Virtual Ethics, Pt. 5: Virtual Communities and the Law

The use of advanced technology to conduct criminal activity is not a new trend. Each year cyber attacks become more sophisticated and use a wider variety of attack vectors. It should come as no surprise then that virtual worlds are targets for cyber criminal activity as well as vessels for cybercrime communication. In response to growing concerns about the role of virtual communities in the larger framework of cybercrime, legislative bodies and law enforcement officials have begun to see a need to oversee and regulate virtual world interactions.

The issue of responsibility for governing virtual worlds has implications on multiple levels. First, virtual worlds are not restricted to the same lines of jurisdiction as other, more traditional environments. By the very nature of their existence, virtual communities transcend the physical limitations of geography. For example, five Second Life residents occupying the same plot of simulated land, or sim, can be controlled by actual world residents located on five different continents. Governing acceptable behaviors and interactions between those five in terms of what actually constitutes illegal behavior cannot easily be worked out. If, for example, their interactions are sexual in nature, the problem arises of which jurisdiction’s laws should stand? In the United States, First Amendment protections allow “age-play,” or virtual sexual encounters with childlike avatars. Other countries may not share the same view on freedom of expression and thus may deem such activity illegal. Furthermore, one or more of the residents interacting in such a way may actually feel harassed or put off by such interactions. Boellstorff notes that, while “age-play” may not be a particularly uncommon occurrence in certain virtual circles, “for many residents virtual pedophilia [is] highly discomfiting, not least because in some jurisdictions even simulated sex with minors could be a crime” (Boellstorff 164). Even if simulated sex with minors is not illegal, concerns may arise about the kinds of individuals who would fancy such behavior and whether or not this victimless virtual behavior would or could translate to actual world behavior.

The second issue with governance is the gap between law and contract agreements. Most virtual worlds have contractual agreements between users and governing bodies, such as Linden Labs, the San Francisco-based creators and maintainers of Second Life. Users must agree to the terms of service, which typically dictate the kinds of behavior that is deemed “illegal.” Such behavior might be hacking, sexual and other forms of harassment, or threatening other players. Other rules may be irrelevant to anything outside of in-world activity, such as the building of certain types of virtual designs in restricted areas of sims in Second Life, thus typical laws would not apply. With regard to the breaking of virtual rules, "the imposition of punishment for the breach of internal rules exists in a difficult conceptual gap between criminal law and the predominantly compensatory remedies of contractual doctrine” (Suzor §1). Punishment for crimes, then, is determined by which side of the gap the crime falls into. Whether or not a crime is actual, virtual, or both must be determined before disciplinary action, should any be required, is enforced.

The last issue with governance is crime reporting. In the actual world, a victim, observer, or bystander typically has to report a violation or crime when one has occurred. Occasionally, a criminal may choose to turn himself in without law enforcement even being aware of a crime. However, the virtual world offers a unique tool for rule enforcement that is not present in the actual world, at least in most places: continuous activity monitoring and logging. Because the whole of a virtual environment’s existence is possible only through the use of computers, that existence can be logged and monitored. Granted the size of some worlds, such as Second Life or World of Warcraft, are so large, the task is no small order. Yet, the storage capacity of today’s servers is vast, and while the task of actually monitoring logs can be tedious, there are elements in place that can allow for automated scripts to seek out specific types of information. This ability is typically not afforded to law enforcement outside of electronic crime investigations.

The question remains, however, whether or not users would agree to continuous monitoring, even for security purposes. Because Internet users, at least those in the West, are accustomed to “freedom of information” and minimal censorship, many would choose a virtual option that does not track their activity over one that does. So, while the ability for continuous monitoring may exist, the acceptance of such a process would likely be quite small—even if it meant an increased sense of safety.

