AUTHOR
Juan Gabriel Estrada Alvarez and Richard S. Rosenberg

ABSTRACT
The sacrifice of thousands during the tragic events of 9/11 has brought people together. That, no one will contest. But has it brought us and our governments together? In the face of ‘anti-terrorist’ laws and policies, we may already be getting used to living in a permanent state of ‘war.’ Most informed individuals have heard of various programs introduced and laws passed in the U.S. in the aftermath of 9/11 (e.g. the PATRIOT Act [1]). Of those, most will also know of the corresponding policies adopted and being proposed (e.g. Data Retention as part of the Cybercrime Treaty [2]) in the European Union. But what about Canada? Not counting academia and civil liberties groups, Canadian policies and laws passed or proposed as a consequence of the events of 9/11 have received little or no attention from the public at large. Most citizens of this first world country are unaware of what their government has been up to in order to ‘mitigate’ the terrorism threat.

In this paper, we will give a historical view of how several policies have been proposed, of which some have been made into law, that raise concerns as disturbing as the controversial surveillance provisions of the U.S.A. PATRIOT Act. Included are Canada’s own Anti-Terrorism Act and most recent the Public Safety Act, parts of which just came into effect on December 1st of last year [3]. We will analyse the impact of those sections, pertinent to the online world of the Internet and the values of liberty that are so important to North American society, focusing mainly on privacy and free speech issues. To this end, we will introduce some specific examples that have arisen in the debate, including the proposal for a National Identity Card that utilizes extensive biometric technology [4], the idea of a centralized database that keeps track of citizens’ travel activities by the former Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (The Customs program is now part of the Canada Border Services Agency.) [5], and the concept of data preservation (better known as “Lawful Access”) which in effect makes Internet Service Providers (ISPs) and other companies in the private sector agents of the State [6]. We will also discuss the existence of two lesser known bills [7] that were passed into law at around the same time as the Public Safety Act.

We will also examine whether or not these new powers available to law enforcement authorities are necessary, and if they are, whether they have enhanced our security. This exploration shall be done in contrast to their potential to erode the civil liberties mentioned above. Similarly, we will attempt to show the lack of awareness the Canadian public has with respect to all of these important laws, and how Canadians in general seem to be content and trusting of whatever their government decides to do, arguing that this is a situation that must be addressed as soon as possible. If not, tomorrow our children may no longer know the difference between liberty and ‘liberty subject to surveillance.’ The government should consider the effect of laws that were not drafted with a ‘temporary crisis’ frame of mind, before they become the established norm for our future generations.

To conclude, we will briefly reflect on the current state of the relationship of Canadian citizens with their government, and how history continues to repeat itself. Nonetheless, we will outline a few potential solutions from a technological point of view in support of our opinion that the ages old dilemma of “trading liberty for security” is a mere fallacy.

REFERENCES

[1] Bill H.R.3162, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, 2001, Page 115 Stat. 272.

[2] European Commission, DG INFSO – DG JAI, Consultation Document on Traffic Data Retention, (Brussels, 30 July 2004) online: http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/ecomm/doc/ (accessed 28 January 2005).

[3] Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Official Secrets Act, the Canada Evidence Act, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) Act and other Acts, and to enact measures respecting the registration of charities, in order to combat terrorism, 1st Session, 37th Parliament, 2001 (assented to 18 December 2001), S.C. 2001, c. 41 [Anti-Terrorism Act]; Bill C-7, An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety, 3rd Session, 37th Parliament, 2004 (assented to 6 May 2004), S.C. 2004, c. 15 [Public Safety Act, 2002].

[4] Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, News Release, “A National Identity Card for Canada?” (Ottawa, 7 October 2003) online: http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteePublication.aspx? (accessed 28 January 2005).

[5] Letter from George Radwanski, former Privacy Commissioner of Canada, to the Hon. Elnor Caplan, former Minister of National Revenue (22 November 2002) online: http://www.privcom.gc.ca/media/nr-c/02_05_b_021122_e.asp (accessed 28 January 2005).

