisation’ – ‘the removal of barriers to free trade and the closer integration of national economies’ (Stiglitz, 2002: ix). Stiglitz, who has been closely involved at senior government level with China, characterises that country as one that is less developed and which has been moving slowly, since 1980, towards a market economy. It is not surprising that gold mining has taken off where there is a significant differential in wages and personal wealth – average per capita income in China is $450 US. In effect the labour of the gold miners achieves an export of ‘dematerialised’ or ‘virtual’ goods from the less developed world to the more developed countries.

Crucially, the major ethical issues are drawn out. Working conditions for gold farmers are typically poor: just a room with computers and a place to sleep as is typical in sweatshops. A likely wage for a Chinese gold farmer is 500-800 Yuan per month, less than 100 US Dollars. Gold farmers are often on-line for many hours; 12 hour stretches seem to be the norm, and this is not good for the body and eyes. There is the ‘grey economy’ aspect: hardly ever are taxes paid, likewise any kind of insurance. We discuss the differences between gold farmers and software developers, and note the contrast between what is entertainment in the developed world and work in the developing world. There is an interesting question of reality – what might seem to be ‘virtual reality’ to game players in the developed world must appear as considerably more ‘real’ to the gold miners who invest their time, skills and labour in the less developed world.

However, the picture is far from simple. We discuss some ameliorating aspects such as:

• No outsider is seriously hurt by gold farmers
• Although it is in the grey economy, there are not many ties to organised crime
• The working environment is relatively safe
• In the developed world we in the IT industry and as researchers quite often do a comparable workday utilising a computer – this does not seem to be impossible at all
• The work might even be comparatively congenial, making a job from a hobby (and haven’t we all, as researchers done that?)
• There is good cameraderie
• It appears relatively easy to break from the gold farm and start to do the same business independently or as part of a co-operative society with other former gold farm workers
• Stiglitz’ work suggests that the phenomenon will be time-limited

REFERENCES

Kimppa, K. & Bissett, A. (2005a) Is cheating in network computer games a question worth raising? in Brey, P., Grodzinsky, F., Introne, L. (editors) Ethics of New Information Technology. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference of Computer Ethics: Philosophical Enquiries, University of Twente, Holland, July 17th – 19th 2005, 259-267.

Kimppa, K. & Bissett, A. (2005b) The Ethical Significance of Cheating in Online Computer Games, International Review of Information Ethics, Vol. 4 – December.

Stiglitz, J. (2002) Globalization and its Discontents. London: Allen Lane.

AUTHOR
Kai Kimppa

ABSTRACT

In 2005 the Finnish Minister of Communications Susanna Huovinen and others started a project to censor foreign web sites which offer child pornographic material in the Internet which became a bill (HE 99/2006) in 2006 and was accepted in 2007. The aim of the project was to censor sites which cannot, through legal means within Finland or with international cooperation be taken down. The way the project was framed was the following: “Internet Service Providers (ISPs) can take the list into use, and if they do not, we will pass a law which mandates the taking into use. Feel free to not take the list into use, as this is all voluntary.” (Tietokone, 2006; Lausuntokooste, 2006)

Child pornography is a gross violation of children’s rights. Despite of this, the project was criticized from the beginning by various electronic activists and activist groups. The project was seen as a first step towards wider and deeper censorship of material in the Internet. These fears have now been realized. In the black list created by one member of the Finnish National Bureau of Investigations (NBI), it has been found out through indirect means, at least 1000 of the 1700 web pages blocked (Nikki, 2008) seem to be sites which the Finnish law does not forbid (a very preliminary analysis available at: http://maraz.kapsi.fi/sisalto-en.html). Most of them appear to be normal pornographic material, which, even if morally questionable, are not illegal in Finland. Many seem to be gay pornography, again, not in any way illegal in Finland. A fewer number still appear to be sites which promote child models, and finally, some sites are perfectly mundane, such as Japanese Okubo Violin store web site. Thus, at least half of the web sites blocked contain no illegal material at all. This seems extremely worrying to anyone interested in freedom of expression and legal procedure.

To make the things worse, there have already been several suggestions to extend the black list. The first mentioned in media was to block web sites which distribute or provide links to illegal downloads of copyrighted material in the Internet. The latest call is for the list to be extended to Internet poker sites, which according to a study (Määttä, 2008, pp. 52) ‘cause addiction to the Finnish population’. Other suggestions for additions to the list of censored things are, as was feared to be expected shortly.

