Cyberethics+in+the+Googling+Age

Cyberethics in the Googling Age. By: Whittier, David, Journal of Education, 00220574, 2006, Vol. 187, Issue 2

Introduction Nestled in a tight, concrete and asphalt corner of Washington and State streets in downtown Boston is a comparatively tiny, old building. It has the appearance of an old-fashioned music box compared to the modern glass and steel skyscrapers that loom over it. Now called Massachusetts' "Old State House," it was originally constructed in 1713 to serve as the seat of British colonial government. It was not long, however, before Massachusetts' colonists commandeered it to serve their own interests. Even before the Revolutionary War, it was the meeting place of the Massachusetts Assembly, known as "the most radical of all the colonial legislatures." In that role, it provided the center stage for revolutionary fervor at the time of James Otis' 1761 speech against the British government's "Writs of Assistance" about which John Adams would later write, "It was then and there that the child independence was born." In 1766, the assembly took another step toward democracy by installing a gallery at the old state house permitting "citizens, for the first time in the English-speaking world, to hear their elected officials debate the popular issues of the day" (The Bostonian Society, 2005). Ten years later, it was the site of the first public reading of the Declaration of Independence (Bahne, 2005). After the Revolutionary War, it was "repurposed" to serve as the Massachusetts State House from 1776 until 1798. When the government inaugurated the current state house on Beacon Street in 1798, the structure became the "Old State House." At the old state house, Massachusetts' revolutionary leaders fanned the sparks of American democracy into open rebellion. Rippling out from that place, waves of democratic fire ignited a war between common citizens and a ruling monarchy, and set American democracy in motion. Today the Old State House is a silent witness to a contemporary struggle between government and the citizens, although this time the lines are not so clearly drawn. The struggle is to control yet benefit from the use of the Internet in schools. This essay considers various ethical issues that emerge in this struggle. Some are traditional issues such as honesty and respect for others that take new forms in Cyberspace. Others, such as those related to privacy, identity, and hate speech, offer new and sometimes conflicting variations, new twists on old ethical themes that need reworking and clarification. The relevance of these issues to Internet use in schools is of primary consideration here but also examined, where appropriate, are larger social forces that have direct and indirect impact on schools. The democratic monument of the Old State House is less than 100 yards from the central administration building of the Boston Public Schools at 26 Court Street where today another, quieter, but nonetheless important struggle goes on. Like the Revolutionary War, this is a struggle where the forces of free expression and access are colliding with the forces urging government control. Unlike the Revolutionary War, however, there is very little risk of shedding much real blood because this struggle is in Cyberspace and the battleground virtual. Unlike the Revolutionary War, in this struggle most responsible citizens likely would side with the forces of government control as they seek to check the materialistic, indulgent, and prurient inclinations of youngsters in the schools and try to keep students focused on learning. There are, however, trade-offs in this struggle and the locus of the conflict is judging what will be given and what will be taken away in the use of the Internet in public schools. Inside 26 Court Street, a small staff manage the school system's Internet access through a software program that allows them to control and track the Internet use of all 70,000 people and 12,000 computers spread throughout the city's schools. One day during the spring of 2006, the software reported that there were over 85,000 "hits" or clicks on Web pages related to shopping, making it that day's most popular category of Internet activity. eBay and Yahoo led the way, with "craigslist," another localized, democratic shopping site, not far behind. Craigslists might be termed "democratic" because all citizens with access to the necessary computing resources can freely "post" their wares and search for whatever want: there are no qualifying conditions. This points to the democratizing and empowering aspects of the Internet, but the inappropriateness of shopping during precious school time highlights the competing interests that promote regulation of these democratized resources. On another day that spring, a Friday, entertainment sites led the way, as presumably, people were searching for their weekend activities. Fashionable music sites were also popular, and these sites, so vigorously off-task for learning most curriculum objectives, highlight an essential feature of the management software: its ability to block access to any selected Web site, thus protecting school children from inappropriate information. The management software could block access to Web sites known to be pornographic or where the word "pornography" appeared as an identifier, as well as numerous other categories of inappropriate content. Nevertheless, the attraction of non-educational resources meant that the Internet management staff still needed to be vigilantly engaged in blocking access to inappropriate sites that were new or newly identified and therefore not caught in an existing filter. Inappropriate sites needed blocking because not only were they not educational, but because they consumed large portions of available Internet bandwidth, slowing access to educationally legitimate Web sites. The Web as source of both rich educational resources and vast non-educational resources provides a kind of playing field for a cat and mouse interchange that often occurred as school staff tried to make sure that only those resources supporting the dedicated purpose of schooling were actually accessible in school. Given the constant change in Web sites, this presented a new occupation for twenty-first century school staff. In the spring of 2006, deciding what to do, if anything, about blocking access to shopping sites was a source of deliberation to the staff and administration. The great amount of time and energy apparently put into shopping had the staff concerned and wondering if the schools should consider putting a time limit on shopping or block more shopping sites. This is an example of a myriad of greater and lesser judgments those responsible for controlling the Internet in schools need to make. The management software allowed very fine-grained control over what anyone could access on the Internet and for how long. Staff could determine what sites were accessible to which particular computer and even by each particular user. If a user did have access, staff could even control for how long it would be accessible. In fact, the management software collected and recorded every click of every user, suggesting a perspective not unlike the phrase from the Sting (1983) song "every breath you take … I'll be watching you" except in this case, it was "every click you make, I'll be watching you." The software could also prepare detailed reports on what sites users were visiting on the Web, what they were looking at, or trying to look at if it was blocked, and for how long. In fact, at one point the second most visited category of clicks was for sites that were blocked. These features gave the staff a much needed, powerful instrument for controlling and policing Web use in the schools. A long list of Web sites were already blocked and more were added in seconds as either the Internet management staff became aware of Web sites judged "inappropriate," or teachers or administrators called or wrote emails requesting that a given site be blocked. Of course, staff set the management software to block searches by certain words known to be on the dark side of "educational" interests, although if a filter screened out a useful site, teachers and staff could request that a particular site be unblocked. The silent, watchful, yet passive nature of the blocking system made me wonder if by making the system more visible students might have their consciences activated by the sense that people in authority would be watching them. This might motivate them to act in accordance with intrinsic ethical values that may come from family or other outside-of-school sources. Of course, it might inspire others to seek more clever ways of avoiding the controls but in the end, a warning that the schools are watching should serve as a helpful reminder of the need to behave, at least to those with some disposition to listen. Web management software, then, becomes a controlling force in the schools administration's effort to prevent inappropriate use of the Web. It is the "top-down" control in governing the use of the Internet through regulating, policing, catching, and providing the evidence necessary to punish computer users who violate the policies in schools. "Acceptable Use Policy" or AUP documents typically specify appropriate use of the Internet in schools. An AUP describes appropriate use of the Internet in an institution or organization with a particular purpose such as a school, business, or government agency, and users often must agree to observe these conditions to use the Internet at the location, usually by signing a copy of the policy. Children need to have their responsible adult sign as well but school personnel responsible for AUPs report that many children and their parents or guardians do not read or understand what these policies mean. The management software is an instrument school administrators use in trying to check the sometimes raucous energy of the school populace who seek access to subjects, sounds, and images not in the official curriculum. Because school students and staff must usually sign an AUP that says they will not use a school's Web resources for non-educational purposes before they can access the Web, the AUP is an area that presents common ethical transgressions. The top-down forces work to ensure that what is accessible on the Internet in a school is "appropriate." They are the passive, regulating, inhibiting forces sitting on top of the use of the Internet in schools. The bottom-up force is the outpouring of Internet users' needs for information. It is the democratic roil of the restless masses. One can get a sense of the scope of this outpouring of energy through comScore, an Internet marketing research firm, who reported that Americans "conducted 6.6 billion searches on the Internet in the month of April 2006" (comScore, 2006). That is a lot of searching. If Web management software is a top-down force that prevents users from accessing inappropriate material on the Web, the self-controlling ethics of the users is a bottom-up force that prevents them from even trying. Ethics, or, in the context of their application on the Internet, "cyberethics," are the ethical practices of Internet users. Cyberethics are self-regulation of the massive outpouring of energy that Internet users generate. They are the "brakes" of respect and responsibility on the "accelerator" of curious minds wanting to find, see, hear, and know. In schools, encouraging ethical behavior in Cyberspace involves training students and teachers in what ethical behavior is on the Internet and then allowing, encouraging, guiding, and requiring that they practice those ethical behaviors in the hope and aim that they become routine, so they become habits. Cyberethics are the migration of ethical practices to the Internet and Cyberspace. These are essential for the retention of massive and growing reservoir of educational resources on the Internet for without them, responsible people will not tolerate or will further limit the use of the Internet in schools. Cyberethics are necessary for all people but especially important for those young people who will find careers working in Cyberspace, who will become computing professionals. In the worlds of computing occupations, there is a great need for virtuous programmers and other computing professionals who can lead the way in creating the next generation of software and digital collaboration. As Moor (2000) put it, "we need computing professionals and others with as much Aristotelian practical wisdom as possible" (p. 40). Practical wisdom, as part of good judgment on what is fair and good, is very much part of ethical behavior, and the time to develop these as cyberethics is when first exposing children to the Internet as a source for learning. Perhaps as time goes on and ethical practices become more common in Internet use, the need for a separate term will dissolve, but for now, as ethical practices on the Internet are being defined and taught, the term cyberethics addresses the urgent need to improve these practices in the relatively unfamiliar environment of Cyberspace. [|Ethics and Character Education] The study of ethics in the public schools has been, in recent times, a dicey proposition. Before World War II, ethical teaching was common, coming from the Bible, Judeo-Christian traditions, and the Protestant work ethic, to name a few of the primary sources. However, the post-WWII generation, the baby boomers, challenged much of what many saw as the "indoctrination" of ethical teaching in schools. As a product of this Zeitgeist, my own oversimplified version of these historical developments begins with President Eisenhower's 1961 voluntary warning of the dangers represented by what he termed "the military-industrial complex": code format="ct" In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted — only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together ([]).

code By placing Eisenhower's warning in a trajectory that includes the Civil Rights' movement, the Women's movement, the ethical corruption of President Nixon culminating in Watergate, and the debacle of the Vietnam war, one gets a sense of the forces that generated fear and rebellion against a predominate value system turning our country into a dangerous war machine. These are some of the forces that fueled a clash of values in the 1960s and 70s and led to the development of a "counter culture," a movement that revolted against what it saw as a repressive, racist, intolerant, authoritarian, and self-serving value system. These movements bled into education, creating resistance to ethical "indoctrination" in schools and fueling a more open environment where students were encouraged to find their own values, and respect everyone else's while doing so. To many educators at the time, these views were captured by a movement toward a more "open education." The ideas of "open education" supported learner "discovery" and secular "values clarification" and departed from the religious base of ethical education in schools that had flourished in the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth centuries. Religiously rooted values education had flourished despite the emphasis on the separation of church and state embedded in the U.S. Constitution. However, much of the open education movement gradually fell into disrepute in the 1980s and 1990s in part because of the difficulties of managing an open learning environment and the difficult, time-consuming, and labor-intensive processes it required. Other forces such as corporate greed and excess, emphasis on celebrities over ethical leadership, and increasing crime and unethical behavior on the Internet contributed to a revival of character education in the late 1990s. In their 1999 book Building Character in Schools: Practical Ways to Bring Moral Instruction to Life, Ryan and Bohlin do some heavy lifting in introducing the history of character education in American schools. They describe Greek and Roman "cardinal virtues" and refer to them as the character traits around which a life "hinges." The cardinal virtues they cite are a short list of key variables that determine character. Practical wisdom, justice and fairness, self-mastery, and courage are the cornerstones of this concept and compose Heraclites' ancient idea that "character is destiny." They also begin to describe the goals of character education. As an exemplar of practical wisdom, Ryan and Bohlin re-introduce Aristotle's lasting contribution of the golden mean, the optimal balance in human affairs between excess and deficit. They cite the benefits of "choosing well" and associate the qualities of good character with living "a good life." Teaching and encouraging the cardinal virtues and the golden mean form a large part of the agenda of character education, but not its entirety. Ryan and Bohlin go on to describe a constellation of virtuous character traits exhibited in one who "loves the good, knows the good, and does the good." Some of the prominent ones are diligence, gratitude, caring, integrity, consideration, civility, courtesy, citizenship, commitment, hard work, perseverance, patience, kindness, doing one's best, and caring (Ryan and Bohlin, 1999). The degree to which one has these traits forms their character, the sum of their "intellectual and moral habits" (Ryan and Bohlin, p. 9). The long list of virtuous traits flesh out the dimensions of the virtuous person but in setting out such a vast landscape creates considerable potential for failure amongst ordinary people. We are to some degree, as Tennyson wrote, "a savage race, that hoard, and sleep, and feed, and know not me" (Tennyson, 1842/1992). Relevant here are the traits of our "savage race" manifested in Cyberspace today as sexual predators, thieves, and pretenders remind us of how much work there is to do in achieving "civilization." Ryan and Bohlin reintroduce the cardinal virtues and lay out a landscape of other traits associated with "the good." They also describe many effective programs in schools around the United States that pursue the goal of developing good character in students in association with learning in the disciplines. However, theirs is not the only approach to character education. One of the influential programs in character education is "Character Counts." It focuses on six key character traits: code format="ct" Trustworthiness Be honest • Don't deceive, cheat or steal • Be reliable — do what you say you'll do • Have the courage to do the right thing • Build a good reputation • Be loyal-stand by your family, friends and country Respect Treat others with respect; follow the Golden Rule • Be tolerant of differences • Use good manners, not bad language • Be considerate of the feelings of others • Don't threaten, hit or hurt anyone • Deal peacefully with anger, insults and disagreements Responsibility Do what you are supposed to do • Persevere: keep on trying! • Always do your best • Use self-control • Be self-disciplined • Think before you act — consider the consequences • Be accountable for your choices Fairness Play by the rules • Take turns and share • Be open-minded; listen to others • Don't take advantage of others • Don't blame others carelessly Caring Be kind • Be compassionate and show you care • Express gratitude • Forgive others • Help people in need Citizenship Do your share to make your school and community better • Cooperate • Get involved in community affairs • Stay informed; vote • Be a good neighbor • Obey laws and rules • Respect authority • Protect the environment ([]).