[6] Canada, Department of Justice, Lawful Access, (Ottawa, 25 August 2002) online: http://www.canada.justice.gc.ca/en/cons/la_al/ (accessed 28 January 2005).

[7] Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (capital markets fraud and evidence-gathering), 3rd Session, 37th Parliament, 2004 (assented to 29 March 2004), S.C. 2004, c. 3; Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and other Acts, 3rd Session, 37th Parliament, 2004 (assented to 22 April 2004), S.C. 2004, c. 12.

AUTHOR
Lampropoulos Nikolaos, Michalakos Sotiris, Anagnostopoulos Achilleas and Pouloudi Nancy

ABSTRACT

During the last decade several different approaches towards knowledge management have been promoted. Whilst these approaches/theories rely on a fairly solid theoretical framework, in real life numerous challenges have to be addressed and resolved. These challenges are inextricably linked with the nature of knowledge. Although collecting and storing explicit knowledge is a relatively easy task, the same cannot be asserted in the case of tacit knowledge [Polanyi, 1966]. Yet, it is tacit knowledge that, arguably, constitutes the basis for sustainable competitive advantage. The importance of efficiently collecting and storing tacit knowledge, therefore, can be critical, particularly for large, multinational organizations. Information systems have the potential to support and facilitate the collection and dissemination of knowledge in the organizational environment. This is because -unlike pure human contact- they enable storing, and thus reusing and learning from previously used knowledge.

However, storing tacit knowledge using electronic means is a challenging endeavor. This can be explained by the “duality” of tacit knowledge [Stenmark, 2000]. That is, tacit knowledge is perceived by organizations to have high value, while at the same time it is elusive. Elusiveness emerges when knowledge workers are not aware of the volume of knowledge they possess or they cannot estimate the exact volume and significance of their knowledge. Sometimes, they might not even be able to express and communicate the gist that lies behind their ideas. Yet, because of the high value associated with tacit knowledge in organizations, stakeholders benefit from thinking of tacit knowledge as their personal intellectual property. It is therefore likely that stakeholders may also refuse to share their knowledge [Cole-Gomoski, 1997; Kolekovski, 2003], not least because they are concerned that it may be “stolen” by colleagues or misused.

In view of these challenges, this paper aims to discuss and address some of the issues pertaining to the design of an information system that enables the exploitation of tacit knowledge within an organization. Such a system would need to enable the exchange of knowledge amongst stakeholders but also exploit the available knowledge resources in existing and/or legacy systems. In addition, the organization would need to provide “knowledge workers” with access to the system, so that they can express and store their ideas. The collected ideas would be then processed so as to generate organizational knowledge. The accumulated knowledge could be exploited as a potential tool for enhancing existing working procedures and increase the organizational efficiency. At the same time, proposing such an information system presumes an appreciation of several organizational factors, including the organizational culture and stakeholders’ reluctance towards sharing.

To cope with the complexity of this research problem in this paper, we introduce the notion of Cognitive Information resources (CIRs), a category of information resources that constitute the product of an analytical and synthetic process involving the human mind, which ultimately enables the transition from raw information to knowledge. We then probe into the most common reasons, why stakeholders hesitate to share their non tangible knowledge.

Subsequently, we discuss the major benefits of collecting and disseminating cognitive information resources from the perspective of “knowledge workers” and the organization as an entity. First, “knowledge workers” can and should incorporate CIRs in their working habits, in order to boost their efficiency and reduce the required time for completing complex and knowledge-demanding tasks. In addition, the ability to tap into a vast pool of knowledge could serve as a means to personal learning and growth. Finally, knowledge workers, parallel to their contribution to organizational knowledge, may gain recognition and respect from their co-workers.

Second, from the perspective of organizations, CIRs are also beneficial. To begin with, an organization may combine its experience and culture with knowledge assets in a unique way. Organizations could ultimately transform into a “hive” of innovative ideas and creativity, setting the basis for obtaining a sustainable and non copy-able competitive advantage.

