Lauren Alfero – BTMM 4446 – 4/25/10
READING SUMMARY: The ethics of telepresence
Barfield, W., Lauria, R., Mann, S., & Kerr, I. (2005). Special section: Legal, ethical, and policy issues associated with virtual environments and computer mediated reality - Guest editors' introduction. Presence-Teleoperators and Virtual Environments, 14(6), III-V.
The reading by Barfield et al. is an introduction to a special issue of the journal Presence that talks about the beginning ideas and questions surrounding virtual technology, environments, and mediated reality and whether or not it is ethical to create laws within those technologies. As mediated technology becomes an ever increasing part of our daily lives it was only time until people started questioning ethics and policies concerning virtual environments. With the distinction between human and machine becoming blurred with artificial hearts, kidneys, limbs, and even microchips implanted in a human nervous system and on the other hand people living within virtual worlds like Second Life, ethics is becoming a hot topic within the presence and political fields.
This article details many interesting questions facing virtual and mediated environments. The most basic question is whether or not it is ethical to even consider creating laws and policies for virtual and mediated environments. This starts a snowball effect of questions concerning all aspects of law making and policy. Should a person be allowed to own virtual space? Should a person wearing computer-mediated vision systems have the same legal protection as persons with visual disability? With avatars on movies screens and in virtual worlds becoming an increasing fad should they have legal rights? The article questions whether avatars mostly dependent on humans should be held accountable for errors or be liable for breaking laws. How would you even punish them?
The article also brings up several of examples very possible in today’s society. One includes questioning if an avatar made in the likeness of a celebrity should be allowed without the celebrity’s consent. Could the creator of the avatar be held accountable in a court room? A second very interesting and real life example of virtual and mediated reality versus our current laws was the case Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition. In this recent U.S. Supreme Court case it was determined that a “sexually explicit computer-generated image of a child” (p. iv) not based on an actual child was not to be considered as child pornography. This case led a myriad of questions seeing the truly unethical nature of child pornography in our society.
The article leaves quite a few important questions and responsibilities for those who create these technologies. The authors believe that these groups of people have a say in this debate. “One of the central reasons for this special edition is to inspire the designers, programmers, and evaluators of virtual worlds, not only to contribute to the law and policy dialogue, but also to play a prominent role in the discussions of what basic freedoms people in virtual and computer mediated environments should and should not have” (p. iv).