Perhaps the one area that most people would not argue against increasing legal protections is in crimes against children. Joan Shaughnessy points out that there is crossover between existing laws against child exploitation and the virtual sex act of age-play. She found that “in many states, an adult who engages in virtual sex with a child may be subject to prosecution,” and that in some other cases, “the law has criminalized sexual behavior aimed at children, even if no touching is involved” (Shaughnessy). Laws such as these can be used against virtual crimes against children or where children can be harmed, even emotionally. Despite the laws not being written specifically with virtual crimes in mind, they can be applied due to the actual world developmental effects that such activity can have on a child. Perhaps most important to note is that in virtual environments, sexual interaction between users is direct interaction, whereby users specify language and actions to a particular recipient, or multiple recipients. In summation, and with regard to crimes against children, Shaughessy notes that if such a recipient is a child, “the child has suffered from the very type of harm the criminal law intends to prevent” (Shaughnessy).

--------------------------

Boellstorff, Tom. 2008. Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Shaughnessy, Joan. “Protecting Virtual Playgrounds: Children, Law, and Play Online.” Washington & Lee Law Review, 66 Wash & Lee L. Rev. 995, Summer 2009, accessed April 28, 2012.

Suzor, Nicolas. “Order Supported by Law: The Enforcement of Rules in Online Communities.” Mercer Law Review, 63 Mercer L. Rev. 523, Winter 2012, accessed April 28, 2012.

Virtual Ethics, Pt. 4: Virtual Cause, Actual Effect

Note: I apologize for not posting in some time. I took a much needed vacation, which was immediately followed by an increased work load and a 4-hour class 4 nights a week. I'm hoping to be a little more consistent with posts going forward.
-----------------------------------------------------

While many participants in virtual communities seek to avoid the pressures of the actual world by escaping into virtual ones, there is no real assurance that crossover between the virtual and actual does not exist. In truth, the two could never fully be isolated. As was described in the David DiSalvo quote in a previous post, the brain cannot exclusively separate the two worlds, and thus, humans acting in virtual environment are inherently influenced by their actual world experiences, and vice versa. The same can be said of the various environments in which we find ourselves throughout our actual world experiences: experience gathered in one role in one environment can, and likely will, influence the roles we take on in other environments. For example, our work lives and our social lives are constantly impeded upon by each other: stress from work is brought home and directed at our spouse; family health problems impact our attitude in the workplace; a previous sexual assault incident increases discomfort with a touchy co-worker, etc. Similarly, undesirable actions against a virtual world participant while in their virtual environment, or involving their virtual environment, can manifest actual world effects.

The first thing to consider is the attachment that a person has to their avatar. The avatar is not simply a character that one plays in an unattached arcade game. The avatar is a representation of that person, or a part of that person. As Boellstorff experienced, avatars “were not just abstract anchors of virtual perspective; they were the modality through which residents experienced virtual selfhood” (Boellstorff 129). The interactions and experiences that people enjoyed while in Second Life were enjoyed through their avatars. Early on in their experience, the feelings may be more nurturing, such as with a parent-child or creator-creation relationship, but as involvement in the virtual community increases in volume and importance, the feelings can become more intimate and personal. In short, “people have a very proprietary feeling towards their image. What happens to it happens to them. What touches it, they feel…” (Boellstorff 127-128). As expected, then, when an avatar is abused or harassed, it is felt by the person who is controlling the avatar, if not on a physical level, then on an emotional one.

Julian Dibbell recalls one famous case in his essay “A Rape in Cyberspace,” available on his website and originally published in The Village Voice in 1993. The assault took place in a text-based virtual world known as LambdaMOO, where an avatar called Mr. Bungle used a malicious program to control the actions of other users, “forcing” them to perform sexual acts on him, themselves, and others (Dibbell 11-32). While it is difficult to draw physical similarities between real world and virtual world rape, it is not unlikely that users experienced real psychological and emotional trauma as a result of Mr. Bungle’s actions. Granted, this kind of activity is probably not very common, and when users do attempt to control others’ avatars, the governing bodies, such as Linden Labs, are likely quick to regulate such behavior. In reading Boellstorff’s descriptions of communities, however, it becomes clear that virtual sexual assault is not the only problem.