code Why are there only six? As stated on their Web site, the six "pillars" of character "serve the need for a brief, yet comprehensive minimum that can be taught to all." There is wide consensus on this point: Some 40 states and hundreds of municipalities, school districts and business groups have joined political leaders (including the President and both houses of Congress) to endorse "CHARACTER COUNTS! and the Six Pillars" ([] April 19, 2006). While Ryan and Bohlin's cardinal virtues and Character Counts' six pillars provide easy labels for those seeking virtue, some criticize the sloganeering approach to character education for its lack of contextualization. As Ryan and Bohlin put it, "virtues need explanation, not just banners of words that are undefined." Educational practitioners know that young people need more than words or labels to learn the inner meanings of these concepts. They need examples, illustrations, activities, and meaningful engagement with these virtues to make them their own. However, ethical principles in the abstract terrain of Cyberspace often are not anchored to familiar behaviors in the physical world. In Cyberspace, the cardinal virtues and the six pillars of character can take on a hollow form, a shallow façade, where ethical actions lack a deeper resonance with common experience. What, then, is to prevent these virtues from being empty slogans? To make meaningful connections to practicing ethical behavior, people have to understand what justice, courage, responsibility, and other ethical behaviors mean in their environment. We cannot pass off character education with a wave of the hand and an exhortation to "just say no," especially in an abstract environment like Cyberspace. It needs involvement and a concerted effort to make clear what may be, on the surface at least, invisible and intangible. To contextualize character education, we must first be clear about what it is. As Ryan and Bohlin put it, "character education … seeks to cultivate wisdom — the practical intelligence and moral insight we need to make good choices and lead our lives well" (Ryan and Bohlin, 1999, p. 95). However, how do we transfer and apply what we know about wisdom to the abstract world of Cyberspace? One way is to bring the guiding hand of teachers to the task of learning ethical behavior in Cyberspace. D. Bruce Lockerbie of Paideia, Inc. captures the order of this task in saying that "it's not information, data, or facts alone I seek to convey; it's wisdom in dealing with these facts and wisdom in applying these facts to my dealings with nature and human nature. I'm not as interested in dispensing knowledge on how to make a living as I am in helping young people learn how to make a life" (p. 95, as cited in Ryan and Bohlin, 1999). Lockerbie conveys that teaching is a moral act. Although typically assigned a curriculum from their local community, their state, and the federal government, teachers make judgments everyday about the respect they have for their students and their colleagues. They make judgments about their expectations of their students and, among other values, the respect they should show for their classmates, their teachers, and themselves. Teachers also make judgments about what constitutes ethical use of the Internet. In communicating the need to be honest, diligent, persevering, and to pursue the array of positive traits defining good character, teaching by definition becomes a moral act. Of course, teachers must know and teach the content of their subjects, but the manner in which they are taught, and the human ethos they create about the manner in which knowledge is pursued, and to what end, suggest the moral dimensions of teaching. This line of thought leads to the conclusion that like it or not, practice it or not, effective or not, teaching is a moral act. If teaching is a moral act, requiring judgment of the good, then using technology in teaching is also a moral act, requiring judgment as to when and how and why it can assist and improve achieving learning objectives. Each teacher should be able to articulate a sound answer to the question: How does teaching as a moral act relate to the use of technology in general and Cyberspace in particular? Technology, once imagined, designed, engineered, and produced, is an instrument of human realization. However, to use technology prudently and productively requires judgment. Uncritical access to or acceptance of technology in schools can turn teachers into technophiles, or those who, as Neil Postman saw them, "gaze on technology as a lover does on his beloved, seeing it as without blemish and entertaining no apprehension for the future" (Postman, 1992, p. 5). Uncritical acceptance of technology in schools can lead to making the use of technology seem more important than achieving specified learning objectives. This can create a condition, as Pascal observed, where "our technology brings us the omnipresent present. It dulls our sense of history, and if we are not careful it can destroy it" (Boorstin, 1974). The "omnipresent present" then, seems often to be the underlying agenda of cable and broadcast television technology, for example, and the way in which relentless presentness undermines historical understanding was a concern for both Postman and Pascal. They both determined, however, that there is an antidote to the antihistorical nature of technology and that it begins by being aware of and understanding it, claiming, "It is only by knowing our condition that we can transcend it." Transcending our present condition through knowledge of the past and preparation for the future are common goals of education. If technology, and in this case, the use of Cyberspace, can bring learners to the tunnel vision of the "omnipresent present" then measuring its use becomes one of the moral responsibilities of the teacher. In our technology immersed world, and especially the im'd, ipoded, and Internet bathed world of young people today, measuring and evaluating the usefulness of technology to identified goals may become a key to survival. As Betty Friedan observed "It is precisely this unique human capacity to transcend the present, to live one's life by purposes stretching into the future — to live not at the mercy of the world, but as a builder and designer of that world — that is the distinction between human and animal behavior, or between the human being and the machine" (Baase, 2003, p. 29). The teacher and the student's ability to use the vast resources of Cyberspace for the purposes of learning and becoming the ethical person, the responsible citizen, suggest the moral dimension of using technology. My own path to realizing that technology is, as Goodman said, "a branch of moral philosophy not of science" came through studying the history of educational technology. One of my responsibilities as a professor of educational technology is to learn and teach the conditions under which technology effectively supports and improves teaching and learning. The history of and research on the effective use of technology in education suggest strongly that it is effective when carefully integrated into a process of learning where purpose, content accuracy, developmental appropriateness, and guidance are set out and maintained by the teacher. History teaches us that technology-based resources as the primary source of teaching, especially produced by non-teachers, are seldom effective in helping youngsters to learn (Saettler, 1990; Cuban, 1986 and 2001). Teachers learn that teaching and learning are largely processes of human interactions that transform information into knowledge and ultimately, if cultivated, into understanding. Understanding is the handmaiden of wisdom and wisdom is comprehensive, including knowledge of the complexity of interrelated parts. While the parts of any subject are individually knowable, for example one can and study biology, chemistry, and physics separately, wisdom comes from understanding how they interact to form a holistic, dynamic, interrelated universe. That wisdom is holistic is useful in understanding the complexities in how to wisely use technology in support of human processes and goals. This further describes the moral dimension of choosing to use technology. Another important concept crucial to understanding that using technology is a moral decision is that the application of systematic thought is as much technology as a material product. Even though most people speak routinely of various objects such as cars, computers, and cell phones as technology, we need also to understand how systems of practical knowledge are technology. For example, we could say that a test is a technology for ascertaining what students have learned, that the division of labor is a technology for increasing efficiency in manufacturing or delivering products, or that a constitution is a technology for implementing a system of government. These examples illustrate the idea that in addition to referring to objects or devices, the word technology can refer to the application of, or direction of, human effort. While systematic thought as design and organization of human activities and objects are both considered technology, the application, whether product or systematized practical knowledge, is always, at some point, a human choice, a judgment. Whether one makes the decision to use technology thoughtfully, mindful of its effect and outcomes in human affairs, or thoughtlessly by use of it as a neutral "product" without regard to its direct or indirect consequences, represent two ends of a judgment continuum. Although using technology is not always a simple binary choice of using or not using it, it often is and that decision, mindful or not, has consequences. This understanding raises the obligation to teach both teachers and students about exercising good judgment when using technology. Thinking of technology as a branch of moral philosophy supports the argument that teachers, students, and other educators must make judgments on where, when, and why to integrate Internet resources into human learning processes. It is, for example, ineffective and irresponsible to simply turn youngsters loose on the Internet, to find whatever they will find, and most teachers and parents live in fear of such a prospect. Like all technology-based resources, carefully integrating the use of the Internet into learning activities and processes that closely serve curriculum objectives and allow for interaction and assessment provide the highest probability for it to effectively support learning. In educational technology, the moral dimensions of technology use become apparent because the application of technology to education as a product alone without adequate integration into human learning processes has a very high degree of failure in supporting and improving teaching and learning (Saettler, 1990; Cuban, 1986 and 2001). Historical analysis of effective use of technology in education suggests technology is productive when it activates human processes, so that it engages the learner with the information embedded in the technology resource rather than simply requiring that they simply consume it. This trade-off is evident in the comparison of a typical consumer television program that commands the viewer not to change the channel and to sit impassively through a good story well told. Of course, we all love stories but education, actual learning and assimilation, require a higher degree of interaction than absorbing a good story. Education requires the kind of interaction from a video program that instead of ending with all loose ends neatly tied, presents fragments of information that command the learner to evaluate the information, to weigh its value and correspondence with other data, and to decide what now needs to be done. Ending the use of video in schools with the question "what do we do now?" is consistent with historical analysis showing that technologies work in classrooms when they offer the educator resources and opportunities that "furnish problems, motives, and interests that necessitate recourse to books [resources] for their solution, satisfaction, and pursuit" (Dewey, 1900/1990, p. 112). While a classroom simulation cannot replace direct experience, it does offer the capability of creating a kind of educational encounter that may be similar to Dewey's aspiration. If artfully constructed, a situation could be provided that could, "make the child feel the need of resort to and command of the traditional social tools — furnish him with motives and make his recourse to them intelligent, an addition to his powers, instead of a servile dependency" (Dewey, 1900/1990, p. 113). Another major way in which technology is useful in learning is in the sense of cognitive tools or "mindtools" (Jonassen, 1995). Cognitive tools stands for those tools or instruments that learners use in constructing what they know. Learners can achieve knowledge by collecting data with probes, by displaying it in graphics or spreadsheets, by presenting it in PowerPoint or on Web pages or by other technology-facilitated analysis and display features. In any case, technology is useful when teachers and students exercise judgment in its use. In this sense, the power of technology comes from empowering the learner, not from the product (although the empowered learner who almost always wants a more powerful product with which to pursue their aims qualifies this condition). Nevertheless, the product that supports the process can empower the teacher, stimulate and empower the learner and hence, move forward the process of transforming information into knowledge, knowledge into understanding, and understanding into wisdom. This logic describes the use of technology as an integral part of moral judgment, as an instrument of teaching as a moral act. The coin of judgment has two sides, just as not to decide to do something is deciding to preserve the status quo, and inaction defines action. Thoughtlessly using technology without regard to design, expertise, or consequences is not non-judgment. It is a judgment to let others decide if you will use technology. Neil Postman has argued that once you decide to use technology "it plays out its hand; it does what it is designed to do. Our task is to understand what that design is — that is to say, when we admit a new technology to the culture, we must do so with our eyes wide open" (Postman, 1992, p. 7). When people decide to use technology without thinking, they are allowing the technology to "play out its hand." As the Internet becomes more pervasive, as it and other technologies accelerate globalization, as the human population expands and further effects the climate and all of nature on our pale, blue planet, citizens must be educated in the moral dimension of admitting technology. They must learn to discern what is useful, productive, and responsible to the survival of not only the human species, but of the natural world. Deciding how and when to use technology in informed and wise ways describe the moral dimensions of the technologically aware and moral citizen. If teaching is a moral act, and if the decision to use technology, and for what purpose, is also a moral act, then the use of technology must be embraced as part of the ethical curriculum, as something worth knowing and worth thinking about, and as an integral part of the process of education. Only then can technology be something that supports achieving the educational objectives of the cultivated person, the knowledgeable citizen, and the skillful employee. The key is to recognize technology as an instrument of morality, not merely as an ethically neutral product or a device. It is to realize that the decisions about technology profoundly affect the quality of human existence, the quality of life, and the quality of learning. In the twenty-first century, computing is the technology of language, an elaboration of print and speech that affords an integrated, multimedia communication of text, speech, visuals, sound, and video. Using this technology prudently requires moral and ethical decision-making, and learning to do this becomes an important educational objective for schools. How then, does this relate to character education and the use of the Internet in schools? We must teach children to take control of technology and of their own behavior in Cyberspace, lest it control them, but how can we do this, given the temptations of the Internet? Because it takes action, or intentional non-action to behave ethically in Cyberspace, we can say that courage is the virtue with which to begin investigating this relationship. [|COURAGE] Courage means having the courage to act upon virtue. People, even children, need to summon the courage to act when they take seriously the maxim "non satis scire" — to know is not enough. On the Internet, this may refer to our own self-discipline in not copying a file or picture or refusing to download without paying for a song when it is copyrighted and available in the marketplace. In fact, the courage to apply to oneself ethics in Cyberspace may be more important than policing others for where else can the ethical test of "what would you do if no one would ever know?" be more prevalent? However, even though "to know is not enough" appears at first glance to be a call to action, courage can extend beyond action. For example, in his inaugural address as the fifth president of Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts, Hexter pointed out that the beginning of wisdom is to know, or at least have some idea of, what you do not know. "Certainty," he claimed, "is so often the source of tyranny and it takes courage to admit that one may be wrong, or that others may have good ideas that can contribute to better knowledge." In this sense, doubt takes courage but, as Hexter warned, we do not want doubt "that is debilitating, but one that keeps us appropriately modest in every position we hold" (Hexter, 2005). A course or a project in ethics would never be enough as one must learn and practice the ethical behavior until it becomes a habit, the normal thing to do. While policing student's use of the Internet is no doubt essential, it is only half the job. We must provide students opportunities to develop and practice their own virtuous habits in Cyberspace. As Moor observed, "Virtue is a matter of doing, not merely a matter of knowing" (Moor, 2000, p. 40) Encouraging the development of desirable character traits among school children seems, at least in an ideal world, a no-brainer. Why would we not want character education? Likely the answer is that among most educators, there is no reason not to want character education. There is, however, intense competition for time and for the hearts and minds of learners. The standardized curriculum in the traditional disciplines, and the tests necessary to measure students' knowledge of that curriculum, occupy much of the time and energy of everyone in schools. Yet, our rush to teach reading, math, and science, and to test what students know of these, typically leaves little time or energy for something like teaching cyberethics. In the amalgam of connected 21st century "global villages," regardless of how you answer the question: "what is the aim of education?" we have to ask: is teaching cyberethics not worth it? And, if so, do we have the courage to do so? [|The Case for Cyberethics] In the twenty-first century, computing and the Internet have become ubiquitous, at least in the developed world. The Internet is everywhere, and, as Moor explained, "computing technology is not running away from us as much as moving in with us. Computer sprawl, like urban sprawl, moves inexorably on many fronts unsupervised" (Moor, 2000, p. 35). The problem with "unsupervised" technology is that as computing creeps into all aspects of life, the ethical implications are often unexamined. Just acquiring, installing, operating, and dealing with technology consumes so much time and energy that, often, little is left for examining its impact and its relationship to right and wrong. The demands of the marketplace are so great, so competitive, that as Moor says, "When a new computer technology is ready for market, nobody asks about its ethical implications. They may come later if at all." However, the time to acquire ethical practices and habits in computing comes early. Both Berkowitz (2000) and Yamano (2004) put it at ages 9-12, or roughly between grades 4 and 7 in schools. Certainly by age nine, most children in the developed world have had experience with computing both at home and increasingly in school, at the library, and with various games and toys. By age nine children are beginning to form habits of turning to computers and the Internet for information, to communicate with their friends, and to play. Habits are, of course, crucial to ethical behavior; as Moor reminds us, "Our character in turn arises out of our habits. One has character of courage, temperance, honesty, and so on because one has built these dispositions as habits over time. Early training is imperative for Aristotle. As he says, 'it makes no small difference, then, whether we form habits of one kind or another from our very youth, it makes a very great difference, or rather all the difference'" (Moor, 2000, p. 39). Yamano (2004) studied how prepared fourth and fifth grade teachers feel in teaching their students about cyberethics. She found that while most teachers, as adults, have a strong sense of personal ethics and are able to practice that in Cyberspace, they have a great deal of difficulty transferring that moral understanding into teaching cyberethics to their students. Yamano found that most teachers are working at learning to use computing and the Internet in support of achieving learning objectives. When it comes to cyberethics, with the exception of copyright and plagiarism, concepts that transfer more easily from the paper world to the digital world, they have had neither the time nor the training to extend their educational work with computing to ethical behavior. As Patty Yamano found in her research, "teachers tended toward a very general understanding of responsible use of technology and teaching students about responsible use in very general ways and were not comfortable teaching specific concepts about cyberethics … such as filtering and social implications" (p. 106). Just as significant, she found that even though a minority of teachers were teaching about cyberethics, those teachers were doing so in direct instruction rather than through activities and discussion, the kinds of interactive process so necessary in developing judgment. Nancy Willard (2002) reminds us of what is at stake in the case for cyberethics. She recounts the wisdom of the Confucian analects where, "the Master said, If the people be led by laws, and uniformity sought to be given them by punishments, they will try to avoid the punishment, but have no sense of shame … If they be led by virtue, and uniformity sought to be given them by the rules of propriety, they will have the sense of shame, and moreover will become good" (the Analects, n.d.). Of course, while the prospect or reality of shame can be a powerful motivator, the desire to do