Smart PWNs: 

An Ethical Analysis of Smart

Phone Technology

Colin O'Hanlon
Josh Schwartz
Norman Littlejohn
 Impact and Control of
Smart Phone Technology
• Definition and concern
• How technology has impacted this issue
• Professional arguments and related laws
o ACM code and privacy laws
• Interested and affected parties
• Risks and benefits of smart phones
• Ethical scenario and solutions
Definition and Concerns

•  The drastic and rapid rise in the popularity as well as the

technological complexity of smart phones has created many
changes in how information is collected as well as who has
access to it. 

• Data mining potential

• GPS location features
• Sensitive data exposure
o credit pay passes, boarding info
• Video on photo capabilities
o concerns with instant shared over networks
Impact of Technology

• Mobile phones have provided the functionality of a full size

computer in a pocket size
• This brings ethical issues regarding privacy of individuals to
a new medium
• Dependence on Smart Phones for email, web, and social
networking
• Applications that make our lives easier
• These same applications sometimes threaten our privacy
Address of Legal and Professional Code

 
• ACM Code
o Section 1.7 Respect Privacy of Others
o Section 2.5 Give Comprehensive and thorough
evaluations of computer systems and their implications

• Legal Issues
o  Generally laws are not violated because individuals are
being recorded with "no reasonable expectation of
privacy"
Parties with Stake in Mobile Technology
• Providers
o Carriers (ATT, Verizon, etc)
o Hardware Manufacturers (HTC, Apple, Motorola, etc)
o Operating System Developers (Google, Apple, Microsoft)
o Application Developers

• Consumers
o End Users
o Business Owners

• Governments
o RIM vs India -
wanted power to monitor encrypted email
Positive and Negative Rights

YouTube’s privacy policy:

 
• Grants users the Positive Right of being able to petition a
video if they feel it violates their right to privacy
 
• However YouTube,  also retains a Negative Right of not
taking any action if they feel it does not.

• YouTube makes the final determination.

Risks and Benefits of Smart Phones

• RISKS
o Geotracking- Your phone logs where you have been...
o Hacking Tools - Run exploits against a WLAN from phone
o SpyWare - SpyWare isn't just for Windows

• BENEFITS 
o  Having a single device that does everything and makes
your life easier
Ethical Scenario
•      Casey Heynes is an Australian grade school
student who retaliated against a bully during an
altercation. The incident was recorded via smart
phone, uploaded to the internet ,and the video
of his self defense went viral. The video  has
had significant impacts on the personal lives of
both boys involved. 

•     Whose ethical responsibility is it to control

how mobile technology is used to quickly
distribute self-produced materials? Especially
focusing on content that is prone to go viral and
could cause potential harm and backlash. Is it
the Individuals themselves? Video hosting
sites? Service providers? 

• http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xhlepn_casey
-heynes-vs-bully_fun
Solution Model 1: Poster Responsbility
• Poster is responsible for what they contribute via mobile
devices

• Consider before posting:

o consent of parties involved
o age of parties, minors
o nature of content
o legality of actions recorded
o possibility to go viral

• *Recording an incident can have positive uses such as

logging criminal evidence, but should'nt be put online
Solution Model 2: Host Liability

It is the responsibility of the host to monitor content.

    -Expend more resources to implement identity concealing 
        technologies such as:
            -Voice masking
            -Face / body blurring

    -Critical information about the original poster and origin of

content should be a requirement

Kinect Example: http://www.g4tv.com/videos/49814/adult-
star-kirsten-price-tests-kinects-nude-filter/

Voice Masking: http://www.screamingbee.com/

    
Solution Model 3: Personal Responsibility

• You are responsible for controlling content about you

• Impossible for content provider to regulate everything
• Too difficult to track the source once a video has spread
• Can't rely on other people to make good decisions
• Only option is to prevent videos to be taken of you
o Must be:
 Paranoid
 Quick to respond
 Ready to sue
• Some might argue this is how it already works because no
one cares about what they post.
Selected Solution
• Solution 1
o Generally is our current system
o Other options generally unfeasible:
 volume of material unmanageable for hosts
 technology incompetent people are vulnerable
 searches for self can be difficult without proper meta
tagging (Ex:"Guy gets owned" vs "John Smith of 123
Street, Indiana, PA 15701 get owned")
o  This model of use is a social issue
 problems are result of people so a cultural change
about posting will be required for a better
implementation