Unfortunately the problems do not end here. A web site specifically created to critique the law (lapsiporno.info – in English, “childporn.info” – one may discuss the pro’s and con’s of the choice of the name, but the content of the site is not in question, there is no child pornography what so ever at the web site) has already been added to the list. Thus, even discussion of the content of the black list is added under censorship in Finland. This, apparently, is illegal, as well as immoral. The law specifically states, that it is to be applied to foreign web sites, not ones in Finland – as the police, of course, has the duty to investigate and the prosecutor to prosecute any web sites in Finland offering child pornography. Police Sergeant Lars Henriksson, responsible for the upkeep of the black list has stated publicly, that any web sites offering links to web sites offering child pornography is guilty of abetting child pornography (Tekniikka & Talous, 2008). However, how is the public to discuss whether the list contains child pornography or not, if listing the sites is forbidden? Also, passive links (which the person using a browser need but copy/paste to the address line) are allowed, as no such web sites have been censored (at least yet). The current Minister of Communications Suvi Lindén has also warned the public in the television news to not test the list nor to question the content of the list ‘at their own peril’. Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) seems to be the strategy applied by the administration to the issue. The discussion (or the aims to stop it) starts to resemble some of the tactics employed by totalitarian societies, instead of democratic, transparent legal systems.

From a political-legal perspective, the traditional division of the authorities to executive, judicial and political branches is also in question, when one (1) person at the NBI decides.

1. what is illegal (and as has been seen a lot of it is not)
2. what is to be done about it (censorship), and
3. who and to whom can be complained (no notification of ending up at the list is provided and only an email address directed to the same person is provided).

In the paper I will go through the issues in more detail and discuss the fears raised by the possible future implied by these policies. As pointed out by one critic of the system, “[in regard to censorship] we seem to be on a flight to China – and it is not going to be a holiday trip.”

REFERENCES

HE 99/2006, Hallituksen esitys Eduskunnalle laiksi lapsipornografian levittämisen estotoimista, available at http://www.finlex.fi/linkit/hepdf/20060099, last checked Feb 21, 2008.

Lausuntokooste (2006), Liikenne ja viestintäministeriö, available at the web pages of the ministry of transport and communications, http://www.mintc.fi/oliver/upl180-Lausuntokooste.pdf, last checked Feb 21, 2008.

Määttä, Kalle (2008), Etärahapelien sääntelystä, Stakes, Helsinki, 2008, available at http://www.stm.fi/Resource.phx/vastt/paihde/peli/index.htx.i407.pdf, last checked Feb 21, 2008.

Nikki, Matti (2008), The Finnish Internet Censorship List, available at http://lapsiporno.info/suodatuslista/?lang=en, last checked Feb 21, 2008.

Tekniikka & Talous (2008), Poliisi sensuroi pornosuodatuksen rajoja koetelleen sivuston, available at http://www.tekniikkatalous.fi/ict/article59589.ece, last checked Feb 21, 2008.

Tietokone (2006), Luhtanen hyvästeli ammattilaisia, available at http://www.tietokone.fi/uutta/uutinen.asp?news_id=24686, last checked Feb 21, 2008.

AUTHOR
Ghulam Ali Khan

ABSTRACT

Every person wants security and privacy but due to globalization and expending of information and communication technology (ICT), walls of individual’s security and privacy are damaging badly. Advancements of the ICT have made the people very powerful. One person can destroy and disturb the whole society so advancement of ICT without ethics and responsibilities are pushing them towards wane.

• Due to the mobile cameras privacy of the people is affecting. Vulgar messages and naked pictures are being sent to the ladies.
• Some public net cafes and public places are equipped with spy cameras and without permission, bad peoples are loading pictures and videos of the others on you tube.
• Due to the remote excess soft wares, hackers are hacking and interfering into the others lives.

Islam as a religion has a teaching and practical suggestion for the solution and preparation of responsible individual and human groups.

• Everyone is responsible about his every action of life.
• Islam forbids to interfere into the others lives, nobody is allowed to disturb the privacy and security of the others.
• In Islamic teaching a person can be punished if he looks into the others home without permission.
• Islam prohibits spying anyone.
• Islam teaches to hide the mistakes and sins of the individual and does not allow advertising them.
• Islam prohibits going to others home during some specific times even one has appointment to meet (for persons having family).

It is quite possible to educate and civilized the individuals and human groups by the teaching of Islam and can assure the privacy and security defining the limits of the persons.

If we don’t change the attitude of the people with respect to the modern development in the present scenario it is quite possible that advancement as a result of globalization and ICT without ethical values can destroy the whole global world.

Solutions and suggestions in this regard will be discussed in detail during oral presentation.