what is right out of respect for oneself and others is likely more powerful, at least in the long run. Respect for oneself and others is a virtuous goal of much parenting but its development through feeling and thinking about how unethical, malicious behaviors may be hurtful relates so much to virtues of respect and responsibility in schools that it is easy to see its importance both in and out of school. However, when developing these traits in Cyberspace, we must overcome the ways in which the virtual world is typically intangible, invisible, and easily delayed or ignored. In Cyberspace, the ways in which unethical behavior inflicts hurt or pain is typically abstract and removed from the hurt look of an embarrassed classmate suffering from a mean rumor overheard in the hallway. We must help young people in building the cognitive or thinking part of understanding that harmful acts in Cyberspace actually do hurt people. [|School-Oriented Cyberethics and Character Education] Patty Yamano has a formula for cyberethics and Patty, an elementary school teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District for 30 years, knows the value of an easy to remember formula. Her formula is not, however, a formula like those favored in math class that yield a correct calculation, or like a recipe where if you follow it precisely, the result is a consistent product. Patty's formula has to do with human concerns, with pesky values and ethics and morals on the Internet where the signs that trigger well-known moral responses are not always so easy to read. This is where Patty's formula is useful yet it is a formula about which many people appear to know very little and although some are running hard to improve the condition of their knowledge, we still have a long way to go. Her formula, and cyberethics in general, speaks to what we and our children are about as human beings and it is something about which, compared to the vast oceans of data we have on every kid's ability to supply answers on standardized tests, we appear to know very little. Patty's formula is concerned with ethical behavior on the Internet, or, more comprehensively, in Cyberspace. Moreover, it would seem to require very little imagination to think of the consequences of our teachers and our children understanding her formulation, well or poorly. When you think about it, needing a formula to remember what ethics are when computing is itself revealing. Cyberethics are just new enough and vague enough that many people still are not sure exactly what they are. Patty's formula, based on the work of ethicist Marvin Berkowitz (2000), could help and it goes like this: P3 H2 C. In this formula, P3 is not three of the same element but three different ethical concerns beginning with the letter P: privacy, personal identity, and plagiarism. H2 stands for two additional concerns: hacking and hate speech, and C stands for the one of the most ubiquitous concerns: copyright. In many ways, this formula captures an appropriately manageable set of cyberethics in schools and provides a toehold for knowing what to address (Yamano, 2004). Privacy, for example, is extremely limited in schools for, with all the inappropriate material on the Internet, and with all the concerns about youngsters being distracted by entertainment and appearances, not to mention overexposing themselves on the Internet, there is little if any Internet privacy in schools. Evidence of this limitation comes from the Massachusetts' department of education report citing that "The law requires schools to certify that they have an Internet safety policy and that they are using filtering to block visual images that are obscene, child pornographic, or harmful to minors. In 2005, more than 99 percent of schools had such filters" (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2006). The issue of privacy on the Internet in schools today is set in the turbulent context of a historic struggle to define the issue in society. This makes privacy of primary importance in considering Patty's formula. [|PRIVACY] Privacy in Cyberspace is one of the most complicated issues facing all of us today. When searching for "privacy on the internet" in June 2006, Google returned over two billion hits. A look at the Yahoo News page on online privacy returned five "news stories," six "feature articles," six "opinion and editorial" articles, six "related Web sites" and each category had links to more sites (Yahoo News, June 16, 2006). Much of the cause of this interest is the effort of multitudes to determine just what privacy is in Cyberspace. The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) describes three areas as constituting normal expectations of privacy: anonymity in public spaces, fairness and control of personal information, and reasonable expectations of confidentiality of personal records and communication (Berman and Mulligan, 1999). It is probably fair to say that average, naïve Internet users assume or had assumed a certain degree of these privacies on the Internet. However, the nature of digital Internet technology makes recording and monitoring of a user's information relatively easy. Thus, it is easy to violate average user's reasonable expectation of privacy on the Internet. Recording a user's "click stream" or "mouse droppings" is currently so easy and so unprotected by the law that the issue is not if a person's actions on the Internet are observed and recorded. They typically are. The issue is what is legal and ethical to record and what it is legal and ethical to do with that information once recorded. Privacy in electronic-based communication is still being settled as a legal issue, especially in light of the "war on terror" being waged by the G.W. Bush administration. In their efforts to fight terrorism and crime, the U.S. federal government is working hard to have access to all of the public's email and telephone conversations. Ho, Richman, and Lewis (2006) report that the federal government has asked for, and seeks to require, all Web Internet Service Providers (ISPs) such as Microsoft, Google, AOL, Comcast, and so on to collect and preserve all records of their customers' use of the Internet for up to two years. This, along with recent revelations that the National Security Administration (NSA) is collecting information on all telephone calls from the telephone companies suddenly makes nearly all electronic based communications subject to investigation by anyone who can get a subpoena. As threatening to reasonable expectations of privacy as government or other civil court access to private communication seems, it probably pales in comparison to the way commercial organizations collect and now correlate everything one does on the Internet. These companies use this information to develop a "profile" of every user in order to target advertising to each person's particular interests to increase the probability that the advertising will lead to sales. If you read about sports on the Internet, for example, and buy a pair of sneakers online, the next time you log into your favorite online sports news source, a national, sport's supply company ad pops into your field of dreams. The CDT describes online profiling as akin to walking into a mall "where every store, unbeknownst to you, placed a sign on your back. The signs tell every other store you visit exactly where you have been, what you looked at, and what you purchased. Something very close to this is possible on the Internet" (Berman and Mulligan, 1999, p. 4). Without legal protection, the Internet is already a place where anonymity is an illusion unless one takes specific steps to try to ensure it by purchasing software that hides the IP address and information of the user; for example, "Anonymizer" offers software that "protects your personal email address and your identity disposable, anonymous email addresses" ([]). As early as 2001, Schwartau observed that, "privacy is going away, bit by bit" (Schwartau, 2001). It did not take long, for in 2006, privacy is virtually nonexistent. Yet, evidence abounds that many people agree that privacy is a basic human right. Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948 states that "No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks" (United Nations, n.d.). The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (Findlaw, n.d.). Further, no discussion of privacy, no matter how limited, is complete without mention of Justice Louis D. Brandeis' view that privacy is "The right to be left alone" (Langheinrich, 2002; Brandeis and Warren, 1890). Despite privacy guides, guarantees, and precedents, it is, on the Internet at least, somewhat of an illusion. This essay began with a description of how schools are able to monitor "every click you make." When online at home or outside of school, people easily feel they are alone because they may be alone in their physical space. Online, however, monitoring and collection of data, although unnoticeable, is becoming a de facto standard and this is an issue or phenomenon about which young people, but especially teenagers, need to know. People have a right to know who is watching them and why, even if the watchers are their parents and protectors. The need for privacy is not the same as the need for security in online purchases. Encryption algorithms, for example, more or less guarantee the security of credit card numbers at least during transmission over the Internet, but privacy or being anonymous or unobserved on the Internet is another matter. While one can think when you go online that you are poking your head out unnoticed into Cyberspace like a prairie dog on the plains of the American West, Internet companies, the government, marketing organizations, thieves, and ordinary individuals with the right software can surreptitiously collect data on your every move on the Internet. While encryption of credit card and other personal information addresses security concerns in financial transactions, it may be best to assume there is otherwise no such thing as privacy in Cyberspace. It is just that the observers are usually invisible. This larger societal context makes the issue of privacy in schools appear small in comparison but nevertheless, schools must address what they do and what they communicate to their users about the limitations on privacy in using the Internet when logged into the schools' Internet service. Schools want to allow and support the use of the Internet in support of teaching and learning. The content of teaching and learning is public, and therefore, it is safe to assume that there is no privacy on the Internet in schools. However, that does not mean that a student or teacher could not have a private email account. It does mean that schools can monitor email accounts to ensure students and staff are using them in support of reasonable educational activities. Students also have a right to have their work and records kept private so only the owner, their parents, and appropriate teachers and educational staff have access and that no work would be made public without permission. Hence, despite the need of schools to limit and monitor students access to the Internet to ensure that the content is appropriate, students still have some need for privacy. One of the most important ethical issues related to privacy in using computer networks in schools is the privacy of passwords. It is unethical to steal or copy someone else's password and then use it to see their private information. Thus, schooling in the need to protect one's own and respect others' passwords is an issue in schools and with children who are of an age where sharing personal information with friends is often of paramount importance in building relationships. These competing forces make the situation ripe for abuse but also ripe for learning how violating the ethical necessity of protecting one's own and respecting others' passwords can cause harm to people. This situation is useful for demonstrating that ethical violations in Cyberspace have consequences, real consequences. To help children conceptualize what is appropriate for them to share online, Willard (2002) recommends using the "front page test." Would you want, she asks, the information you share to appear on the front page of your local newspaper or on your local TV news program? Children need help in developing the ability to think before they click. Willard also sounds the alarm on online profiling. Despite COPPA, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act ([]), which became effective on April 21, 2000 and which limits the information that a Web site or online service can collect on children under 13, companies have ways to tease information out of young and old alike. The purpose of Internet surveys, polls, registrations, and all manner of enticing rewards that pop up on the screen of Internet users is typically to collect information about users. It is important for students and teachers to understand that this information can be stored indefinitely in databases where it can be later accessed and potentially correlated with other sources of data about the user. It may be helpful for children, she suggests, to use the "check inside test" before providing any personal information online. In this test, the user should ask him or herself "do I want my information to be kept in a computer database" over which I will have no control "for years in the future?" (Willard, 2002, p. 28). This is a reflective, think before you click "gut check" discouraged by our relentlessly fast-paced society, but its value may be more evident in this context than some others in the real world. Although it is often hard for young people to imagine that their interests will change in years to come, the current lack of enforcement of existing legal protections of online information as well as the lack of it for children 13 and over, means that data is routinely collected for the determined investigator to harvest, no matter their motivations. The way in which commercial, political, even government organizations can harvest and use information stored in databases extends the notion of privacy in the Googling age. Notions of privacy can now extend to include the ideas that an Internet user should have the "freedom from being contacted without permission" and that it is unethical to "infringe on other's privacy — go where you're not supposed to go" (Yamano, 2006). In this context the need to educate both teachers and students about their presumed expectations of, and the contradictory reality of, privacy on the Internet is essential education for safety as well as for becoming informed citizens in the Googling age. The multiple dimensions of privacy demonstrate the complexity that while the reality of Internet use out-of-school may be undermining, even dismantling, traditional notions of privacy, at least online, students and teachers paradoxically need to strengthen their respect for privacy of passwords and personal accounts in school. This presents a complex intersection of forces that educators need to unravel in creating a healthy, coherent, learning environment. This task, difficult in itself, is made even more interesting by the fascinating interaction of yet another force. The Internet makes a new arena for one of the most important activities of childhood and adolescence: establishing and communicating personal identity. [|PERSONAL INFORMATION AND IDENTITY ONLINE] Identity and its construction, communication, theft, and manipulation are variables very much in play as the evolution of Internet use gained momentum in 2005/06. Evidence of the level of interest in the subject comes from a June 2006 Google search for "personal information and identity online" which yielded 170 million hits. Another search for "Internet Safety" yielded 311 million hits — there is a lot of information out there. Safekids.com, netsmartz.org, the FBI, cyberangels.org, i-safe.org, yahooligans, kidshealth.org, wiredsafety.org, kidsmart.org.UK, safeteens.com, and even Disney and the "surf swell island" gang, to name a few organizations with Web sites, will all be glad to help students learn to be safe on the Internet and shield them from identity theft and other identity-related problems. All provide guidelines for safe use of the Internet, although primarily in the out-of-school setting. However, maintaining a separation between school and outside of school is difficult given the porous nature of the Internet. Thus, schools must be concerned and involved as many aspects of personal identification migrate to being accessible on the Internet, even if their involvement may be reluctant given the complexity of identity issues on the Internet. The main safety issues for schools, said in many different ways, is that children should not reveal personal information on the Internet and it is unethical to steal anyone else's personal information. A main ethical issue in schools is to teach and enforce that it is unethical to use another person's personal information once obtained, even if accidentally. These seem simple enough, at least conceptually, but the problems and prospects for responsible use of online resources in identity activities is so bold, turbulent, and pervasive in society in general that schools' interests have to go beyond the rule not to share personal information, even if that is where they must start. Netsmartz.org describes the warning not to reveal personal information in their advice that children "Don't believe the type" Web site. It cautions: "If you're communicating online, avoid giving out your full name, your mailing address, your telephone number, the name of your school, or any other information that may help someone determine your actual identity. The same goes for your family and friends. Never reveal anything about other people that may possibly get them into trouble" ([]). This is the main preventative measure in avoiding thieves and predators on the Internet. Of course, thieves and predators are notoriously wily in teasing out information from the unsuspecting. Nevertheless, the Internet, that "place" where all manner of human motivations are currently being played out, has resources to help young people learn how to protect themselves. One such Internet Web site, "ID the Creep" ([]), sponsored by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Ad Council, provides a game for young teens, directed toward girls, that allows the user to practice ferreting out "creeps" on the Internet. Using the venues of email, chat, and IM, the site displays text messages that draw the compliant into meeting up with a creep. Playing the game did give me some experience in how messages innocuously ask for locations and meetings, although in a twist on the issue of protecting personal identity I had to adopt the identity of a teenage girl to do so. However, when I was not quickly able to detect the creeps, the game nature of the program quickly took over and I realized that nearly everyone in this venue appeared to be a creep. As blogger Charles Cox pointed out: code format="ct" I was getting frustrated losing, especially since e-mail subjects from supposed girlfriends saying "Can you pick me up after school?" were actually creeps (how am I supposed to know "Jenny" is a forty year-old divorced male stalker that still goes to junior high?), so I decided to do a little sex profiling. So I just labeled all the guys as "bad," and all the girls as "good" on the next go-round. You win! Wow! Awesome! But wait a minute. Is it that simple? So I took one step further. I labeled everybody as "bad." You win! Wow. That's an awesome message, guys and girls. Ban, block, kick, screen, delete, and ignore everyone you've ever met, and you're gonna be safe. In the game of life, kid, you're a winner (Cox, 2006).