Sexual and other forms of verbal harassment are common problems. In virtual worlds, the term “griefing” is used to describe the act of disrupting other players’ in-world experience (Boellstorff 187). Griefing comes in many forms: harassment, homophobia, racism, misogyny, the above-described sexual assault and more. Because most, if not all, of these actions involve the use of language as a weapon, it is important to note that the use of language, both good and bad, does not, and by its nature, cannot stay in the virtual world. It transcends into the actual world lives of those who take it in. As Boellstorff notes, language “has always been virtual; it is thus a key element…that both constitutes and bridges the gap between virtual and actual” (Boellstorff 151). Thus, when a user comes across hate speech or homophobic slurs in virtual worlds, the psychological effects impact their actual psyche.

Unfortunately, there is no shortage of this kind of material in virtual worlds. Boellstorff explains that “one could find events like ‘Slave Auctions’ where residents could sell themselves into slavery” and that a user could come across the “construction of an ‘SS Training Camp’” (Boellstorff 146). The phenomenon is nothing new: Colin Beckles wrote of racism targeting black people on the Internet back in the late 90s in “Black Struggles in Cyberspace: Cyber-Segregation and Cyber-Nazis,” published in The Western Journal of Black Studies (1997). In terms of homophobia, Boellstorff claims that it “is far from unknown online (one study found over 80 percent of gamers encountering homophobic speech [Glover 2007]),” despite the existence of a “long tradition of cyber-libertarian tolerance” (Boellstorff 165). None of this is particularly surprising, given that race-, gender-, and sexual orientation-related crime and intolerance are rampant in the actual world, even in the West.

As the above information purports, the fundamental element of virtual world ethics is that there is a strong crossover to the actual world. Through the use of language, the attachment of a person to their avatar and the simple fact that our brains are not capable of discerning between what is virtually real and what is actually real, the link between the two worlds has been built and continues to be buttressed. Furthermore, the emotional connections between virtual world users and the psychological investments into in-world interactions may be more intense than the average actual world connection. “As one resident put it: ‘in real life, you get to know someone from the outside in, but in Second Life you get to know them from the inside out’” (Boellstorff 159). This reverse relationship-building encourages users to operate with their vulnerabilities exposed—a prime target for assailants.

-----------------------------------------------------

Dibbell, Julian. 1998. “A Rape in Cyberspace.” My Tiny Life: Crime and Passion in a Virtual World. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Beckles, Colin. “Black Struggles in Cyberspace: Cyber-Segregation and Cyber Nazis.” The Western Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, 1997, 12-19.

Virtual Ethics, Pt. 3: Defining Virtual Culture

Defining culture can be a daunting task for any individual. The word itself can conjure up a plethora of meanings and none of them are necessarily incorrect. For the purposes of this research, the accepted definition of culture used will be that which I have learned from my experience in the academic and professional worlds: the complete scope of learned human behavior. This definition is widely encompassing and includes all generally accepted cultures and subcultures as well as those that are a matter of debate. Virtual environments do embody a culture of their own and that culture, the collection of human behaviors learned and/or expressed solely in a particular virtual environment, is both specific to that environment and closely linked to similar virtual cultures.

In tune with my own regard of virtual culture, Boellstorff explains early in his monograph that virtual worlds are “places of human culture realized by computer programs through the internet” (Boellstorff 17). Reworded, virtual culture is simply human culture expressed in a different medium. In effect, virtual worlds are specific environments inhabited by persons and enabled by advanced technology. In this sense, they are not so different from other human environments that required advancements in technology to be habitable, such as those featuring extreme cold or lack of resources. After this view of virtual culture is accepted, the actuality of its existence as an equal and valid expression of human behavior can also be accepted. Likewise, just as one society’s culture should be regarded as separate from others and unique in its own right without being looked upon as inferior, the culture of virtual realities collectively and individually should be regarded no differently.