Furthermore, in this paper we elaborate on the issues that arise when CIRs are dispersed into diverse cultures, as in the case of multinational corporations. We argue that a prerequisite for the effective CIR generation, capture and diffusion is the existence of a common cultural set. This cultural set constitutes an ‘amalgamation’ of the different backgrounds, mindsets and personal beliefs that reflect on each “knowledge worker’s” unique identity.

In the final part of this paper, we propose the main features for a different, more effective knowledge management system that could be used in organizations. First, from a technical perspective, special considerations should be made in order to ensure the smooth and unimpeded integration with legacy systems. Second, the system should be developed in such a way that importing heterogeneous resources, as for instance blog content, discussion forum content, instant messages and intra-department reports, would be quick and easy. Finally, the basic philosophy of such a system should be to extend the technical user-friendly environment to an organizational climate which encourages and facilitates the sharing and storage of knowledge. We contend that allowing users to freely edit, review or comment on the available information is a primary factor for the success of such a system. However, the success of such a system is contingent on the organizational culture. Therefore the successful integration of an information system that enables the exploitation of tacit knowledge is also dependent on the ability to create and sustain an organizational culture governed by democratic and participative principles.

REFERENCES

Cole-Gomoski, B. Users loath to share know-how. Computerworld, 31(46):6, 1997. Kolekofski, K. E., Jr., & Heminger, A. R. Beliefs and attitudes affecting intentions to share information in an organizational setting. Information & Management, 40, 521-532, 2003.

Polanyi, M. The Tacit Dimension. Routledge and Kegan, 1966. Stenmark, D. Turning Tacit Knowledge Tangible, Proceedings of the 33rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS33). The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), January 2000, p. 3020.

AUTHOR
Daniela Cerqui and Kevin Warwick

ABSTRACT

Technology is now becoming available which is opening up the realistic possibility of thought communication between individuals being achieved in the forthcoming decade, through the use of brain-computer implants. Indeed the first trials along these lines are even now occurring in several research labs [1, 2]. New technical methods presently being looked into (e.g. nanotechnology) are only likely to further enhance the results obtained thus far and speed up the rate of progress in this area.

Witnessing the dawning of a completely new and revolutionary technical capability for humans raises a multitude of questions in terms of the effects on all aspects of society. It is interesting to consider what we can learn by looking back to relevant new directions when they have occurred in the past. In this paper we make an attempt to indicate the chief areas of interest and have a stab at pointing to pertinent events that, we feel, relate to the situation as of now, and from which we may take heed.

It is always difficult, given any new technological discovery or invention, to realistically assess its potential future impact on and in society. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but it always has a time restriction which prevents its prior use. At a particular instant, attempting to bring together commercial interests, fashion trends and political alignments is troublesome enough, let alone being faced with the effects of international incidents, extreme weather conditions and natural disasters. Yet all of these can seriously influence not only the immediate reaction to a scientific announcement but also its eventual take up and long term usage.

The particular new technology we consider here is the novel area of direct brain to brain communication between individuals. This potentially could change our human concepts of language, individual emotions and even education. Thus far a telegraphic form of communication has been successfully achieved between the nervous systems of two humans through neural signalling via implants in the nervous system. The next step, a repeat of the experiment from brain to brain appears to be straightforward enough. But, if successful, which most likely it will be, it will push humanity forward in a way that is perhaps most similar to the era when the first telephone conversations were held.

Over 45 years after the invention of the electric telegraph, on March 10th 1876 Alec Bell uttered the words “Mr. Watson – Come here – I want to see you” into a mouthpiece. At the far end of the corridor, via a brass pipe arrangement, Bell’s technician Watson heard and understood enough of the words to respond appropriately [3, 4]. There followed patent arguments, counter claims and denounciations before Bell was widely accepted as the inventor of the telephone. But even he could not have foreseen what worldwide effect it was likely to have. Within a few years the first commercial telephone calls were being made, and by the end of the century, in some circles, the telephone had become an indispensable item. Yet othersof Bell’s inventions, for example synthesisers and telex machines, took many more years to establish a foothold and when they did they were effectively reinvented in a slightly different guise.