code The experience of "ID the Creep" shows how complex it can be to communicate about the multifaceted issue of online identity and highlights the potential value of the informed, painstaking, empathetic guidance of a teacher to such a process. Of course, parents and guardians are and should be involved in this process, but this type of responsibility will not stop at school walls. Indeed schools need to and are partnering with parents and law enforcement agencies to raise everyone's awareness of the dangers and strategies in identifying people otherwise invisible online. Because the dangers are real, schools and teachers need support in addressing them, in helping to protect children as well as to educate them on the dangers, possibilities, and responsibilities associated with the new phenomena of "social networking" on the Web, and the dangers are real. Abuses resulting from adults seeking to prey on children and teenagers have been much in the news during 2005/06, as social networking Web sites such as MySpace.com, Facebook.com, Xanga, Friendster and 59 other sites as defined by the Wikipedia entry on "List of social networking Websites" have proliferated (Wikipedia (a), n.d.). The unverified numbers on the list total over 500 million users and the problems and promises of identity permeates these "spaces." The democratic nature of the Internet and the social networking purpose of these services make it easy for anyone to participate and then present any identity they wish, sometimes without regard to what they would do in person. This has led to abuses, some well publicized, the most flagrant of which were when young teens were assaulted after they agreed to meet in person someone they met online. The predator usually had a false identity online, typically masquerading as a teenager, and as such, persuaded the teenager to meet in person and when they met, sexually assaulted her. However, it is not uncommon for teenagers also to have a false identity online, often pretending to be older than they really are and their complicity in a dangerous dance further suggests the complexity of the issue of what is right and wrong in creating a personal identity online. In keeping with the natural force of responsible people wanting safe environments, these abuses have led to public outcries for more restrictions and in some cases, lawsuits. This has contributed to some sites such as MySpace.com adding restrictions to try to stratify age groups but this strategy still depends on users being honest about their age when they register for the site, something potential abusers or those experimenting with their identity are not likely to do.[[|1]] Thus, a dimension of the struggle for justice in the online democracy is under way between forces who want to use the Internet for identity expression, exploration, and networking, and abusers who then provoke public demands for more restrictions. Given the heady distractions of such social networking from the learning objectives of schools, it is not surprising that most schools block them completely, or at least block all but the most clever "hackers" who find ways around these filters, itself an unethical practice as they know these sites are forbidden. Nevertheless, social networking represents a significant part of the milieu in which school use of the Internet sits and especially in the Googling age, walls are transparent to online communication. While schools can try to partition the school environment from the turbulence of the online world, they can never do so completely and so the need to educate their charges is the other side of the coin from setting "walls" to protect them. Advice on how to protect kids is readily available on all the safety oriented Web sites. One example comes from Stephen Wallace, national chairman of SADD (Students Against Destructive Decisions) who culled advice from Wiredsafety.org and i-SAFE ([]) to help parents and teachers learn how best to protect children. For example, Wiredsafety.org offers these tips: i-SAFE America offers "The 4 Rs" of Internet safety advice for parents and children as they develop the ability to protect themselves. They advise that children should: i-SAFE also advises teens to take these precautions: i-Safe even offers a "Virtual Training Academy" at [] to help young people learn and practice these skills. While keeping personal information private and respecting other's need to do so are certainly important ethical situations for schools to manage with regard to the Internet, the issue of identity in Cyberspace has many tentacles that relate to what young people do online. "Identity theft" is one of these. Identity "theft" has become common in the twenty-first century with all types of organizations from the Veteran's Affairs to banks to local restaurants large and small reporting the theft of personal information from stolen computers, mainly unsecured laptops, online databases, and just by trash divers who take personal information from discarded mail and statements (Lee and Vogel, 2006). There is even a Web site for "Identity Theft News" ([]) that lists cases in all 50 states. However, the phrase itself is an inaccurate media creation as the Wikipedia entry on the subject explains that "the term 'identity theft' is inaccurate; it is merely a relatively new term for fraud where an individual is impersonated. Clearly, a person's identity is not something that can be stolen, and individuals subject to fraud do not cease being who they are" (Wikipedia (b), n.d.). People who assume false identities and identity fraud are no doubt serious issues that relate to ethical behavior online, and add to the need to educate teachers and students about these issues. However, these negative instances describe only a small part of the entire landscape of online identity issues, especially for the school-age population. The volcanic emergence of MySpace.com, FaceBook.com, and other social networking Web spaces that especially appeal to adolescents and young adults points to major considerations for anyone seeking to understand identity issues on the Web. The vast millions between the ages of 13 and 25 who have been the primary early inhabitants of these Web spaces, do so by creating online identities and then linking those identities to their friends and associates. Given the ease with which these participants can populate and then change the clues to their identities online with text, pictures, songs, videos, and all the multimedia resources available on the Web, these identities can appear to be a work perpetually under construction. At least two major forces unleashed in these environments set the context in which schools' use of the Internet exist. One is the issue of identity construction itself. As online ethnographer Sherry Turkle points out "By changing their picture, their 'away' message, their icon or list of favorite bands, kids can cycle through different personalities." Turkle also says, "Online life is like an identity workshop, and that's the job of adolescents — to experiment with identity" (Wallis, 2006). The other issue relevant to schools' interest in shaping tomorrow's citizens is understanding the Internet and the Web that facilitates and makes possible a vast new arena of identity exploration and construction and is having such an impact on civics and societies worldwide. What is it about the Internet that makes these new concerns and opportunities possible? [|THE ORGANIZATION OF THE INTERNETAND ITS PLANS FOR ITS INHABITANTS] Originally conceived by the U.S. Department of Defense as a communications medium that would withstand targeted destruction, the Internet is a decentralized and flexible means of distributing communications (Hafner and Lyon, 1996; Granic and Lamey, 2000). The very structure of the Internet lent itself to creation of the World Wide Web, a construction superimposed on the Internet that allowed for multimedia, video, audio, and other visuals in addition to text and the linking of Web sites. By creating a software protocol that took advantage of the decentralized nature of the Internet to create a multimedia instrument for users to create and share all manner of computer-based documents, the Web made the Internet useful and accessible to a vast and growing number of people (Berners-Lee, 1999). By devising a decentralized system that allowed users to share the computerized language of their thoughts, dreams, nightmares, and any other information, the pioneers and founders of the Internet and the Web created a system whereby users could organize and share whatever was on their minds. The price of admission was and is access to technology, not approval from some central authority such as a government, religion, publisher, school, or any other hierarchical social institution. The Internet is a system that has no central authority, and hence is resistant to targeting or control. It also means it can be a powerful democratizing force both for good and evil. What then are the characteristics of this system? Granic and Lamey suggest that the Internet is a "self-organizing" system. A self-organizing system "refers to the auto-organization or emergent order in complex, adaptive systems (e.g., Prigogine and Stengers, 1984). Self-organizing systems in nature are open systems far from equilibrium that maintain themselves through the constant importing and dissipating of energy. Adapting to this energy flowthrough, elements of a system become coordinated forming stable patterns" (Granic and Lamey, 2000, p. 96). The Internet then, is a vast network of computers linked together that is not dependent on any one of those computers. New ones come online and others are unplugged all the time. The decentralized nature of the Internet means that any communication designated to travel through any particular computer will, if blocked by its absence, simply seek another route — endlessly until arrival at its destination. Of course, enroute, all manner of snooping and copying can occur but that is the privacy issue. The point here is that "continuously changing technologies and day-to-day interactions among users keep it [the Internet] in constant flux. Part of what maintains this state of flux is the Net's open organization; to exist, it requires input, or energy, from the environment" (Granic and Lamey, 2000). Granic and Lamey go on to compare this system to a biological system, an environment or ecology in which "the constant input of information provides the conditions under which adaptive patterns develop and stabilize." This perspective makes many developments on the Internet predictable. Ethically, for example, it is adaptive for people to refine and elaborate restrictions and conventions on the social networking sites. The emergence of "netiquette," a description of proper behaviors for communication on the Internet, is also predictable. Although Virginia Shea has elaborated and codified netiquette, it has emerged from the shared experience of untold numbers of Internet users ([]). The emergence of netiquette and other Internet codes of ethics are predictable as users strive for civilized behavior and appear to be gradually colonizing the turbulent "space" of the Internet. As Granic and Lamey see it, "The code of ethics is enforced by members of the Internet community who may go to great lengths to shame a person who has clearly been inappropriately impolite or antisocial — there is almost instantaneous feedback from fellow users if rules are violated. Thus, netiquette and its enforcement strategies emerged and stabilized through similar day-to-day feedback cycles among constituents of the Net. Although self-organizing systems move towards coherence and stabilization, these systems also have the potential to exhibit abrupt changes due to non-linear relations among their many components" (Granic and Lamey, 2000, p. 99). The Internet both moves toward coherency and stabilization while allowing for disruptive forces, where some forces attract adherents and other forces are discouraged, marginalized, or punished depending on laws and the will of the populace. It represents a kind of ultimate democratization where the condition for voting is technology while the behaviors on which people vote and the judgments made are human. As an open-ended system dependent on its inhabitants to survive, the democratic structure of the Internet allows for the presentation of every kind of viewpoint. It also does this under conditions that allow for patient reflection and careful consideration of ideas communicated on the Internet. Just as the invention of printing was a giant step toward democratization of access to information, if not its publishing, the invention of the Internet appears to be another giant step in this direction where anyone with access can "publish" anything they want. While this allows for a cacophony of voices on the Internet it also allows for users to coalesce with their affiliates, forming "coalitions" and presenting a multiplicity of easily accessible perspectives on just about everything. As Granic and Lamey see it, "the Internet mutates daily, adapting to local conditions. Through constant adjustments to unique contextual constraints, a variety of spaces emerges, each with its own voices, content, rules of conduct and modes of discourse. Thus, any individual who participates on the Internet is constantly exposed to, or at least is aware of, this immense variety." This means that "conventional hierarchies are disrupted by a distributed, decentralized network in which power is spread among various people and groups and one voice does not dominate or preempt others. How might everyday participation in such a decentralized, heterarchical system impact on modes of thinking? Experiences like those described above may empower some people who have felt marginalized in modern society particularly individuals who have felt oppressed due to their ethnicity, gender or physical abilities, or simply lack a voice due to their age or social class" (Granic and Lamey, 2000, p. 101). This can either elevate to the "wisdom of crowds" (Surowiecki, 2005) or degenerate into mob rule (Lanier, 2006). The Internet provides for single voices just as much as it allows consensus. They are not exclusive and their credibility depends on their ability to attract or repel, which are, in turn, a function of the identity presented. At a recent conference on "Technology and Citizenship," two presentations on identity construction presented another perspective on the issue. Jennifer Stokes of the University of South Australia presented a paper on how marginalized identity seekers construct Web sites "to negotiate self-representation and construct a virtual identity within online communities, based on information exchange and common interest." Stokes describes a paradoxical perspective on online identity: "these individuals offer their community unprecedented access to the private sphere, essentially 'opening their diaries' to the World. As critical, informed consumers and producers of new media, these individuals effectively utilize their knowledge base, new media skills and language proficiency to create engaging representations of self." Stokes presents a complex picture of public spaces containing what most think of as private information, of small groups of people whose interests and tastes run counter to the mainstream finding a way to gain acceptance because the Internet allows them to experiment with "the issues of identity construction, digital forms, subjectivity and authenticity" (Stokes, 2006). The search for identity, and adherents, is now de rigueur on the Internet. Emily Arthur of the University of Victoria, British Columbia, in a paper titled "The Process and Politics of Bisexual Identity-Discussions in Online Diary Communities" points out that the Internet as presently configured vastly improves the search for identity and affiliation for the typically disenfranchised. Bisexuals, she observes, "Traditionally denied status as a legitimate sexual identity and lacking significant physical social space in which to connect … have migrated to the 'Net in order to not only create communities, but also to negotiate coherent bisexual identity narratives" (Arthur, 2006). These papers, while pointing to the paradox of traditional private communications such as diaries retaining their personal touch while simultaneously being public to those who would both affiliate and condemn, demonstrate the powerful forces of identity formation made real and virtual on the Internet. One final story of identity construction comes from a relatively early study by Sherry Turkle. One of her subjects, a lawyer, described her experience with "MUDs," or multiple user domains: "I'm not one thing, I'm many things. Each part gets to be more fully expressed in MUDs than in the real world. So even though I play more than one self on MUDs, I feel more like myself when I'm MUDding" (Turkle, 1995, p. 185). As Granic and Lamey observe, "The question of what is one's 'true self' may not be as meaningful or anxiety provoking as it might have been without these identity-cycling encounters." These stories gives new meaning to excerpts from poet Walt Whitman's poem "Song of Myself," which speaks to the multiplicity of identity. Whitman, who was one of America's more celebrated searchers, proclaimed his identity in writing: code format="ct" I CELEBRATE myself, and sing myself, And what I assume you shall assume, For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. Do I contradict myself? Very well then I contradict myself, (I am large, I contain multitudes) (Whitman, 1855).
 * Keep the computer in a family room, kitchen, or living room, not in your child's bedroom.
 * Watch your children when they are online and see where they go.
 * Make sure that your children feel comfortable coming to you with questions.
 * Keep kids out of chatrooms unless they are monitored.
 * Get to know their "online friends" just as you get to know all of their other friends.
 * Recognize techniques used by online predators to deceive, which is the purpose of "ID the creep" and other educational programs.
 * Refuse requests for personal information.
 * Respond assertively if you are ever in an uncomfortable position online. Exit the program, turn off the computer, tell a trusted friend, or call the police.
 * Report any suspicious or dangerous contact that makes you feel uncomfortable.
 * Protect your identifying information (name, sex, age, address, school, teams). It takes only a little information for a predator to identify you.
 * Create a username and online profile that is generic and anonymous.
 * Guard your pictures. You never know who may be looking at them.
 * Keep in mind that chatroom "friends" are not always whom they say they are (Wallace, 2006).

code Making sense of these powerful forces, Levy and Stone reported on the rise of user-generated Web sites such as MySpace and Facebook. They quote Tim O'Reilly, an early promoter of user-generated content on the Web and social computing, as saying, code format="ct" "The central idea is harnessing collective intelligence." This sounds lofty, but is actually happening all the time on the Web. Every time you type in a search query on Google, what's happening under the hood is the equivalent of a massive polling operation to see which other sites people on the Web have deemed most relevant to that term. Magically, it yields a result that no amount of hands-on filtering could have managed … That's why some people believe that an army of bloggers can provide an alternative to even the smartest journalists, and that if millions of eyes monitor encyclopedia entries that anyone can write and rewrite (namely, the Wikipedia), the result will take on Britannica. (Levy and Stone, 2006).

code Referring to Flikr.com, a nascent Web site for online photo management and sharing, Levy and Stone also quote Yahoo exec Bradley Horowitz. Horowitz observed that Flickr.com "With less than 10 people on the payroll, had millions of users generating content, millions of users organizing that content for them, tens of thousands of users distributing that across the Internet, and thousands of people not on the payroll actually building the thing. That's a neat trick." Levy and Stone go on to observe that Web resources such as "MySpace, Flickr and all the other newcomers aren't places to go, but things to do, ways to express yourself, means to connect with others and extend your own horizons. Cyberspace was somewhere else. The Web is where we live" (Levy and Stone, 2006). From an ethical and identity perspective, the concept of the Internet as a self-organizing system makes the emergence of netiquette, MySpace, Facebook, and similar resources predictable. How then are schools to cope with these powerful forces? Beyond the mandate not to give out personal information on the Internet and to respect the integrity of passwords and personal information, the vast opportunities for researching identity and multiple perspectives accessible on the Internet set a powerful agenda for what schools must reckon with in using and educating young Internet users in schools. Is it ethical to simply deny these forces, as if they do not exist during school when everyone knows that they do? However, if schools acknowledge the existence of opportunities for identity construction, manipulation, and social networking online, how can that align with their educational mission? These tough questions will likely not go away simply by blocking some popular URLs. While developing sensible policies relating to the use of the Internet by school-age children to express a truthful and trustworthy identity online, much of which is associated with being in school, may be an issue that will only be resolved in the years ahead, another ethical issue prevalent in Internet use in schools demands a more immediate response. This is the issue of plagiarism, and while it too has many tentacles to new forms, it is at least one with a much clearer lineage in schools. [|PLAGIARISM, COPYRIGHT, AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY] Plagiarism, or the use of another's words without attribution, has long been a concern for educators. Some people have always given in to temptation to take short cuts and use another's words when they did not want to take the time, or did not have the wherewithal, to express their own ideas. In this sense, plagiarism often looks more like the triumph of ambition over talent; people want the good grade and the recognition that comes with it but either do not have the talent or are not willing to make the effort to produce their own original work. However, the power of computing and the Internet have made both the problem, and its recognition, far more pervasive. Because of the unprecedented ease of copying digital versions of another's work made possible through computing and the Internet, the temptation of intentional plagiarism, and the probability of inadvertent plagiarism, have grown enormously. Copying not only words but also images, stories, video, and certainly music, the illegal copying of which is a common ethical violation of young people, is an everyday activity on the Internet. However, copying per se is not the problem. Much information on the Internet is free to copy. The problem of plagiarism is misrepresenting someone else's work as your own. This is not the same as copying such resources as a song, image, or document without paying for it when it is readily available for purchase in the marketplace. That is a copyright violation and it is theft. Plagiarism may seem less obvious than theft, but it does share many of the same characteristics. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary describes to "plagiarize" as meaning: ([]). Turnitin.com, an Internet-based service that detects plagiarism, uses the Merriam-Webster definition but goes beyond it to describe plagiarism as "an act of fraud" involving "both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward" ([]). In plagiarism, the ethical violations can multiply quickly. From the teachers' perspective, plagiarism, when recognized, is an easy judgment call. Most teachers are very comfortable understanding and enforcing rules against plagiarism in its digital form in part because it transfers readily from the paper to screen. Most teachers know it is wrong to falsely represent someone else's work as your own and as such, punishment for plagiarism is a simple matter, more of a calculation of the penalty than a judgment of its occurrence. However, just as it has with so many other issues, the Internet has extended the range of plagiarism making it simultaneously more complex and simpler. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the problem of plagiarism has become especially severe in higher education where relatively high-powered Internet access is common and where intellectual freedom and off-campus resources mean there are few filters in place like there are in pre-K-12 schools. In higher education, instead of filters that block access to selected sites on the Web, faculty turn to commercial services such as Turnitin.com. Turnitin.com works through "technology that checks papers against our in-house copies of both current and archived Internet content and our proprietary database of millions of previously submitted student papers." The results of submitting a student paper for review by Turnitin.com are credible because the service searches "billions of pages from both current and archived instances of the Internet, millions of student papers previously submitted to Turnitin, and commercial databases of journal articles and periodicals" ([]). This technology works so well that Turnitin.com can make the claim that its service can reduce plagiarism to nearly zero on college campuses. In this case, it may be fear of detection rather than ethical awareness that drives the initial movement away from plagiarism, but we can hope it will carry with it an ethical awakening that it is wrong to copy someone else's work and submit it as your own. While the fear of detection may deter some from plagiarism, it also has uncovered, if not created, dozens of forms of it, some more cleverly disguised than others. Turnitin cites an impressive list of the different types or forms of plagiarism. Plagiarism is differentiated into forms such as: "The Potluck Paper" where "the writer tries to disguise plagiarism by copying from several different sources, tweaking the sentences to make them fit together while retaining most of the original phrasing." Another, perhaps more surprising form is the "Self-Stealer," where "the writer 'borrows' generously from his or her previous work, violating policies concerning the expectation of originality adopted by most academic institutions." Yes, it is true that "by many academic standards, it is even possible to plagiarize from yourself, if you paraphrase or copy from work you published elsewhere without citation." One final example of the ways in which plagiarism has evolved is something Turnitin.com calls "the Labor of Laziness." This is where "the writer takes the time to paraphrase most of the paper from other sources and make it all fit together, instead of spending the same effort on original work." The labor of laziness especially seems like confusion on the part of the perpetrator who spends significant time knitting together others' work when a similar amount of time could very well have yielded something of their own. This is perhaps a case of a lack of confidence as much as laziness, misplaced priorities, or a lack of talent. When exposed to well-written and thoughtful analysis on the Internet, some students might feel that they cannot contribute anything as good as what they find in their research. However, they may not realize and/or their teachers may need to help them to realize that their own work has value because it is their own and not solely because it is as good as the analysis of a more experienced or even more intelligent author who can be located on the Internet (Turnitin.com, n.d.). Turnitin.com is a rich case study in the area of plagiarism because it not only has emerged as a service to detect plagiarism, but it also has evolved as a helpful resource in learning all the dimensions of what plagiarism and copyright mean. Turnitin offers advice and resources on "fair use," the legal precedent established by the U.S. Congress that allows certain types of use by educators, on copyright laws, and on the "public domain." The vastly expanded arena for detecting and preventing plagiarism has differentiated into somewhat of a conversation about good writing and hence, services such as Turinitin.com can also serve as a source for learning about writing. They also can be a service for those who wish to be responsible to use it on their own work in making sure they are free of inadvertent plagiarism. The vast resources on the Internet point to how it has made plagiarism a far more extensive discussion than the essential but limited description that it is using someone else's work as your own without citing it. Of course, plagiarism is not limited to students. The Wikipedia entry on the subject has a long list of authors, politicians, business executives, and even professors accused of plagiarism ([]). One of the more interesting developments in an era when the resources related to plagiarism created by the Internet are so much more robust than ever before is the sense in which the ethics of plagiarism have spread. This is especially impressive when it relates to other cultures where the practices of copyright protection and intellectual property have different standards and traditions than in Western schools and universities. In the West, this has led to the development of many more resources devoted to detecting plagiarism as well as developing good habits around citation of sources and proper sharing and checking of students' own work before they submit it. In the East, detection of plagiarism through the Internet appears to be sparking educational reform in China where a number of prominent cases of disciplinary action against professors who plagiarized have made headlines. However, a major break with tradition came when Shantou University fired "one of its professors, Hu Xingrong, in December after it was revealed that he had plagiarized the work of a doctoral student in media studies from Fudan University." Pocha reports on the nature of this shift by stating that "with the government pushing to improve standards at universities, top institutions such as Tsinghua and Peking University are implementing a series of new regulations designed to punish professors and students who infringe on intellectual property rights." One might expect that the Internet increases the incidence of illegal and unethical copying in China, but instead it appears to be increasing copyright observance. The China Economic Net news service reported "It is indeed a rare case in China for a university to sack its teacher for plagiarism, as previous practice shows that many of the plagiarist scholars still publish their papers and still work as professors, though their scandals have been disclosed." Greater awareness of the ethical violations of plagiarism and the detection technology on the Internet seems likely to have led the Chinese Ministry of Education to publish a "stipulation" citing "criteria of academic studies in the field of philosophy and social sciences in higher institutions." The China Economic Net reports that these criteria include "many specific rules on writing academic papers and books and on academic evaluation as well" (China Economic Net, 2004). What is extraordinary about these developments is that while the Internet has made copying others' work and plagiarism easier to perform, it also has made it easier to detect. Easier detection has contributed to spreading the ideas of proper citation, intellectual property, and copyright and good writing in general, which has in turn spread more ethical practices related to plagiarism. The Internet sprawls in every direction but in this case, it appears to adding net value to understanding and thwarting plagiarism. The appearance of services such as Turnitin.com and easy searching for key phrases on Google and other search services has generated a deterrent to plagiarism by students who know their papers can be easily checked electronically over the Web. Responsible authors who wish to check their own work for inadvertent plagiarism also have adopted it. These comprehensive developments make it richer and easier for a teacher who has the awareness and can take the time to address the issues to use it as an opportunity to discuss the ethics as well as use it to address the way in which academic honesty is an aspect of character education in schools. Turnitin.com claims that around 29 percent of papers in higher education have "significant plagiarism" and 1 percent are entirely copied or plagiarized. With nearly a third of all papers showing some degree of plagiarism, the problem is extensive. The scope of the problem on college campuses does make the point that education on issues related to plagiarism, copyright, intellectual property, and cheating needs to be addressed earlier. As mentioned previously, the ideal age to begin this training appears to be around ages 9-12 and by the time a student is in college, the effort is largely remedial, and potentially costly. Certainly, that early age is when children need to begin learning the practical ethics of attribution and extend to the Internet the prohibition against stealing they are likely to be learning at home. [|STEALING IN CYBERSPACE] When copying a file from the Internet, a youngster once said: "How can I be stealing it when it's still there after I copy it?" He was having trouble with the abstract nature of digital information, not to mention the concept of intellectual property. He did not know that people make a living selling their intellectual property and services on the Internet and that he was depriving such persons of the opportunity to earn money by simply copying their work. This is an example of how young people need to learn more about what is behind a seemingly anonymous digital resource. In Cyberspace, people can steal just as they can in the physical world. They can defraud unsuspecting people into giving them private information and then impersonate them and steal from their bank account or credit card. One can steal personal information from digital databases and use that information to buy things illegally. These are ethical and legal violations with tangible criminal consequences. Although plagiarism and copyright violations may be an easy call for the teacher who discovers it, the harm caused by ethical violations in Cyberspace is often invisible and anonymous. It is common for violators to think that stealing on the Internet only touches an unknown, faceless person or large, bureaucratic organization with a budget line for theft. For them, the "game" or "thrill" of "outsmarting" the faceless and nameless entities through clever use of computer technology justifies the action, and, as far as anyone can tell, no one is visibly or tangibly hurt. This is an example of what Nancy Willard calls a "no harm" rationalization for doing something they have some idea is wrong but that often, the harm it causes is invisible. This, along with "no consequences," it is a "new world" where old rules do not apply, and a handful of other rationalizations allow many to behave irresponsibly in Cyberspace (Willard, 2002, p. 11). Willard also has many good suggestions for working with students to help them overcome the invisibility of being on the Internet as well as the rationalizations students use to help them mollify their underdeveloped consciences. She also offers information and activities that can help students to realize the essential knowledge that ethical decisions are appropriate even if there is little chance of being caught. It helps to realize, as she puts it, that "what you do reflects on you" no matter who else knows, even though on the Internet you can never know who knows. When thinking about the value of comprehending that what you do reflects on you, imagine computers with rear-view mirrors on the side of the screen. These mirrors, however, allow users to look over and see themselves during the time they are staring into the tunnel vision of computing, rather than feeling like an anonymous traveler. A principal challenge in establishing cyberethics is the "invisibility factor" in being online. How can we make visible the connection between real world tangible ethics and virtual world invisible ethics? Nancy Willard points out that in the real world, you often tell if you have hurt or offended someone by the look on their face or their instant reaction. Real world interactions include feelings. In Cyberspace, however, people's visible reactions are typically absent and their reactions delayed — if they surface at all. Elinor Ochs, director of UCLA's Center on Everyday Lives of Families, has framed this discrepancy in saying that "thousands of years of human evolution created human physical communication — facial expressions, body language — that puts broadband to shame in its ability to convey meaning and create bonds. What happens as we replace side-by-side and eye-to-eye connections with quick, disembodied e-exchanges?" (Wallis, 2006, p. 52). Educators must help young people to behave more ethically in Cyberspace by cultivating their knowledge of the hurt that stealing and copyright violations cause and by improving or building student's abstract, intellectual understanding of the person or persons at the other end of an Internet connection or cell phone text message. An important antidote to the feeling of anonymity and invisibility on the Internet appears to be making known the consequences of ethical and legal violations, making faces and names, pain and punishment real. Discussing and making visible the pain of the victims and the punishment of the perpetrators may help young people to realize that ethical and legal violations in Cyberspace are real. This will help make more concrete to young people what is abstract, and often distant, about the ethical violations in Cyberspace. [|CHEATING IN THE COOCLINC WORLD] In the real world, cheating is a timeless ethical transgression. However, in the virtual world, cheating is complicated by the way in which computing and the Internet make finding the right information at the right time almost as useful as knowing it. For example, is there a good reason to memorize something when, for the vast majority of the time in the modern industrialized world in the Googling age, finding it is so easy? There is so much to know and there is so much available or becoming available on the Internet, that computing may be changing knowing into getting what you want when you need it. Ironically, just-in-time information in a culture of instant gratification could furnish resources to the challenges of synthesizing information rather than checking boxes on a test. In a time when finding information is so important, so useful, should we brand it cheating? To make sense of these options, children and adults need distinction, contextualization, and "real" examples to determine the right and wrong of cyberethics and the consequences of cheating. In an essay titled "In Defense of Cheating," Donald Norman, a guru of the user-centered design movement that has contributed to vastly improving the usability of computer-based resources, wrote: code format="ct" The sin of plagiarism is not that it involves copying — this should be rewarded — but that it doesn't give credit for the originator. Deceit is wrong: it should be avoided. The problem is that the current system of homework and examinations emphasize the individual activity, oftentimes in sterile, meaningless exercises, ones that are easy to grade. Grades are important in determining the future of each student, even though they measure only a fraction of a person's ability and potential, and quite often do a poor job even of the aspects they pretend to measure. It is no wonder that teachers teach to the exam, that students study for the exam, that true understanding and exploration of issues is discouraged if it will detract from time that could be spent studying for the exam. The grading system, moreover, is often on a curve, with a fixed percentage of students receiving each letter grade. This means it is a zero-sum game: a person can only get a higher grade if someone else receives a lower grade (Norman, 2004).
 * 1) to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
 * 2) to use (anothe's production) without crediting the source
 * 3) to commit literary theft
 * 4) to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
 * Boston Globe** reporter Jehangir Pocha, for example, reports that in mainland China plagiarism is a common practice not only among students but among professors as well. Pocha quotes "Peter Hereford, an American journalist who teaches journalism at Shantou University, in southern Guangdong Province" as saying that "Chinese students virtually learn to plagiarize from their first years in school," and that "later on, many students are encouraged to plagiarize by professors who want them to get the best possible test scores in this test-happy nation." Pocha also quotes "Jin Han Que, 19, a freshman engineering student at Tsinghua University," as saying that "plagiarism was common among students even though they knew it was wrong" (Pocha, 2006).

code In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, the pendulum of school assessment shifted dramatically toward frequent and large scale standardized testing, made easier by simple to score questions. However, Norman points out the measures of human potential that are lost in such a large investment in this type of accountability. Just as the power of computing and the Internet has made possible the implementation of large scale standardized tests, it can also be deployed to give weight fairly to individual variances. Just as governments have a right to some measure of accountability for the money spent on education, are they not ethically bound to encourage and value individual constructions of meaning and different ways of achieving legitimate curriculum objectives? Ethical use of the Internet is not only an issue of personal behavior, but also an issue for organizations large and small. The stakes are high. [|HATE SPEECH, CYBERBULLYINC, AND RUMOR SPREADING] Hate speech, rumor spreading, and bullying are major ethical concerns in Cyberspace. The pliable nature of the Web and the Internet make them ideal for easily creating Web sites and using other resources for communication such as blogs, email, chat, instant messaging (IM), discussion boards, and other Web sites that allow posting of messages. Of course, the content of those messages can be anything and so haters use these media to promote hate and recruit people into their groups. Mark Potok, editor of the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report, which monitors hate groups and extremist activities, illustrates the way in which the Internet facilitates hate speech (SPLC, n.d.). Potok pointed out that, "in the 1970s and 80s the average white supremacist was isolated, shaking his fist at the sky in his front room. The net changed that" (Ryan, 2004). French foreign affairs minister Michel Barnier described the nature of this facilitation in observing, "the Internet has had a seductive influence on networks of intolerance. It has placed at their disposal its formidable power of amplification, diffusion and connection" (Starr, n.d.). These quotations illustrate how the Internet has expanded the reach of hate speech and serves to introduce other problems that educators, legislators, and policy makers must confront. One possible reaction is to criminalize hate speech, but that is problematic in the United States where the history and current implementation of the First Amendment link free speech to successful democracy. Additionally, the attempts at legislating free speech ignore the very strength of free speech to contribute to democracy. As Sandy Starr has argued, to view the "power of amplification, diffusion, and connection as a momentous problem is to ignore its corollary — the fact that the Internet also enables the rest of us to communicate and collaborate, to more positive ends. The principle of free speech benefits us all, from the mainstream to the margins, and invites us to make the case for what we see as the truth. New technologies that make it easier to communicate benefit us all in the same way, and we should concentrate on exploiting them as a platform for our beliefs, rather than trying to withdraw them as a platform for other people's beliefs" (Starr, n.d.). The legislative struggles do not fully describe the problem in schools where in addition to protecting children from hate speech within the school, educators have the problem of responding appropriately to children who are developing into adolescents. Computer-based IM, chat, and email and cell phone text messaging facilitate the expression of all human traits including a dark side of adolescents who can and sometimes do spread rumors and use other mean speech to humiliate, embarrass, insult, control, mock, dare, or otherwise intimidate others. These technologies amplify a well-known and timeless concern, especially for middle school and high school ages of roughly 10 to 18. Under the heading of U.S. Civics Terms, HistoryCentral.com defines hate speech as "a type of speech which is used to deliberately offend an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group. Such speech generally seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them" (historycentral.com, n.d.). Wikipedia defines hate speech as "a controversial term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a group of people based on their race, gender, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. The term covers written as well as oral communication. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale ([]), which measures prejudice in a society" (Wikipedia (c), n.d.). While these definitions describe well-known concepts of hate speech, recent events and the role technologies play in them push the boundaries. The tragedy at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, suggests the need for an expanded definition of hate speech than those provided by HistoryCentral.com and Wikipedia. Columbine high school students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold planned and carried out an assault at the school on April 20, 1999 in which the teenagers-turned-gunmen murdered 12 students and one teacher and then took their own lives. Relevant here is the fact that Eric Harris had a Web site that pushes further the boundaries of hate speech. Harris hated slow walkers, people who don't look where they are going, "stupid people," line cutters, young people who smoke, dirty people, braggarts, and other everyday annoyances. Had teachers trained in cyberethics been looking at his Web site, they might well have been tipped off that Harris was in a dangerous volcano of frustration preparing for explosion ([] Harris' Web pages). This observation is of course 20/20 hindsight but it demonstrates the ways in which the Internet is a medium for communication that is especially open to hate speech. It also opens educators to a new frontier of responsibility. The sense of invisibility and anonymity, however transitory and ultimately false, that one can have on the Internet, and the relative ease of communicating through these new technologies, help people to pour out their hate without obvious feedback and without the fear of being confronted with its inappropriateness. Making hateful messages through technology removes the perpetrator from seeing the harm it causes, at least temporarily, and hence invites its expression. Thinking about this can make the dark ages, when social networking was basically face-to-face, appear not so dark after all. In looking at Eric Harris' Web site, one can wonder what might have happened if an educator had been aware of it and how he or she might have intervened. Harris directed so much of his hate toward his classmates, his social peer group, and the authorities in his life that when he acted upon his anger, he did so at the school. Professional educators linked with mental health professionals might have tried to find ways to defuse his explosiveness and channel his energy into more appropriate realms. Another school shooting occurred at Red Lake, Minnesota, in March of 2005. Fifteen-year-old Jeff Weise killed five classmates and then took his own life at the school. Weise, who had posted many messages of hate and frustration on the Web, confirms the concern of schools. Regardless of the value of hindsight, the fact that Harris, Klebold, and Weise carried out their massacres in schools makes the point that schools cannot ignore these things (see [] home page for a report on the Columbine High School shootings, and [] for an account of the incident at Red Lake). The signs these killers posted on the Internet reveal some of the thinking that led them to do what they did, and in both cases the teenagers committed suicide after shooting others. Nancy Willard alerts educators to their unavoidable investment in the Web-based activities of their students in pointing out that, "It should be assumed that emotionally distraught youth with Internet access will likely post online material that provides significant insight into their mental state" (Willard, 2005, p. 7). Educators concerned with the learning and the psychological development of their students need to be aware of these forces and need preparation to respond in ways