Culture is often viewed in terms of external expressions of human behavior, such as art, music, crafts, or religious ceremonies. While artistic expression of beliefs and customs surely exist in virtual environments, virtual culture as an extension, variation, or representation of human culture is not limited to merely external features. In his 2011 book on cognitive psychology, David DiSalvo, a writer on science and culture, posits that for role-playing of any kind to be successful, participants must feel empowered to assume a second, often far-removed identity. He states that the “appeal of living, in effect, another life, one that consumes the same cranial spaces as the one that requires breathing air and drinking water, cannot be separated” (DiSalvo 84-85). Furthermore, humans come fully equipped with a brain capable of housing multiple identities, complete with their own cultures of sort. For example, the way one behaves amongst friends and peers is markedly different from the way in which that same individual acts in the presence of parents and grandparents.

The culture of each environment dictates which identity is on display. There is no reason to believe that the virtual identities taken on by an individual should not influence behavior changes in the same fashion. Instead, the existence of a secondary identity in a virtual environment allows the brain to express behaviors that may only be acceptable in such an environment. While this is a separate culture, it is no less real than an actual world culture. While the human brain is an extraordinary organ, the near entirety of its evolution occurred during the millions of years before the invention of virtual technology and, thus, it cannot distinguish between virtual reality and actual reality. To the brain, either reality is as real as the other.

----------
Boellstorff, Tom. 2008. Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

DiSalvo, Daniel. 2011. What Makes the Brain Happy and Why You Should Do the Opposite. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books.

Virtual Ethics, Pt. 2: Coming of Age in Second Life

My research into virtual ethics does not intend to be scoped down to any one virtual environment in particular, but is focused more broadly at human ethics in virtual environments in general. Some of the same issues that have been dealt with at a state or federal level in the U.S. and other countries, such as the right to free speech or assembly, will be assessed in terms of virtual worlds. For example, according to the U.K. newspaper The Telegraph, use of the application Foursquare, which allows users to check in to various locations, has been prohibited in China since 2010 (Beaumont 2010). While no credible explanation for the censorship has been issued, it could be related to the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. China’s censorship laws differ greatly from those of other countries, such as Canada, Germany, and the U.S., and could influence the way Chinese and Chinese-American users interact in virtual worlds.

That said, it would be difficult to analyze and criticize virtual environments without experience in them. Commenting on specific communities without a real framework of how those communities operate further complicates research. To put it another way, to study a particular culture one must enter into that culture and engage in active participation. When dealing with virtual environments, it can be logistically simpler and more cost effective to perform such observations.

As with any ethnographic research, complete immersion in the environment under study is required to gain a comprehensive understanding of the subjects. This is no different than studying virtual communities. However, due to the length and scope of the project, little time has been and will be spent in a specific virtual environment. Instead, a deep and intensive review of Tom Boellstorff’s Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores the Virtually Human (2008) has been essential in understanding this arena. While Boellstorff’s research was not focused on ethics or legal issues in Second Life, his book describes many of the common interactions between users, through their avatars, and the wide variety of experiences one can have in this particular virtual environment, including interacting with less-than-desirable individuals.

The virtual world Second Life should be of particular interest to anthropologists, policy makers, and law enforcement personnel because of the sharp divide between a solely virtual construct and reality. While some crossover does occur, such as through the virtual assembly of people with a particular actual world interest or virtual political endorsements for actual world candidates, many aspects of the virtual environments remain entirely within themselves. Most Second Life relationships do not have an actual world crossover. The relationships that develop between individuals and groups may never have an actual world component, despite the fact that any two people who interact in a virtual world could live within a relatively close proximity to one another - or as fans of the The Guild may recognize, despite one member's tenacity to show up in the hometown of another player.