All of this throws up a multitude of different issues surrounding the introduction of new technology. Society must be ready for it in terms of the infrastructure that exists and in terms of the mental enlightenment of its members – remember that in the case of the telephone it first made an appearance only 5 years after the publication of Charles Darwin’s “The Descent of Man”, which caused a furore on both sides of the Atlantic. Would things have been the same if the telephone had appeared 10 years earlier? Also, and of extreme importance, other technological developments must be sufficiently established and available to enable any new technology to gain a foothold.

In the earlier part of the 19th Century electricity had become more widely accepted with the invention of the electric motor and generator by Michael Faraday – along with electrolysis and batteries, important ingredients in the foundation of telephones – without the electromagnetic effect there would be no telephones as we know them.

As time passes and people change, so too do the ethical stances taken and views held. What is deemed to be ethically and morally unacceptable at one time becomes perfectly natural [5] and what is felt to be normal behaviour drowns in the mire of a shift in society and can even become illegal – prime examples in western society would be racial acceptance, drug taking, abortion on demand and homosexuality. For an extreme example we can look to the state of Virginia where, in 1972, it was still quite possible to be sterilized, whether you were happy with this or not, as the result of a number of factors including a poor score in an intelligence test [6].

So where does this leave us? We have a new technology in our grasp – thought communication. By nature, a new technology is not incremental, is not linearly related to what exists already. Predicting the nonlinearity that is the introduction of such a novel form of communication would appear to be the key. But is this possible? Can such a change be driven rather than merely observed? If so, who by?

REFERENCES

[1] Kennedy, P., Bakay, R., Moore, M., Adams, K., Goldwaith, J. (2000), ‘Direct control of a computer from the human central nervous system’, IEEE Transactions on Rehabilitation Engineering, Vol. 8, pp. 198-202.

[2] Warwick, K., Gasson, M., Hutt, B., Goodhew, I., Kyberd, P., Schulzrinne, H. and Wu, X., “Thought Communication and Control: A First Step using Radiotelegraphy”, IEE Proceedings on Communications, Vol.151, No. 3, pp. 185 -189, 2004.

[3] Field, K., “The history of Bell’s telephone”, London, 1878

[4] Mackay, J., “Sounds out of silence”, Mainstream, 1997

[5] Cerqui, D., “The future of humankind in the era of human and computer hybridization”, Ethics and Information Technology, No3, pp. 101-108.

[6] Warwick, K., “QI: the quest for intelligence”, Piatkus, 2001.

AUTHOR
Bern Martens

ABSTRACT

Introduction

At colleges and universities, computer ethics has established itself as an integral part of information technology programmes [1,2,3], at least in principle. However, little attention has been devoted to computer ethics at secondary school level and in teacher training.

In this paper, we argue that computer ethics should be incorporated in the secondary school curriculum. We distinguish three major reasons for doing so. First, awareness of the ethical en legal issues in information technology (IT) promotes a more considerate attitude towards (the use of) this technology in both expert and lay users. Secondly, insight into the ethical and social dimensions of information technology enhances a well-founded self-reliance in (future) citizens of our IT-based society. Thirdly, computer ethics offers opportunities to expose secondary school pupils to philosophy and ethics in an area which many of them perceive as highly personally relevant.

Throughout this contribution, we focus on courses which take information technology itself as a study subject. Other contexts also offer opportunities to address issues in computer ethics, but in this paper, we wish to concentrate on IT classes taught by IT teachers, and the specific chances and challenges in those settings.

Information technology as a subject in (Flemish) secondary schools

Flemish secondary education is divided in three grades of two years each: first grade from 12 to 14, second grade from 14 to 16 and third grade from 16 to 18 years of age. Currently, IT as a study subject mainly features in two different ways in this setting. First, some study programmes with a professional profile in second and (mainly) third grade specialise in IT, offering it at a volume of up to 10 hours of class a week. They aim at preparing pupils for the labour market as IT professionals, and/or serve as a preamble to college studies in IT.