that offer more potential for disarmament and counseling than laws and regulations, no matter how necessary they, too, might be. Columbine and Red Lake are extreme examples of hate speech linked to violence in schools. The threat of violence raises the level of concern and demands action to ascertain the likelihood of violence and the need to provide counseling or other social services to the perpetrator. However, responsible educators, while being vigilant in their awareness, must also measure their response. If a false alarm is raised, if an obvious overreaction occurs, students may well increase their mistrust of their teachers and be less inclined to report it if they know of some disastrous potential. Educators must be alert, must respond swiftly to perceived threats, yet must protect the trust and ethos of the school as a supportive learning environment. The Web is an appropriate metaphor here, for if an alarm sounds the support of the school staff, counselors, and mental health professionals, and if necessary, police must all work together to disarm it. While violence such as that which occurred at Columbine and Red Lake get the world's attention, there are many less extreme but still harmful examples of hateful and mean speech through technology that cause much damage and therefore need to addressed and included in cyberethics education. These range from simply saying unkind things about another person, to being mean, to just generally offensive speech. These are the domains of cyberbullying and rumor spreading. Cyberbullying means using the Internet and/or cell phone to send mean or cruel messages. The level of harm may be less physical than that of hate speech and gets fewer headlines, but the impact on a young person can be severe. Cyberbullying includes rumor spreading and has the goal of humiliation, intimidation, social or relational aggression such as intentional exclusion from social groups designed to hurt or ostracize another person, and many other forms of anti-social behavior. Nancy Willard provides a list of the most common forms: Cyberbullying can appear simple such as when kids email other kids calling someone "fat" or "a whale," or that so-and-so "kissed" so-and-so, but it can be serious. Many of the perpetrators of the heinous school violence were themselves bullied as young children. Cyberbullying has amplified the concern and likely increased the incidence of bullying because the instruments of Cyberspace: computers at home, laptops, cell phones and the like are ubiquitous. As Bill Belsey, president of bullying.org Canada has said about what he calls the "always on" generation, "home is no longer a refuge" from the reach of bullies (Belsey, 2005). If this is true, responsible adults must incorporate it into their governance of the electronic universe of their children, and their education of their young, to participate in that universe, no easy task to be sure. Cyberbullying may create a situation where parents are legally responsible for the action of their child in bullying or threatening another student. There are "parent liability laws" and evolving law suggests that, "parents can also be found negligent in failing to provide reasonable supervision of their child" (Willard, 2005, p. 8). Schools can also be liable for threats or bullying that occur through school networks or on school grounds. Although case law is immature in this area, schools need to be prepared, take reasonable precautions, and provide cyberethics education on the hurtfulness of cyberbullying. Educating youngsters that cyberbullying is wrong both in a human sense and in that it is forbidden by school policies are necessary preventative measures. Schools must have a section of their acceptable use policies (AUP) that describes the prohibition against the use of a school's Internet system or the use of a cell phone on school grounds in bullying and/or harassing other students. In addition to this provision in an AUP, Nancy Willard recommends the following: Providing an "established procedure" for reporting and responding to instances of cyberbullying, threats of violence, fraud, hate speech, and other ethical violations is an important new area of development for schools. Nancy Willard sensibly recommends the formation of a "Safe Schools Committee" to handle these tasks. Such a committee would include teachers and instructional staff, but also mental health professionals and responsible community members, who bring greater understanding of developmental and bullying behaviors as well as knowledge of community resources. The Safe School Committee would include the technology director or coordinator and would work with educational technologists and teachers to develop the breadth and depth of resources needed to educate, prevent, cope with, and implement consequences for violation of policies related to hate speech, cyberbullying, rumor spreading, and intimidation that is facilitated in Cyberspace. Most important, the notion of a Safe Schools Committee creates human involvement and judgment in regulating and responding to hate speech and cyberbullying. This sets a more appropriate and effective regulatory force than relying on technology to do what only people can do: make judgments on the meaning of a particular speech expression in context. [|STUDENT AND PARENT EDUCATION ON HATE SPEECH AND CYBERBULLYING] Parents and school staff may get a false sense of security that software filtering and management systems can block cyberbullying. Because cyberbullying occurs through a variety of media such as email, chats, text messaging and instant messaging, and because young people can be expert in finding ways around and through filtering software, it is often ineffective. Willard warns "cyberbullying is occurring in online environments where there are no responsible adults present" and that "empowerment of youth to independently prevent and address these concerns is the goal of the student education" (Willard, 2005). The damage inflicted by hate speech and cyberbullying make the case that young people need to gain awareness and understanding of the human context of their technology-based actions. Students need to understand that there are ethical, social, and legal limits to what they can say online. They can benefit from being informed that bullying, cyberbullying, defamation, invasion of privacy, or intentionally inflicting emotional distress are ethical violations that can lead to civil and/or criminal prosecution, not to mention being just plain wrong and the source of much unhappiness. They need to understand that it is not okay to do these things, and in some circumstances, victims or "targets" of cyberbullying can sue the families of perpetrators for financial damages. Students may be reluctant to report either being bullied themselves or their awareness of bullying by others because of fear of having their Internet or cell phone privileges withdrawn. Teachers and others involved with these concerns must be careful in making the threat that such privileges will be revoked to build and preserve trust with their students. The concept of the Safe School Committee suggests a way in which communities can respond to the complex capabilities and dangers of our wired, wireless, "always on" culture. Such a committee would give students and staff a place to turn when they encounter unethical behavior in Cyberspace. Such a committee would mobilize different stakeholders in maintaining the health and safety of people who use the Internet in and out of school, but whose use affects in-school activities. Educating students, staff, parents, and community members, in conjunction with clear, comprehensive policies, methods for determining consequences for policy violations, and adequate technologies for monitoring and blocking inappropriate communication can contribute to harnessing computer technology to work in support of teaching and learning. A Safe Schools Committee can help students and staff to draw on school counseling and other support services so that trust is not undermined. Cyberbullying undermines everyone's efforts to teach and learn effectively and schools can benefit from developing administrative structures for regulating this emergent responsibility. [|HACKING — IN CYBEREJHICS, A SPECIAL CASE] In considering ethics in Cyberspace, hacking is a special case. Paul Mobbs of the GreenNet Civil Society Internet Rights Project, tell us the term "hacker," "has been abused by the media to give a negative connotation — of someone who engages in breaking into computers. In fact, 'hacker' within the subculture of computing has a positive connotation, meaning someone who is technologically adept with computers, electronics or any other technical specialty. In the computer subculture those who break into computer systems are referred to as 'crackers'" (Mobbs, 2002). Some know hackers, then, as especially knowledgeable, talented, and creative writers of computer programs. Hackers are, or at least were, hands-on computer programmers who thrive on challenges to produce creative, elegant solutions to computer programming problems. As such, they represent a kind of yang to the yin of the button-downed, corporate form of computing practiced by large companies. Steven Levy, in his 1984 book Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution, recounts that the word hacker grew out of the "signals and power" sub-committee of the MIT Tech Model Railroad Club (TMRC) in the early days of computing in the 1950s. An MIT organization with a special interest in model railroads, it drew members to the club in the 1950s when computers were just beginning to be accessible to students at MIT, far in advance of most of the world. The trains had two levels: the upper level of model trains set in bucolic, miniature, often handcrafted landscape scenes with visible railroad signals, and the beneath-the-surface, jury-rigged power systems and switches, featuring electrical and mechanical devices that moved and directed the trains. This basement level of the model train system contained a "massive matrix of wires and relays and crossbar switches," with many of the controlling devices re-purposed from telephone switches and relays (Levy, 1984, p. 7). Building the subterranean system of controllers called for a combination of specialized mechanical and electrical knowledge and Edisonian inventiveness. Hacking came to refer to "a product built not solely to fulfill some constructive goal, but with some wild pleasure taken in mere involvement" (p. 9). The term hack "had long been used to describe MIT college pranks" but in the TMRC, hacking came to be known as a feat that "must be imbued with innovation, style, and technical virtuosity," and that not only function, but also "the artistry with which one hacked was recognized" (Levy, 1984, p. 10). Early punch card computers were useful to "keep track of the switches underneath" the visible train systems' bucolic setting on top of the table. It was in refining and elaborating the underbelly of model railroading with computers that the word "hacker" came into being (Levy, 1984). The roots of hacking are relevant to the ethical and practical dimensions of computing, as it has evolved into a necessary skill for all and a career for some. As it developed in the 1950s and '60s, hacking had a set of ethics that grew out of its pioneering spirit but which was not linked to the illegal and destructive activities with which the media has often associated it. That said, while hacking in its embryonic stage thrived on a sense of programming purity, it also had a disdain for bureaucratic control. Hacking tapped into the creative spirit that burst like geysers at the birth of computing, and which, in the organization of the corporate, bureaucratic, and capitalistic wave that followed, ignited a deviant strain of malevolent "crackers" and disease. Stew Nelson, one of the pioneers of hacking, illustrates the distinction between hacking and cracking. One of hacking's early forms focused on the emerging convergence of computing and telephony, and it was in hacking into the phone system to make calls all over the planet that Nelson displayed the ethic that "you could call anywhere, try anything, experiment endlessly, but you should not do it for financial gain" (Levy, p. 94). Hacking was, and is, a form of American ingenuity and enthusiasm for solving problems. While today different interests are struggling to define its meaning, the word hacking, in its heyday at least, had a clear sense of ethics that could still be useful today. Steven Levy made a special effort to delineate these ethics and described them as including: (Levy, 1984, pp. 40-45). The ethic that "all information should be free" and that information should flow as freely as possible through brilliant, elegant programming motivated those early hackers. Hackers, as Levy reports, wanted to produce "The Right Thing (TRT)," the "unique, correct, elegant solution … that satisfied all the constraints at the same time, which everyone seemed to believe existed for most problems" (Levy, p. 78). Hacking offered the dream, the prospect, of perfectibility and if you pursued TRT vigorously, single-mindedly, persistently, even maniacally enough, information would flow freely, overcoming the obstacles and compromises continuously present in the real world. Hacking carried "the illusion that total control was only a few features away" (Levy, p. 73). However, in distinguishing between the constructive and destructive meanings now associated with the word "hacking," it is critical to note that when the word emerged from the etymological playground, it meant "hands-on improvement, not damage" (Levy, p. 63). Hacking was a kind of existential compulsion, the idea of which "was to make a computer more usable, to make it more exciting to users, to make computing so interesting that people would be tempted to play with them, explore them, and eventually hack on them." Somewhat paradoxical to the lack of social skill associated with the computer programmer, but consistent with the democratic impulses and technological inventiveness of hacking, it also had a social component. Levy, for example, found that hackers felt that "when you wrote a fine program you were building a community, not churning out a product" (Levy, p. 56). Schools can benefit from recognizing the positive features of computer hacking, a bottom-up force for change corresponding to the yang in the yin-yang view of the world. This spirit of invention is especially relevant to bright, energetic, young people who yearn to find something they can control, something in which they can excel, something in which the controlling force of their elders is not completely dominant. This positive energy can be correlated to the urgency in other technical advances such as those cited about Thomas Edison who, in striving to perfect his many inventions, is often cited as "working long hours" and "sleeping in his lab" and neglecting his personal life, much in the same way Levy describes the early "hackers" (NSDL, 2005). We must be careful in promoting and teaching cyberethics and in striving for an ethical and legal Cyberspace that will not snuff out the great inventive spirit in computing that, in part, led to its usefulness. Even though hacking emerged from the rarified air of MIT labs and workshops, it represented the hands-on, do-it-yourself, democratizing force that, with extreme, passionate effort, dedication, and inspiration, meant that computing could be available and accessible to everyone. This represented a synthesis of the technological and democratic forces that found form in striving to put the power of computing into everyone's hands and not just in the controlling hands of the corporations, bureaucracies, and governments. This spirit led to the evolution of the personal computer and the World Wide Web. This spirit did contribute to the democratization of computing, in transcending political and geographic boundaries in favor of what may become a reordered world. Hacking then was part of the force of democracy as it could be now, when allowed to flourish, and it flourishes when it is recognized as a subject, as the favored occupation of some who respond to its logic and power to do things for people. Edison's story and legendary work habits are relevant to the discussion of Cyberethics for another reason. Character educators Ryan and Bohlin (1999) describe the often-used method of relaying heroic stories that illustrate elements of good character. They explain that, "stories, biographies, historical events and human reflections provide us with a guide to what it means to lead a good life and possess strong moral character" (p. 95). However, just as one's actions in Cyberspace are typically invisible, transferring the moral lessons from the lives of honored historical figures to the intangibles of the Internet is often a case of "lost in translation." A recent issue of Character, a publication of the Center for the Advancement of Ethics and Character at Boston University, and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) Character Education Network illustrate the point. The issue highlights stories of the "Puritan Narrative" (Gibbon, 2006) and the biblical tale of Joseph and his brothers (Lerner, 2006; Genesis: chs. 37-50) cited as "Timeless wisdom in an ancient text." To the 12-year-old on the Internet, these stories are most likely irrelevant, untethered to the bots, avatars, and abstract speech of the Internet. These stories are not only from another time, but also from another world. Yet, despite the differences in these stories of ethical and heroic behavior, there are surprising similarities. Under-recognized in the rush for control of the way in which school-age students use computing is the way in which hackers of the 1960s and '70s exhibited a work ethic that had similarities to that of the Puritans. The Puritans thrived, as Gibbon reports, on a sense of "energy renewed, our spirit lifted" concluding that with this spirit "we can perform deeds undreamed of in uninspired hours" (Gibbon, 2006). These characteristics are remarkably similar to those of the hackers who were motivated by a desire to make something happen on the computer, to perfect a program or algorithm or at least to make it run as smoothly and as cleanly as possible. Hackers were inspired to figure something out, make something happen, and empower people by promoting democratic decentralization through making information freely accessible. The Cyber Security Industry Alliance (CSIA) tells us that "cyber ethics includes avoiding behavior such as hacking, writing or spreading viruses, stealing content and lying about its authorship by copying and pasting into a writing assignment, downloading copyrighted music or videos, copying CDs and software, or pulling online pranks such as smearing the reputation of another student" (CSIA, 2005). However, these are not traits associated with hacking and by confusing them or conflating them, as the media would have us do, something important is lost. True hackers do not spread viruses or break into others computers to steal. They operate from an ethical basis that is appropriate to the context of computing and the Internet, and this is something educators need to understand and communicate to young people in teaching cyberethics. The value system that emerged with the early days of computing included aspects of meritocracy, where race, religion, age, and status were irrelevant. Aesthetics, where art and beauty could take on new forms, and altruism, where one could do something new with computing that would "change life for the better" were palpable values. These values inspired the early hackers. There was a democratic fervor to their motivation that, most likely, could not have emerged anywhere but in the United States. The Puritans shared many of these qualities. However, the similarity between hackers and Puritans has limits because hackers clashed with the established authorities of computing, the "priests and sub-priests" who guarded and controlled computing resources for the corporate elite. The hackers were not pious and rejected the authority of piousness as unearned and slavish rather than merited by accomplishment. This is the type of spirit educators must be careful not to extinguish, but rather should nurture and even extend to a more diverse group of young people who could not only benefit themselves, but also could benefit society by creating computing resources that are more diversely defined. This is where we need better recognition of the ethical and even heroic qualities of the early pioneers and professionals of computing so that young people better understand what it means to be ethical in Cyberspace and in using all modern technologies. [|Ethical Challenges in Cyberspace] Cyberspace introduces new challenges to ethical behavior because it offers to the user the appearance of invisibility, anonymity, and privacy. It offers the freedom to pretend, and, given the lack of privacy and the consequences — albeit delayed — to hate speech and other ethical transgressions, pretend freedom. Linking those characteristics to the intangibility or remoteness of feedback from the targets of unethical behavior amplifies the challenges. Many educational issues cited in this essay address these challenges; however, this section highlights two that hold special promise: building analogies to the physical world and educating students and staff about the harm that comes to the perpetrators and the targets of bullying, theft, and other malicious behavior that wastes people's time and energy. It may appear to be no great leap of logic to link plagiarism and cheating to honesty in the physical world, but when the intangibles of Cyberspace form the environment for playing out these behaviors, the link is abstract. Young people need help in understanding that just because the target of a hurtful missive is temporarily invisible and their reaction delayed, the harm or hurt is nonetheless real. They need examples and stories that illustrate the harm of invading someone's privacy, stealing someone's personal information, stealing software or music or copying another's writing without attribution. They need to see how hate speech, cyberbullying, and rumor spreading hurt people. They need to see how invading someone's privacy online is a lack of respect-not only for others, but also for oneself. They can benefit from seeing how creating a false identity is associated with being untrustworthy and to understand what the consequences of not being trusted can be. They need to understand that responsible computing is the same thing as being responsible in the real world. They need to understand that hate speech, cyberbullying, and rumor spreading via technology are unjust and unfair and they would not want to be the recipients of unjust or unfair treatment. They need to understand that it takes courage to be an ethical user of Internet and other technologies, and to help others to do so. Carving out time in the school schedule for teaching and learning about ethical behavior in Cyberspace and with other technologies is an enormous challenge facing educators. Incorporating