ravikant

Ouida: It’s a great idea that the city wants to be able to keep up with the technological age and allow for its citizens to be able to have access to the municipal and school network. But there are still some dilemmas in this case. Since there are way more citizens than there are computers available is this still fair? The city would need to purchase way more than 10 extra computers to be able to accommodate even half of the population. Another issue would be the disadvantage to those that are not computer savvy. Apps would need to be made very user friendly and maybe even very detailed instructions on how to access. More of the older generations still prefer to do business in person so they may argue the fact that computers are not as personal. Some things cannot always be handled online and need the human touch. Also, computers get viruses and crash a lot so there’s the potential that information will be deleted or lost.

This process would save time and money being that it would cut down on paper and printing costs. I would urge the members to vote yes if the city is in grievance to purchase more computers for a wider range of access.

Shanks, T. (n.d.) The Case of the Cyber City Network (n.d.). Retrieved November 15, 2013 from

http://www.scu.edu/ethics/dialogue/candc/cases/cybercity.html

Andrew: This week’s discussion deals with the ethics of a new program call the cyber city network which would allow residents to access services from their computers. Residents would be able to do everything from downloading their children’s homework to apply for a building permit or communicate with teachers. About a third of this community’s residents own computers and would have the ability to log onto these features from home. The city plans to add additional computers at schools, senior centers, and libraries for those with no internet access at home, but what are the ethical implications of this decision?

Upon first review this situation makes me think of the common good approach to ethics. Would this system do the most good for people while doing the least harm? I think it depends on how the system is implemented. If this system is simply an augmentation to the current services offered and not a replacement, then I don’t see this as causing any harm. Residents who don’t have access to the internet would be able to access this information through their previous channels while those will access would simply have an extra avenue to use.

Mike Markkula and Vint Cerf, two influential figures in the technology realm, argue that internet access itself is not a right, but a privilege. They would argue that if this service is posted on the internet then it is a privilege for people to use it (Raicu, 2013).