Secondly, (nearly) all pupils get IT in second grade as a two-year course, one hour a week. This is meant as a general introduction to IT and its use. This course suffers from many problems. All too often pupils are merely expected to learn Word and Excel by imitating sequences of actions from the teacher or the book. In 2002, the situation deteriorated further because societal pressure led to the inclusion of the European Computer Driving Licence [4] objectives, effectively reducing it to a course in Office use. This, however, sparked a counter movement, partially inspired by Martens [5] , which proposed to gradually shift the focus of attention in secondary school IT courses, starting with IT use in first grade, and continuing with understanding IT in second grade, and learning to produce/maintain IT in third grade. In particular, the conceptual shift to understanding IT as one of the main goals in the second grade course implies (more) extensive consideration of computer ethics in that course.

Computer ethics in the secondary school IT curriculum

Understanding IT cannot be achieved by (only) using it. At the age of 14 to 16, pupils attain a level of maturity which allows addressing ethical and social issues relating to information technology. Therefore, computer ethics sessions and projects should be a substantial part of the second grade IT curriculum. Experiments by teacher training students over the last few years showed that many pupils are willing and indeed eager to discuss topics such as online pricavy, illegal copying, unethical web content, and even more “technical” ones such as open software, spyware and hacker ethics. Likewise, there were very positive reactions from (future) “IT specialists” in third grade, whenever students were invited to do sessions in that context. We have not systematically investigated the effects of such experiments, but pupils repeatedly contacted students upto weeks or months afterwards to comment on how stimulating they found the sessions, and/or ask for further information.

Educating the educators

If pupils react so enthousiastically, then why is there so little computer ethics in most IT courses in secondary school? One of the reasons is that the course outlines are overstuffed with “useful” subjects. Another important factor is the lack of competent teachers. It is crucial that IT teachers in their initial training get an extensive introduction to computer ethics, and those who move into the field “sideways” (without having had a formal training in IT and/or its teaching) should not only brush up on their “technical” knowlegde. Since 1999, the IT teacher training of the Katholieke Hogeschool Leuven features a seminar series on computer ethics for its last year students [6,7], which succesfully introduces them to the field and kindles considerable enthousiasm for incorporating computer ethics in their own classes in secondary school. Finally, in a long term project to support and improve computer ethics teaching practice in secondary education, teaching materials developed by the author and his students are made available on the web [7] for general use.

REFERENCES

1. http://www.acm.org/education/curricula.html

2. Terrell W. Bynum & Simon Rogerson (eds.), Computer Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, 2004.

3. Johnson, D.G., Computer Ethics (3rd ed.) , Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 2001.

4. http://www.ecdl.com

5. Martens, B., Informatica op school en in de lerarenopleiding, in Gombeir, D. e.a. (red.), ICT en onderwijsvernieuwing, Mechelen, Wolters-Plantyn, 2003 (in Dutch).

6. Martens, B., Het elfde gebod, Beschouwingen over informatie technologie, ethiek en samenleving, Acco, 2000 (in Dutch).

7. http://www.khleuven.be/publicaties/elfdegebod

AUTHOR
Toni Samek and Gustavo Navarro

ABSTRACT

This paper explores the application of communications technologies to the foundation, organization, preservation, access, and control of unfettered cultural records for all peoples, ethical and related issues, and implications for social change and the development of human rights.

The newly minted August 28, 2004 manifesto Declaration from Buenos Aires On Information, Documentation and Libraries recognizes that “information, knowledge, documentation, archives, and libraries are communal cultural goods and resources. They are based upon and promoted by democratic values, such as: freedom, equality, and social justice, as well as tolerance, respect, equity, solidarity, communities, society, and the dignity of individuals.” i Yet historically, it has been argued, marginalized populations, such as indigenous peoples, women, oral communities, and political radicals (i.e., the least socially and politically favored) have not been “represented” by the world’s cultural and civic identities. In this critical view, cultural workers, such as educators, publishers, librarians, archivists, and documentalists have both consciously and unconsciously participated in tasks and policy elaborations that have resulted in absences, omissions, and negations (e.g., misrepresentation of racialized and immigrant cultures).