these objectives into school curriculum through policy and financial priority are part of the prerequisites to harnessing technology-based resources to the aims of education and inhibiting its use for destructive distractions. It is the kind of challenge that calls for heroes, everyday heroes. [|Finding Heroes to Teach Cyberethics] Teaching cyberethics to children needs two kinds of heroes. One kind are the administrators, community leaders, and taxpayers who will make cyberethics a priority and give teachers the training and time they need to develop appropriate curriculum. Included in this group are the teachers who will teach it. Another kind are the heroes educators use in illustrating ethical and virtuous conduct so that children will begin to understand from models what it means to behave ethically in Cyberspace. The traditional practice of using heroic stories in moral and ethical education and the perception of hackers as a kind of anti-hero presents an intriguing opportunity in cyberethics education. Tony Sanchez presented the traditional view of using heroic stories when he wrote that there has been, "a renewal of concern during the 1990s about teaching and learning values — standards that everyone should have about what is good or bad. And leading educators have recommended stories about heroes as a main means of teaching and learning values" (Sanchez, n.d.). He wrote that, "prominent educators … urge the use of personal models — heroes — in history, fiction, and current events to exemplify and encourage emulation of particular virtues or desirable traits of character, such as honesty, civility, courage, perseverance, loyalty, self-restraint, compassion, tolerance, fairness, respect for the worth and dignity of the individual, responsibility for the common good, and so forth" (Leming 1996; Lickona 1991). These types of stories abound in the recorded history of the physical world and have historically been employed to teach moral and ethical behavior. However, in Cyberspace, ethical stories are rare. Even worse, stories of unethical behavior get headlines and highlights. This is problematic in itself but it only begins to describe the problem of illustrating ethical behavior in Cyberspace. Sanchez also wrote that, "stories of heroes should be considered carefully in context. And judgments about the person's behavior should be made at first in terms of the culture of that person's time and place." This means that while Meltzer's story of George Washington and the Birth of Our Nation "is a balanced treatment of a great man which discusses both his strengths and weaknesses within the context of the American founding period," Washington's experience in crossing the Delaware and wintering at Valley Forge, and the values and character traits embedded therein, do not transfer well to Cyberspace (Meltzer, 1986). In the context of Cyberspace and cell phones, Washington's 1776 effort is easily "lost in translation" rather than a poignant representation of what it means to live a good life in the twenty-first century. Modeling good character con textualized to the Internet is also difficult in 2006 because as reported in the media, Cyberspace seems to be a scary place, populated by prowling sexual predators looking to snatch up unsuspecting teens. However, Benjamin Radford, writing for the Skeptical Inquirer, claims that, "The news media emphasizes the dangers of Internet predators," and that "if you believe the near-daily news stories, sexual predators lurk everywhere: in parks, at schools, in the malls — even in teens' computers." Radford cites "a May 3, 2006, ABC News report, claiming that 'one in five children is now approached by online predators.'" However, on closer examination, Radford found that "not a single one of the reported solicitations led to any actual sexual contact or assault. Furthermore, almost half of the 'sexual solicitations' came not from 'predators' or adults but from other teens. When the study examined the type of Internet 'solicitation' with which parents are most concerned (e.g., someone who asked to meet the teen somewhere, called the teen on the telephone, or sent gifts), the number drops from 'one in five' to 3 percent" (Radford, 2006). In what is typical for media sensationalization of news, "A few rare (but high-profile) incidents have spawned an unprecedented slate of new laws enacted in response to the public's fear" rather than in response to a rational examination of the evidence (Radford, 2006). While it is certainly appropriate to be concerned about and educated about the dangers in Cyberspace, media reports do create an exaggerated emphasis on the harmful. Cyberspace can look pretty bleak when it is seen as populated by oversexed teens, thieves, and predators. This does not make it easy to use heroic stories to model ethical behavior in Cyberspace. It is of course not true that there are no heroes in Cyberspace. A good example is Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web. Berners-Lee, in his 1999 book Weaving the Web: The Original Design and Ultimate Destiny of the World Wide Web by Its Inventor exhibits some of the well-known traits of the hero. For example, Berners-Lee wrote about the prospect of turning over his creation to commercial interests when it was in its infancy and profit-making concerns came calling. He wrote, "My motivation was to make sure that the Web became what I'd originally intended it to be — a universal medium for sharing information. Starting a company would not have done much to further this goal, and it would have risked the prompting of competition, which could have turned the Web into a bunch of proprietary products" (p. 84). Berners-Lee's decision does not carry the romanticism of Washington's middle-of-the-night crossing of the Delaware, or the "timeless wisdom" of Joseph's story from the Bible, or the literary allure of the "Puritan Narrative." It does carry the ethical dilemma of a brilliant, creative, technical person who sacrificed collosal wealth in pursuit of a goal that would benefit humanity; that would serve the "public good." He wrote about his decision-making process in saying that "I wanted to see the Web proliferate, not sink my life's hours into worrying over a product release." By leading a non-profit consortium to oversee the structure of the emerging World Wide Web, he would "be free to really think about what was best for the world, as opposed to what would be best for one commercial interest" (p. 84). To most people, however, Berners-Lee is likely an unknown hero. He is, however, the type of hero appropriate to Cyberspace and maybe, at least according to Harvard Business School professor Joseph Badaracco, the type of hero about whom we need to make more noise in the twenty-first century when so many of the traditional heroes begin to look like Mel Brooks' 2000-year-old man. Badaracco's research shows that most contemporary business students identify moral leaders such as Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Mother Teresa as exemplifying the kind of moral courage, dedication, and self-sacrifice also associated with traditional heroes such as Washington and Lincoln. However, he reports that at the end of the day, their deeds do little to influence them. As Badaracco sees it, "Even as they admire the Mother Teresas and the Mahatma Gandhis of the world, they continue to measure success not by moral victories but by material success." This has led him to conclude, "the heroic leadership model is irrelevant to most people's lives" (Badaracco, 2002a). Badaracco suggests two main explanations for the disconnect between the traditional heroic moral exemplar and everyday existence, at least in the business world. "First, the model offers little guidance to ordinary people living everyday lives — i.e., the vast majority of humanity. Instead, it suggests that such individuals conduct their affairs in what Badaracco terms 'a murky, moral limbo'" (Pruyne, 2004). If everyday people with average ambition do not step up to the "courage, dedication, and self-sacrifice" of a Washington, Martin Luther King Jr., or Mother Teresa, they are just the moral peasants of everyday life, indifferent to others and uninspired to do anything more than get ahead in whatever way they can. The second explanation that Badaracco offers for divergence between what people say they value and what they do is that, "the model offers a limited description of what moral leaders do. Extraordinary courage and bold, decisive action in the face of a dramatic moral challenge epitomize the typical tale of moral leadership. Historical realities tend to be ignored — particularly the quiet moral efforts (requiring patience, subtlety, and persistence in uncertain circumstances over prolonged periods of time) that often occur behind the scenes." Badaracco believes that limiting the description of heroism to "leadership in action offers individuals working in today's complex organizational and institutional structures little valuable guidance about how to address the perplexing moral dilemmas that regularly confront them" (Pruyne, 2004). A problem that Badaracco identifies is confusing courage with ethics. He suggests that we might better understand the motivation of many "heroic" leaders as "self-interest, and ambition rather than an ethical or moral impetus." Alternatively, he suggests that the motivation of many who achieve heroic accomplishments can come from "an internal 'churning complexity' composed of guilt, a feeling of being deprived, or the desire to prove one's self-worth." Badaracco helps to make an essential distinction between ambition and ethical character, often overlooked in the desire to hold up models to motivate young people toward more responsible behavior. He also highlights the need for a kind of everyday heroism, the kind necessary to confront and cope with complex and confusing ethical choices that arise in complicated, contemporary organizations and, relevant here, in Cyberspace. Badaracco's research identified other reasons for the failure of conventional heroic models to motivate ethical behavior in business that are also relevant to developing cyberethics. The heroic model fails, he claims, "because it idealizes people and ignores the fact that human beings are inherently flawed. It eschews the struggles of leadership and suggests that leaders have to be superhuman." It is primarily male and "tends to confuse heroes with high-level authorities," failing to consider ordinary people like teachers and computer professionals practicing ethical behavior in a context that makes its everyday practice heroic. Traditional heroic examples fail because they "inappropriately emphasize 'who' rather than 'how,' so that the products and answers of leadership take precedence over the more critical processes and questions" (Pruyne, 2004). In the domain of cyberethics, the heroic model of leadership is especially dysfunctional. To the technically adroit teenager, the moral stature of the Pilgrims, American heroes such as Washington and Lincoln, and the story of Joseph in the Bible appear irrelevant, and the sooner we realize this the better. Badaracco found that, "How leaders function, as opposed to their grand acts, should be the emphasis of leadership models" (Pruyne, 2004). In teaching and learning cyberethics, we need more stories of ethical behavior online. We need to hear about the practice of a teenager who refuses to download music without paying for it, or of an educator who uses computing to help people learn skills and find better jobs, or of teachers who freely share their lesson plans and experiences in teaching to help new teachers learn the profession. We need to hear about computing and the Web as an instrument of community development. These may not be awe-inspiring but they are examples of everyday heroes who, if recognized, can help make ethical behavior in Cyberspace more understandable and more appealing. These are examples of moral behavior, not heroic leadership. Badaracco's experience and thinking about ethics and leadership in the business world is useful in considering ethics in Cyberspace and cyberethics in schools. The heroes of safe, ethical behavior on the Internet are everyday heroes, garden-variety classroom teachers, who must make real to students the ethical problems and consequences of ethical violations on the Internet. They are, as Badaracco points out, like the heroes that Albert Schweitzer, recipient of the 1952 Nobel Peace prize, identified as everyday heroes. Everyday heroes are those who practice and promote ethical behavior and in so doing demonstrate that "of all the will toward the ideal in mankind only a small part can manifest itself in public action. All the rest of this force must be content with small and obscure deeds. The sum of these, however, is a thousand times stronger than the acts of those who receive wide public recognition" (Schweitzer, 1963, as cited in Badaracco, 2002b). This is what is means to be an everyday hero but to implement these actions in Cyberspace and to understand how these actions relate to being in school, teachers need some base level preparation. Patty Yamano's research shows that to help teachers be most effective in teaching and practicing the everyday acts of ethical behavior in Cyberspace, they also need to be educated. First, they need to be educated in using technology in the classroom and in the integration of curriculum objectives and technology resources. Yamano found that these competencies are the functional prerequisites to learning and teaching cyberethics. If teachers do not know how to use technology and are not comfortable integrating technology in their teaching, they will not be comfortable teaching about ethical behavior in Cyberspace (Yamano, 2004). Badaracco's model of "quiet leadership" suggests "that thinking about leadership primarily in terms of heroic figures can be a partial, misleading, and even hazardous way of seeing the world and trying to make it better" (Badaracco, 2002a, p. 182). This is where seeing hackers and teachers as offering ethical leadership in technology holds promise for teaching young people ethics in Cyberspace. In a technology leadership position it is essential to model and advocate ethical use of software and computing. [|Education for Responsible Computing] It is unquestionable that computing and the Internet are part of today's classrooms and increasingly are a major source of the resources for teaching and learning in and out of school. This means that the virtual world, and its extensions beyond physical boundaries, is increasingly becoming inseparable from the physical world of education. It also means, as Patty Yamano observed: "Teachers must play a part in preparing students to responsibly enter the virtual world" (Yamano, 2004, p. 18). Classroom teachers, instructional technologists, and school librarians must now accept an additional responsibility: at least in the school, they are the gateway, guide, instructor, and enforcer of ethics in the digital world. Yet, what support, encouragement, and recognition do they receive? The picture is precariously flawed. A community of virtue must today include technology in addition to academics, sports, art, and character development. Enveloping technology in an ethical environment is necessary as technology is an essential element of not only the local informational nervous system but also all of the global villages made accessible via the Internet. Computing and the Internet have generated new challenges to educators who are responsible for building the ethical strand of the educational fabric. One of the responses to this challenge is the emergence of behaviors collected under the umbrella title of "responsible computing." The open nature of Internet resources in higher education means that responsible computing has reached a level of concern that colleges and universities must try to educate their students on the costs of irresponsible computing. A video produced by the office of information technologies at the University of Virginia promotes the agenda of responsible computing by making its points paradoxically. It features high school-age students speaking to the camera in a variety of settings where each clip starts with, "When I go to UVA (University of Virginia), I want to …" and then it continues with a variety of unappealing prospects including: The video ends appropriately with the question: "How much trouble can you buy with your computer?" It is promising to see effective presentations such as this because they make the point that it is not smart, cool, or hip to buy into this kind of trouble, not to mention the unethical stain on the character fabric of someone who would do these things. The video also communicates a sense of hope in how responsible people everywhere want to make ethical use of the Internet their standard, just as ethical behavior is the standard of civilization in the physical world (video only: []). Historian Daniel Boorstin has argued that technology has a way of flattening or homogenizing human experience (Boorstin, 1974). For example, the technology of fast food restaurants and "box stores" makes some areas of a city look remarkably similar to dozens, even hundreds of others. This can be good when knowing what to expect when entering a new city. It can be good when democratizing access to information and it can be good when it comes to undermining destructive, authoritarian hierarchies that limit the freedom and potential of people. It can be good when empowering individuals with access to powerful instruments for research and communication. However, like so many of the paradoxical effects of the Internet, it can also undermine good hierarchies that help people make sense of life and its options. As Neil Postman argued, "social institutions sometimes do their work simply by denying people access to information, but principally by directing how much weight and, therefore, value one must give to information. Social institutions are concerned with the meaning of information and can be quite rigorous in enforcing standards of admission" (Postman, 1992, p. 73). Society needs educators to help students balance the democratizing force of computing and the Internet with ethical standards that civilize behavior and to provide guidance for what is appropriate, credible, and valuable in the vast oceans of information accessible in Cyberspace. To make this happen, they need support, time, and training. Recognizing and reconciling the complex forces of the Internet are some of the challenges and opportunities of our time. The Internet can extend one's universe and allow reaching out to people with common interests by abrogating some of the limitations of space and time. Yet, it can simultaneously undermine the physical community, allowing people to escape from dealing with the real world, and the reminders of appropriateness that nearby relatives and neighbors often provide. Recognizing and understanding these paradoxes of the Internet is a challenge of our time. [|Cyberethics and Some Paradoxes of the Internet] The invisibility, anonymity, intangible, and time warped nature of Cyberspace present obstacles to effective teaching and learning of cyberethics. These obstacles are made more complex by some of the paradoxes in how the Internet, computing, and the Web are playing out in society, which further obscure already hard to discern ethical signs. For example, social computing provides a robust arena for the natural and necessary phase of human development where young people experiment with, or "try on" different identities and adults of all ages create and build communities with which they identify. This aspect of the Web, that some call the "living Web," provide the most extensive and easily accessible resource for identity construction and sharing ever assembled, yet schools, the main point of contact for most young people, must shun them. They are too social and too distracting from the work of achieving learning objectives to allow young people to access them in school. As the Web provides this arena for identity exploration and communication, it also is open to deviants who would exploit and abuse children. Hence, responsible adults must caution children not to do what they naturally are supposed to do. Upping the ante on this paradox is the knowledge that information posted to the Web can be captured and stored indefinitely, raising the prospect of later retrieval and potential embarrassment. It is almost as if the Sirens joined forces with Scylla at Charybdis. Like printing before them, computing and the Internet represent powerful forces for improving access to, or democratizing access to, information. Just as printing took a giant step toward making education more accessible, the Internet is taking the next giant step. Certainly, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, information is more readily available to average people than at any time in human history. However, easy access lets anyone in and this can be a threat to civilized behavior as well as to those who seek power and want to control or continue controlling society. Computing and the Internet empower individuals and this scares those who would control information and exploit those who do not know. Government is one controlling force that is asserting some control over the democratic force of the Internet. China, for example, forced Google to agree to provide a censored version of the Internet when searching with Google from inside China (Associated Press, 2006). As repulsive as that might be to those inspired by the democratizing force of the Internet, that is not all that China's government is doing to control their people's Internet use. Ben Elgin and Bruce Einhorn of Business Week Online alert us to this when they wrote, "all Internet traffic entering or leaving China must pass through government-controlled gateways — that is, banks of computers — where e-mail and Web-site requests are monitored. E-mail with offending words such as 'Taiwan independence' or 'democracy' can be pulled aside and trashed" (Elgin and Einhorn, 2006). Michael Bazeley of the San Jose Mercury News reported that when Google was launched in China in January 2006, it would not return any information "on the 'three Ts:' Taiwan independence, Tibet independence and Tiananmen Square, which are all forbidden topics in China" (Bazeley, 2006). Efforts to harness the great power of the Internet to serve political purposes are well underway. China is not the only government seeking to know how people are using the Internet. While the U.S. government is not known to be blocking certain types of information, they are engaged in collecting and mining the data from people's Internet activities in the effort to fight terrorism. Mark Clayton of the Christian Science Monitor reports, "The U.S. government is developing a massive computer system that can collect huge amounts of data and, by linking far-flung information from blogs and e-mail to government records and intelligence reports, search for patterns of terrorist activity" (Clayton, 2006). While thwarting terrorism is a good idea, many worry about the danger to liberty of the government