IS1103FC© National University of Singapore

WEBEX MEETING

OL

IS1103FC© National University of Singapore 2

THANKS FOR COMING. !

WE WILL BEGIN OUR CLASS AT 10:10AM.

!

DOWNLOAD THIS HANDOUT AT http://www.comp.nus.edu.sg/~anand/webex.pdf

IS1103FC© National University of Singapore 3

TODAY’S CLASS

Terms of Service problems

Practical ethical issues

IS1103FC© National University of Singapore 4

TERMS OF SERVICE (TOS) AGREEMENTSPurpose:

Rules and expectations to use a service Protection, disclaimer for the provider

!

Terms:

Click-wrap agreementsBrowser-wrap agreements

Contains:

DefinitionsUser rights & responsibilitiesLiability limitationsChanges to terms

!

IS1103FC© National University of Singapore 5

[1] Facebook: I want my friends back

In October 2012, a blog called "Dangerous Minds" drew widespread attention to a change in Facebook's algorithms regarding "pages" (i.e. accounts for businesses or organizations). Its publisher Richard Metzger, and other commentators, claimed that "the volume was getting turned down" on their Facebook messages. Metzger wrote that Facebook showed his posts only to "a fraction of [the] total 'fans' who would previously had seen them." Around the same time, Facebook introduced a "promoted posts" option: users would be able to pay a fee in order to make sure that all of their pages' fans would see a particular post.

A number of commentators argued that the change in algorithm was designed to push publishers into paying to promote posts. Metzger wrote that he could appreciate that Facebook was "providing a value—a great one, unprecedented, really—by connecting such a vast number of human beings in an electronic global village" but added that he couldn't pay the prices they were now charging "for the exact same product that [he] was getting for free" only a few months earlier. He vowed to find another way to publicize his blog. His promoted post, "Facebook: I want my friends back," (http://dangerousminds.net/comments/facebook_i_want_my_friends_back ) got 162,000 "likes" and prompted 886 comments.

IS1103FC© National University of Singapore 6

[2] Twitter: I want my handle back

In May 2013, Leonard Barshack sued Twitter (http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/whose-sunvalley-is-it-12860/). According to his complaint, from April 2008 through October 2012 Barshack had used the Twitter "handle" (or user name) @SunValley. In October 2012, Twitter reassigned that handle to the Sun Valley corporation, which had reported Barshack to Twitter for engaging in a “non-parody impersonation" of the corporation.

Twitter's TOS, to which Barshack had agreed when he opened his Twitter account, prohibited such “non-parody impersonation." However, Barshack claimed that he had never impersonated the corporation (and thus never violated Twitter's rules). He also claimed that over more than 4 years of tweets he had developed a personal brand and gathered followers as @SunValley, and that Twitter's transfer of that user name would cause the Barshacks "irreparable harm.”

Twitter's current TOS read, in part, "the form and nature of the Services that Twitter provides may change from time to time without prior notice to you. In addition, Twitter may stop (permanently or temporarily) providing the Services (or any features within the Services) to you or to users generally and may not be able to provide you with prior notice. We also retain the right to create limits on use and storage at our sole discretion at any time without prior notice to you." By using Twitter, you agree to those terms.

IS1103FC© National University of Singapore 7

[3] Instagram: I want the rights to my photos back

In December 2012, Instagram users were startled when the company announced a change to its TOS. Many of them feared that the changes would give Instagram the right to license their photos to advertisers or others, without giving the photographers any compensation. After an immediate backlash, during which some photographers closed their Instagram accounts, the company reverted to its prior TOS.

In response to the proliferation of TOS like the ones discussed above, in May 2013 three scholars published an article calling for a "people's Terms of Service." (http://www.thenation.com/article/174441/fighting-facebook-campaign-peoples-terms-service). Ari Melber, Woodrow Hatzog, and Evan Selinger argued that the rights of social media users "are established through non-negotiable, one-sided and deliberately opaque 'terms of service' contracts. These documents...are drafted by corporations, for corporations. There are few protections for the users-the lifeblood powering social media." The writers called on social media users to collectively renegotiate such contracts, by coming up with a model contract that "could be pressed on existing Internet companies, and also provide a model for new companies that want to compete for users who demand respect for their freedom, choice and privacy."

IS1103FC© National University of Singapore 8

QUESTIONS

(A) Do consumers have a duty to read TOS statements before they click the "Agree" buttons that enable them to start using the services? Is it ethical to hold consumers responsible for the agreements that they signed?

!

(B) Are TOS agreements (like those in the three stories) unethical in their treatment of consumers who use those companies' services? Why, or why not? Does the answer change in cases where the user is a corporation, not an individual?

IS1103FC© National University of Singapore 9

You work for a well-known systems integrator (SI) in Singapore, with regional offices in China, India, Vietnam,

Australia and Malaysia. You have recently been promoted to become a project manager, and have been posted to one

of the regional offices. Your first project is to work with the team in the country to negotiate and secure a substantial

multi-million dollar contract for a project in the country.

You pitch the project proposal to your potential client, a senior IT executive of a company in that country. After your

presentation, the client takes you and your team out for an exquisite dinner, followed by a visit to a karaoke lounge.

While your team is singing, the client tells you that your proposal has several merits over the competition. But your bid

for the project will have no chance, unless you are willing to hire a “consultant” - the client’s niece who has just

graduated from the local university - who will play an involved role in your team. As a “finder’s fee” for the consultant,

the client will need to be paid 1% of the project’s value.

Your staff tell you that this is a common arrangement and practice in the country, and if you don’t accept it, you will

lose the contract. You realize that you have room in your budget for the amount, and you recognize it as a bribe.

Should you agree to the arrangement or refuse it?