These records are not (until very recently in some cases) well apparent in the cultural and literary canons, the subject headings of the Library of Congress, the Universal Decimal, or the Dewey Decimal Classification systems (which critical library and information workers worldwide acknowledge continue to discriminate by sex, race, ethnicity, ideology, economic status, social class, disabilities, migration, sexual orientation, religion, and language), the mostly middle-class library systems worldwide that organize their collections by these knowledge systems, the epistemological foundations of these knowledge systems, global information policies informed by the discourses of capital, community value/family-value based school curricula, propagandistic textbooks of political regimes, or the ashes of cultural destruction brought about by violence.

The authors explore the following theoretical questions:

• What are the implications (epistemological, institutional, societal, historical, political, economic, and legal) of the forgotten, buried, and contaminated memories of individuals, societies, and institutions? Of a flattened cultural record that reflects standardization, generalization, and homogenization?
• How can opportunities provided by communications technologies, interconnectivity, and the global digital network be applied to improve upon discriminatory knowledge practices (collection, organization, access, preservation, and control) to make them for everybody, not just for some? To what extent can improved practices redress the failed promotion of cultural distinctiveness, cultural literacy, and cultural democracy?
• Most importantly, how can people working in the information and communication technologies fields (and sharing the principal that knowledge and information access is free, open, and egalitarian for everybody) consciously improve knowledge practices to facilitate human rights conditions, such as: critical and free inquiry, freedom of expression, authentic opinion, free decision making, free dissent, the democratization of information and knowledge, and the prerequisite promotion of literacy (in all its forms)?
• Development of bias-free descriptors (both in terminology and in how topics are linked to each other) for indigenous and other marginalized populations. Example: American library activist Sanford Berman’si ground-breaking treatment of demographic differences in subject headings and classification in Hennepin County (Minnesota, U.S.A.) Library’s online catalogue.
• Direct collective scholarship based on the creation of free electronic databases, multimedia encyclopedias, and other resources to support critical, pluralistic, and egalitarian knowledge and inquiry – reflecting complex collaborative processes, in which social bonds, gratuitousness and self-organization are conditions. Example: RAEC electronic network, which: modifies the parameters of knowledge production, builds (through wiki) a new content carrying system through collective contributions in CLACSO’s (Latin American Council of Social Sciences) network, and eliminates the role of the traditional author.
• Note: Outside the software’s domain, open source projects remain relatively marginal and novel. Thus comes the question of how projects like RAEC and Wikipedia (an international project managed by volunteers, with the scope of creating a free and gratuitous encyclopedia) will be maintained in the future. To what extent will the generosity that is inherent in the domain of these networks at present become wealth in the future?
• Development and sustaining of virtual libraries/archives/depositories as open places/public spaces that support public sphere and a holistic human legacy. Example: CLACSO’s full text digital library, which keeps the pattern of the traditional author, but modifies the process of disseminating ideas and knowledge, and holds pluralism and critical inquiry as conditions.
• Development and sustaining of virtual communities that support social change. For instance, the coalition and action of information ethics and global information justice groups worldwide via cyber-activism and other new forms of social movement that strive to accommodate social transformations and aim to harness knowledge to compel action rather than inaction. Example: First Social Forum on Information, Documentation and Libraries: alternative action programs from Latin America for the information society, which in August 2004 broke with traditional closed circuit library and information rhetoric by directing a bold new manifesto to the broad information constituency.

he authors combine their subject backgrounds in information studies, social sciences, ethics, and communications technologies, their varied academic and applied work, their north (Canada) and south (Argentina) experiences, and their mutual interest in intercultural information ethics and global information justice to tackle issues of co-opted and censored memory, as well as the extraction of voice and agency from the knowledge society. Toni Samek draws on her university research, teaching, and service in the areas of intellectual freedom and censorship, critical librarianship, information ethics, and education for global citizenship and human rights. Gustavo Navarro draws on his NGO work for the Latin American Council of Social Sciences (under the UNESCO umbrella), where he coordinates the innovation of knowledge works (such as Raecpedia) that contribute to the rethinking of social problems from critical and pluralist perspectives in the context of global interconnectivity (e.g. governance, urban life, sustainable development, women and gender, the struggle against discrimination, indigenous populations, and multicultural and multi-ethnic issues).