Furthermore, virtual selves, represented by avatars, can be representative of a user’s actual world appearance, but do not have to be. Because avatars are not required to be a virtual doppelganger of the user, many users choose avatars of a different sex, ethnicity, body size and shape, or even species. In some instances, users may feel that the avatars are a better representative of their true self. In others, users may just create avatars different from themselves for the sake of being different. In either case, the use of virtual representations of themselves may give some users license to act in ways that are not typical of their actual world selves. They may speak more candidly, perhaps using more racist or otherwise vulgar speech, or behave in a way that is antagonistic. Boellstorff found this exact phenomenon in his research: “the actual world is more characterized by ‘role-playing’ than virtual worlds, where one’s self is open to greater self-fashioning and can be more assertive” (Boellstorff 121). In essence, the guise of anonymity may encourage some users to act unabashedly, boldly, or even unethically.

Part 3, which addresses crossover between virtual and actual world culture, is coming soon. --Randy

Virtual Ethics, Pt. 1: The Virtual World

The Virtual World

What makes a person a human is a matter of debate. People of varying religious conviction may argue that to be human is to be one of their god’s most marvelous creations. A geneticist would likely take the view that a specific set of instructions coded into the DNA distinguishes a human from other creatures. Anthropologists can identify with any one or a combination of many stances: the capacity for language; cultural identity; the presence of an ideological perspective; the use of tools; biochemical composition; etc. Regardless of which definition of human is acceptable to different people, many shared characteristics of humans are easy to agree upon. For example, the capacity for verbal and written language is recognized in all human cultures. Another trait that humans share, and one that is arguably tied to language, is the ability to create conscious thoughts - to imagine, if you will. Humans have an incredible capacity for imagination. As a long history of art, music, literature, and similar mediums lays testament to, we can escape the physical world by imagining a different - perhaps better - one.

Danish physicist Neils Bohr is rumored to have commented on the rapidly changing nature of technology, recognizing that advancements in technology grow exponentially as technology advances. In essence, he acknowledged that technology at any point in history will have advanced more in the preceding three decades than as a whole in the previous thousand years. Considering that he lived between 1885 and 1962, this statement is perhaps the understatement of the 20th Century. Since the invention of the personal home computer in the mid-1970s, more than a decade after Bohr’s death, technology has grown at such an exponential rate that policy writers, law makers, and the general consumer public have difficulty keeping up. In less than 30 years, the computer evolved from a large kit with no graphical user interface, put together by the buyer, to packaged deals with command line interfaces to hand-held and extremely portable devices with enormous processing power and advanced graphics. To put it into perspective, today’s cellular telephones have more computing power than any of the primary systems that composed the U.S. space program during the Apollo missions[1]. Mirroring vast improvements in electronic hardware, software developers have pushed the limits of the types of data that computers can take in, process, and render back to the user.

It should come as no surprise then that people use technology as another form of imaginative escapism. Just like books, movies, theater, and other forms of art allow us to ‘escape’ our physical state, or take us out of the moment, technology allows the same through a variety of mechanisms: long-distance written or oral communication; video chats; virtual reality; games; etc. In the last several years, many virtual communities have surfaced which allow people to escape the pressures of the actual world through chat rooms, forums, message boards, social networks, and more encompassing environments, such as Second Life, Active Worlds, and World of Warcraft.

Due to advancements in and the increasing popularity of personal technology, more people are finding themselves involved to some degree in a virtual community. The mere presence of virtual worlds, including social networks, the seemingly constant introduction of new virtual communities, and the continuous upgrades and improvements to those that already exist are evidence of the importance of these domains. As a result, many of the same questions and concerns that interest anthropologists apply to virtual communities.

With that in mind, an examination of human virtual interaction is as telling in terms of moral and ethical interactions as any other human interaction. Thus, I shall conduct an exploration of virtual ethics, broadly scoped, with an emphasis on associated legal customs. In terms of typical human relations, behavior seen as unethical or immoral should have the same effect on an individual whether such behavior is conducted in the actual world or the virtual world. In essence, because any communication between humans is a real interaction, generally accepted ethics should apply.

Part 2 coming shortly. Stay tuned. --Randy 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] See http://ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/vs-mit-apollo-guidance.html for Apollo Guidance Computer architecture and specifications.