being able to collect information on a person's activities and then correlate all that information into a profile of the person. Clayton reports that Joseph Kielman, a manager of one of these efforts, calls this activity "knowledge discovery in databases." Aside from concerns about privacy that need to be weighed against advantages in fighting terrorism, this development points out another paradox of the Internet. While a person may have better access to more information than ever before, others can collect information on that person better than ever before. Government invasions of privacy, even if legitimate, make teaching about the ethical virtue of protecting one's password and the privacy of others more complicated, and this is not the only complicating paradox. Others include: [|Conclusions] Cyberspace is the new ethical frontier, the classroom, playground, and battleground of early twenty-first century ethical decision-making and of the morality of teaching and using technology. After thousands of years of human ethical development in the physical world, Cyberspace has presented a new arena in which to determine how ethical principles apply. There are many descriptions of how Cyberspace presents new scenarios where traditional and common ethical signals are not present. For example, if I make an unauthorized or illegal copy of someone's work from the Internet, I am "stealing" it. However, how can I be stealing when the original work is still there? In this scenario, I need to be able to think abstractly about how taking the file is depriving the owner of the opportunity to sell the work or to be credited for producing the work, or both. This is a more abstract concept than when an object disappears and the owner is deprived of its use, and, because humans do not typically develop the capability of abstract thinking until their teenage years, it is not surprising that many children do not see copying copyrighted files off the Internet as stealing. Teaching cyberethics is more complicated because of the abstract nature of the Internet and Cyberspace. Nancy Willard has compared teaching our children how to be safe in Cyberspace with teaching a child to cross a busy street (Willard, 2006). With little children, parents and responsible adults hold the child's hand while controlling their unaware movements in traffic. As the child progresses, they teach them to look both ways, listen for oncoming vehicles, and observe others in crossing. Eventually, after much practice, they let go as the child takes on the responsibility to safely cross the street. This is the kind of closely held supervision needed in helping children venture forth safely in Cyberspace. As traffic lights and walk signs help in this effort in the streets, filtering software can control, to some degree, who can go where in Cyberspace in schools. However, neither system can stop all the deviants. While filtering software in schools can block much of the pornography on the Web, it cannot stop everything. To make filtering software more powerful and more controlling means that much good and appropriate information is also blocked, and access to the Internet is more cumbersome. It also cannot block all communication, nor should it. The Internet and the Web offers the richest, fastest, cheapest, and most robust source of information and communication ever known. Surely today's children will use these resources in solving tomorrow's problems. Before that, though, they must learn to be safe in cyberspace, and to be safe is, at least in part, to avoid the unethical. By learning what it means to be trustworthy in identity, respecting the need for privacy, exercising restraint in speech, respecting digital property, being honest in paying one's way, and being responsible in citing the work of others, children will become good citizens, both in the virtual world and in the real world. This self-regulation empowers people and helps the Internet to remain an open space that encourages innovation, personal growth and civilization. Such education will prevent the need for more controls that often inhibit the good as well as the bad. It will also be more effective than all the technology controls. Such external, top-down controls limit imagination and excite opposition instead of positive creativity. Students knowing right from wrong, helpful from harmful in Cyberspace is what we need to preserve the democratic nature of the Internet, as opposed to ever more controlling forces that prevent people from doing things instead of providing a rich environment for doing the right thing. This is what a free society needs to grow and thrive in Cyberspace. Children need cyberethics education and school personnel must have the training in using technology in teaching so they can become comfortable teaching cyberethics. Teachers need training to recognize what is happening in this complex new addition to their domain in order to provide effective leadership and guidance as their students develop cyberethics. They also must have the authority and the instruments to appropriately control and intervene in the use of the Internet and the Web in their learning environment. It is only through education and preparedness that schools can navigate these choppy waters. The need is urgent. 1. For an example of abuses, see the Wikipedia entry "recent developments" on Xanga ([|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanga#Recent%5fdevelopments)and] the entry on MySpace Security ([|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myspace#Security).For] a story on MySpace's new restrictions, especially the imposition of limits for 14- and 15-year-old users, see Jesdanun (2006). [|Resources] Computer-learning foundation code of responsible computing: []. [|This is a simple code of ethics that can be printed and signed.] COPPA, the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act: "Websites that are collecting information from children under the age of thirteen are required to comply with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)." [|http://www.coppa.org] The Copyright Society of the U.S.A.: A "web site to teach school-age children the basics of copyright law." []. Cyberangels: []. [|These people really may be angels.] Cyberethics, Cybersecurity and Cybersafety at the University of Maryland: [] A rich resource for the more serious student. Cyber Security Industry Alliance-Teaching Children Cyber Security and Ethics: https://[|www.csialliance.org/publications/csia%5fwhitepapers/] Department of Justice-Cybercrime [] [|Some good examples of what it means to be a good "cyber citizen."] "Giraffe Heroes are people who stick their necks out for the common good." [|http://www.giraffe.org] Hackers and Hacking: [] [|Good detailed descriptions of hackers and hacking] i-Safe: Helping parents and teachers learn how best to protect children: [] Netiquette — "The Core Rules of Netiquette" [] Piracy, Pornography, Plagiarism, Propaganda, Privacy: Teaching Children to Be Responsible Users of Technology. Protects their rights and the rights of others. Merle Marsh, Ed.D., [] Plagiarism — Description of "plagiarize" from Merriam-Webster OnLine: [] Plagiarism — Description of "plagiarism" from Turnitin.com, an Internet-based service that detects plagiarism: [] ism.html Plagiarism — Wikipedia, types, punishments, frequency of plagiarism, commercial plagiarism and anti-plagiarism, and so on: [] Responsible Computing at the College Level: When I Go to University of Virginia, video only: [] © 2007 by the Trustees of Boston University. All rights reserved. [|References] // Analects, The (n.d.). Collection of moral and social teachings of Confucius, including the concept of the Five Relationships. Oswego City School District Regents Exam Prep Center, Belief Systems Vocabulary List. Retrieved April 16, 2006 online from [].// // Anonymizer, (n.d.). Available online at [].// // Arthur, E. (2006). Virtual glass houses: The process and politics of bisexual identity-discussions in online diary communities. Paper presented at the Technology and Citizenship conference McGill University, Montreal, Canada June 10, 2006. Available online at [].// // Associated Press (2006). Google to censor results on new Chinese search site Washingtonpost.com. Posted Wednesday, January 25, 2006; retrieved July 31, 2006 from [] 12401933.html.// // Baase, S. (2003). A gift of fire (2d ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.// // Badaracco, J. (2002a). Leading quietly: An unorthodox guide to doing the right thing. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.// // Badaracco, J. (2002b). The anything-but unremarkable lessons of the quiet leader. Ivey Business Journal, Richard Ivey School of Business, The University of Western Ontario London, Ontario. Retrieved April 10, 2006 online from: [] ID=354.// // Bahne, C. (2005). The complete guide to Boston's Freedom Trail. Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.: Newtowne Publishing.// // Bazeley, M. (2006). Google's new frontier. San Jose Mercury News, San Jose, CA: January 25, 2006, p. 1C.// // Belsey, B. (2005). Cyberbullying: An emerging threat to the "Always On" generation. Retrieved July 14,2006 online from [].// // Berkowitz, M. (2000). Unfilled paper presented at the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) and U. S. Department of Justice joint conference on Cyberethics, Arlington, VA.// // Berman, J., and Mulligan, D. (1999). Privacy in the digital age: Work in progress. Nova Law Review, 23(2), Winter 1999, The Internet and Law. Retrieved June 14, 2006 online from [].// // Berners-Lee, T. (1999). Weaving the Web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web by its inventor. HarperCollins: New York.// // Boorstin, D. (1974). Democracy and its discontents. New York: Random House.// // Bostonian Society, The (2005). Old state house history. Retrieved June 13, 2006 online from [].// // Brandeis, L, and Warren, S. ( 1890). The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review, 4, pp. 193-220.// // China Economic Net (2004). Top university sacks teacher for plagiarism. Last Updated (Beijing Time):2004-08-06 09:11. Retrieved July 5, 2006 online from [] l.// // Clayton, M. (2006). U.S. plans massive data sweep. The Christian Science Monitor, February 09, 2006 edition. Retrieved August 1, 2006 online from [].// // comScore (2006). Google gains U.S. search market share for ninth consecutive month. Press release, Reston, Va., May 22, 2006. Retreived May 26, 2006 online from [].// // Cox, C. (2006). I.D. the creep, have no friends! Ever! The-agent.net, posted Tuesday, February 21, 2006. Retrieved June 23, 2006 online from [] l.// // CSIA (2005). Teaching children cyber security and ethics. Cyber Security Industry Alliance policy papers. Retrieved April 5, 2006 online from [] _Paper.pdf.// // Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.// // Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.// // Dewey, J. (1900/1990). John Dewey: The school and society; The child and the curriculum. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.// // Elgin, B., and Einhorn, B. (2006). The Great Firewall of China: A vast security network and compliant multinationals keep the mainland's Net under Beijing's thumb. But technology may foil the censors yet. Business-Weekonline, January 12, 2006. Retrieved July 31, 2006 online from: [] 34051.htm?campaign_id=rss_tech.// // Findlaw, (n.d.). U.S. Constitution: Fourth Amendment-Search and Seizure. Retrieved June 16, 2006 online from [].// // Gibbon, P. (2006). The Puritan narrative. Center for the Advancement of Ethics and Character and ASCD Character Education Network, Boston University School of Education, Character 13(2), spring 2006, pp. 1-2.// // Goodman, P. (1970). New reformation: Notes of a neolithic conservative. New York: Random House.// // Granic, I., and Lamey, A. (2000). The self-organization of the Internet and changing modes of thought. New Ideas in Psychology, 18, pp. 93-107.// // Hafner, K., and Lyon, M. (1996). Where the wizards stay up late: The origins of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster.// // Hexter, R. (2005). President Hexter's Inaugural Address. October 15, 2005, Hampshire College, Amherst, Massachusetts. Retrieved April 19, 2006 online from [].// // Historycentral.com, (n.d.). U.S. civics terms: Hate speech. Retrieved June 20, 2006 online from http://www.historycentral.eom/Civics/H.html#anchor315069.// // Ho, V., Richman, D., and Lewis, M. (2006). Bid to save online activity data for 2 years raises privacy fears: U.S. wants Net providers to save user records to aid terror, porn probes. Seattle Post-Intelligencer. Retrieved Friday, June 2, 2006 online from [].// // Jesdanun, A. (2006). MySpace plans new rules to thwart predators. MSNBC, Associated Press, posted June 21, 2006. Retrieved June 28, 2006 online from [].// // Jonassen, D. (1995). Computers as cognitive tools: Learning with technology not from technology. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 6(2), spring 1995, pp. 40-73.// // Langheinrich, M. (2002). Privacy invasions in ubiquitous computing. Ubicomp Privacy Workshop, Gteborg, Sweden. Retrieved June 18, 2006 online from [].// // Lanier, J. (2006). Digital Maoism: The hazards of the new online collectivism. Edge: the third culture. Online journal, May 30, 2006. Retrieved June 29, 2006 online from [].// // Lee, C., and Vogel, S. (2006). Threat of identity theft for 26.5 million veterans. Washington Post, May 23, 2006. Available online at [] #b5e8b80eb14f-450a-86d2-a872f50066f6.// // Leming, J. (1996). Teaching values in social studies education: Past practices and current trends. In B. Massialas and R. Allen (Eds.), Crucial issues in teaching social studies (pp. 145-180). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.// // Lerner, B. (2006). Timeless wisdom in an ancient text. Center for the Advancement of Ethics and Character and ASCD Character Education Network, Boston University School of Education, Character 13(2), 3-4, spring 2006.// // Levy, S. (1984). Hackers: Heroes of the computer revolution. New York: Penguin.// // Levy, S., and Stone, B. (2006). The new wisdom of the Web. Newsweek, April 3, 2006.// // Lickona, T. (1991). Educating for character: How our schools can teach respect and responsibility. New York: Bantam Books.// // Massachusetts Department of Education (2006). Technology in Massachusetts Schools 2004-2005. Retrieved June 16, 2006 online from [].// // Meltzer, M. (1986). George Washington and the birth of our nation. New York, NY: Franklin Watts.// // Meltzer, M., and Saul, E. W. (1994). Nonfiction for the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.// // Mobbs, P. (2002). GreenNet CSIR toolkit briefing, glossary and cross-reference index, GreenNet Civil Society Internet Rights Project. Retreived May 10, 2006 online from_ [].// // Moor, J. (2000). If Aristotle were a computing professional. In R. Baird, R. Ramsower, and S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Cyberethics: Social and moral issues in the computer age. Prometheus Books: New York.// // Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. (1st ed.) New York: Vintage Books.// // Norman, D. (2004). In defense of cheating. Retrieved April 16, 2006 online from [].// // NSDL (2005). Ask NSDL. Retrieved May 27, 2006 online from https://ask.nsdl.org/default.aspx?id= 13565&cat= 1159.// // Pocha, J. (2006). Internet exposes plagiarism in China: But punishment of professors rare at universities. Boston Globe, April 9, 2006.// // Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Knopf.// // Prigogine, I., and Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of chaos. New York: Bantam.// // Pruyne, E. (2004). Roundtable 4: Joseph Badaracco: Beyond heroic moral leadership. Conversations on Leadership. Harvard University Leadership Roundtable 2000-2001, President and Fellows of Harvard College. Retrieved April 6, 2006 online from [] eadership.html.// // Radford, B. (2006). Predator panic: Reality check on sex offenders. Retrieved May 19, 2006 online from http://news.yahoo.eom/s/space/20060516/sc_space/predatorpanicreality ycheckonsexoffenders.// // Ryan, K., and Bohlin, K. (1999). Building character in schools: Practical ways to bring moral instruction to life. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.// // Ryan, N. (2004). Fear and loathing: Websites expressing extreme or racist views have increased dramatically this year. Thursday August 12, 2004, Guardian. Retrieved July 21, 2006 online from [].// // Saettler, L. P. (1990). The evolution of American educational technology. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited, Inc.// // Sanchez, T. (n.d.) Using stories about heroes to teach values. ERIC Educational Reports. Retrieved May 22, 2006 online from [] 199811/ai_965668167.// // Schwartau, W. (2001). Internet and computer ethics for kids. Seminole, FL: Interpact Press.// // Schweitzer, A. (1963). Out of my life and thought. New York: New American Library.// // SPL (n.d.). Southern Poverty Law Center Intelligence Project. Retrieved July 20, 2006 online from [].// // Starr, S. (n.d.). Hate speech on the Internet. The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Retrieved July 20, 2006 online from []// // Sting (1983). Synchronicity by The Police. A&M Records. Retrieved June 3, 2006 online from [|http://www.scarlet.nl/~gugten/album05.htm]// // Stokes, J. (2006). The new media bricoleur: Identity construction in the digital age. Paper presented at the Technology and Citizenship conference at McGill University, Montreal, Canada, June 10, 2006. Available online a_t [].// // Surowiecki, J. (2005). The wisdom of crowds. New York: Random House.// // Tennyson, A. (1842/1992). Alfred Lord Tennyson: Selected poems. Mineola, NY: Dover Publications. Retrieved April 29, 2006 online from The Victorian Web, []).// // Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon and Shuster.// // Turnitin.com, (n.d.). Retrieved July 3, 2006 online from [] ism.html.// // United Nations (n.d.). Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Retrieved June 16, 2006 online from [].// // Wallace, S. (2006). Cyber-Shadows: Protecting teens from the dark side of the online world. American Camping Association. Retrieved June 28, 2006 online from [].// // Wallis, C. (2006). The multitasking generation. Time Magazine, March 27, 2006.// // Whitman, W. (1855). "Song of Myself." Retrieved June 28, 2006 online from [|http://www.wsu.edu:-1920/~wldciv/world%5fciv%5freader/world%5fciv] _reader_2/whitman.html.// // Wikipedia (n.d., a). Entry on "List of social networking websites." Retrieved in June 28, 2006 online from [] websites.// // Wikipedia (n.d., b). Entry on "Identity theft." Retrieved June 23, 2006 onine from [|http://en.wikipedia.org/wid/Identity%5ftheft#Accuracy%5fof%5fthe]] _term.// // Wikipedia (n.d., c). Entry on "Hate Speech." Retrieved June 20, 2006 online from [].// // Willard, N. (2002). Computer ethics, etiquette, and safety for the 21st century student. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE).// // Willard, N. (2005). An educator's guide to cyberbullying and cyberthreats. Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use. Retrieved July 19, 2006 online from [|http://csriu.org] and [].// // Willard, N. (2006). A briefing for educators: Online social networking communities and youth risk. Center for Safe and Responsible Internet Use (CSRIU). Retrieved July 20, 2006 online from []// // Yahoo News (2006). Retrieved June 16, 2006 online from [].// // Yamano, P. (2004). Cyberethics in the elementary classroom: Teaching the responsible use of technology. Unpublished doctoral dissertation: Pepperdine University.// // Yamano, P. (2006). Cyberethics in the elementary school: Teaching responsible use of technology. Presentation at annual conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education (SITE), March 23, 2006, Orlando, FL.// 12740515051274051505 By David Whittier
 * **Flaming.** Online "fights" using electronic messages with angry and vulgar language.
 * **Harassment.** Repeatedly sending offensive, rude, and insulting messages.
 * **Cyberstalking.** Repeatedly sending messages that include threats of harm or are highly intimidating. Engaging in other online activities that make a person afraid for her or her safety.
 * **Denigration.** "Dissing" someone online. Sending or posting cruel gossip or rumors about a person to damage his or her reputation or friendships.
 * **Impersonation.** Breaking into someone's account, posing as that person and sending messages to make the person look bad, get that person in trouble or danger, or damage that person's reputation or friendships.
 * **Outing and Trickery.** Sharing someone's secrets or embarrassing information online. Tricking someone into revealing secrets or embarrassing information, which is then shared online.
 * **Exclusion.** Intentionally excluding someone from an online group, like a "buddy list" or a game (Willard, 2005).
 * Education to students and staff about these policies.
 * Effective supervision and monitoring, which should likely include intelligent technical monitoring of Internet use.
 * A vehicle for students to report cyberbullying and cyberthreats confidentially or anonymously.
 * An established procedure to respond to such reports (Willard, 2005, p. 8).
 * Access to computers — and anything which might teach you something about the way the world works — should be unlimited and total. Always yield to the hands-on imperative (Levy, p. 27).
 * All information should be free.
 * Mistrust authority — promote decentralization.
 * Bureaucracies … are flawed systems, dangerous in that they cannot accommodate the exploratory impulse of true hackers. Bureaucrats hide behind arbitrary rules (as opposed to the logical algorithms by which machines and computer programs operate): they invoke those rules to consolidate power, and perceive the constructive impulse of hackers as a threat.
 * Hackers should be judged by their hacking, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race, or position.
 * You can create art and beauty on a computer.
 * Computers can change your life for the better
 * open email attachments and get a virus;
 * post obscene messages on the Internet;
 * commit fraud using someone else's identity;
 * share my address, phone number, password, and private fantasies with faceless creeps on the Internet;
 * violate copyright laws;
 * harass people by sending them threatening emails, chain letters, or pornographic URLs; and
 * hack into government computers and go to federal prison.
 * Educators' interest in checking the "raucous energy" of Internet experimentation yet supporting the inventiveness, diversity, and empowerment of hacking and expertise with computing.
 * A strange new dimension of the world where the traditional notion of the private diary is public for all the world to see.
 * Making copying and plagiarizing another's work easy to do, yet making detection more likely, hence, copyright and attribution compliance are spreading around the world.
 * Just as the virtual world has expanded the personal universe, it is contracting the physical world. It can connect the world while dividing the neighborhood.