The significance of this work is to:

• Explore ethical understanding in the context of a knowledge society.
• Help understand historical inequities in the development of cultural and civic identities.
• Help understand citizenship and agency in the context of global interconnectivity.

AUTHOR
Mathias Klang

ABSTRACT

Arising from the success of the Free Software/Open Source movements and reacting against developments in intellectual property the Creative Commons (www.creativecommons.org) was formed to provide the means for establishing a digital creative commons. Its purpose was to create a useable web application that would enable creators of copyrightable material to dedicate these to the public domain or to release them under certain conditions. The Creative Commons licenses are not designed for software, even though they take their original inspiration from Free Software Licenses, but are intended to be used for diverse intellectual products such as: websites, scholarship, music, film, photography, literature, courseware, etc. The goal of the Creative Commons is to make more material accessible online and to make all material cheaper and easier to use.

We have at best a vague understanding of the term commons. When applied to the mainstream western understanding of property the term is associated with wasteful and damaging behaviour (cf Hardin 1968). Most of our distrust of the concept of commons stems from our understanding that property. To us property is most efficiently used if it is maintained as a private property, as opposed to property which is either owned collectively or claimed by no-one. There is, however, a growing acceptance of alternative views on property which do not condemn the commons (cf Shiva 2002).

Property today implies exclusive privilege of the thing in question. Despite the difficulties in attributing property rights to intangible objects the legal institutes of copyright and patents have been created to create exclusive property-like relationships and grant property rights on certain symbols and images. A main characteristic of the core European legal systems is the predominance of private ownership. In fact the Western legal systems regard individual ownership as the norm, derogations from which must be explained. The western view of property has led to an increase in the privatisation of commodities which traditionally were held to be a commons.

One of the frequently cited criticisms of the commons is the “tragedy” of the commons (Hardin, 1968). The main disappearance of the European commons occurred during the 17th century with the enclosure movements. These movements were legitimised by philosophers such as Locke (1998), whose view that idle nature was wasteful and the adding of labour to land was enough to create property. Property occurred since “?every man has a Property in his own Person. This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour of his Body, and the Work of his Hands, we may say, are properly his.”

With this the stage was set for the commodisation of nature. Nature was seen as a neutral element and the mixing of this neutral element with property, naturally became the property of the owner of the labour. “Whatsoever then he removes out of the State of Nature hath provided, and left it in, he has mixed his Labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property.” Locke has since then been used to legitimise the creation of new property rights in tangibles and intangibles.

The loss of the commons is today seen as a positive step. The commons as Hardin (1968) pictures them are a pasture, free for all to use, where cattle graze freely. Under economic theory the individual cattle owners will all strive to maximise their own stock and this will lead to the destruction of the pasture due to overuse. Hardin sees the open-access system as a place without rules (legal or social) were all actors strive to maximise their own economic wealth. However, for Hardin’s tragedy to occur several erroneous assumptions about the commons must be made (Shiva, 2002). Hardin assumes that all human interaction is based upon competition and not cooperation, that property held in commons is unregulated, that communities dependent upon the commons do not have social regulations and that group ownership is per definition an inferior solution. Hardin views the creation of private property as the most efficient way to avoid the tragedy, considering all the environmental disasters we have experienced only those who are particularly blind can still cling to this view.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss the purpose and need for institutions such as the Creative Commons and attempt to ascertain its international impact. To be able to do so, this paper begins by studying the concepts, roles and interaction of private property, the public domain and the commons. Discussing how and why the critique of the commons, as applied to digital products, is flawed. The paper then discusses the role of the commons in the creation and spread of intellectual property online.