|
Volume 3 Number 2 January
14, 2005 |
|
Political cybersquatting Do, or should, politicians operate by different
rules than the rest of us? Back in the early days of the Internet, some people tried to make a quick buck by cybersquatting -- registering the names of unsuspecting (and slow-to-act) companies and then trying to extort money from the companies in order to get their name back. At the time, this was generally considered unethical and in 1999 was made illegal. It's also against the law to register a domain name of a company and establish a site that criticizes the company. So, we seem to be clear on commercial cybersquatting. Less clear -- perhaps legally, but mostly ethically -- is whether politicians are free to engage in a similar practice. Let's imagine a politician -- I'll call him Elvin P. Bloggs -- who has held several important offices in a particular state and is rumored to be thinking of running for the U.S. Senate, although he claims he hasn't thought about it much and hasn't made any decisions. Bloggs is a member of the Alpha Party, and operatives in the Omega Party discover that Bloggs hasn't laid claim to any domain names that could be used to promote his candidacy. So, they rush out and register ElvinPBloggs.com, BloggsForSenate.com. ElvinBloggs2006.com, and any other dot-com name that he might use. They admit that they intend to use these to try to undermine his candidacy should he run. Bloggs complains, but the Omega people say that it's all part of the political game, that he was negligent in not registering these names himself, and that there are plenty of other options open to him, such as dot-info, dot-biz, dot-us domains using the same names. Let's take these defenses in reverse order. It's true that there are other domain extensions available to Bloggs, but it's also true that a significant number of people who try typing in his campaign site will mistakenly use the dot-com extension, bringing them to the Omega Party's sites. This is, of course why they have registered the dot-com extensions instead of the others. So, their defense is just a bit disingenuous. And yes, Bloggs should have registered his name the first minute that the thought of running crossed his mind. But that was error in prudence and really doesn't affect the ethical considerations. Also, from a practical point of view, registering those names makes him more visible as a candidate at a time when he might want to keep his options open, and so comes with a political liability. Once the media learn that you have registered domain names, you might as well just announce your candidacy. This means were left with the primary question: Is it all part of the political "game?" Is a practice that is considered unethical in business permitted in politics? I don't have a good answer for this, and console myself with the observation that I don't think anyone else does either. We seem to be all over the lot. Sometimes we seem to hold politicians -- and particularly candidates -- to a stringent standard, and at other time, we seem to take a "so-what" attitude when they do things we wouldn't tolerate from the local merchant. That's really interesting because an ethically challenged politician has the potential to do far more damage to us than an ethically challenged merchant. You could argue that this is something we should let the courts decide, but in Bloggs' case it might not be a satisfactory solution. It would be possible for either the Omega Party or an Omega-friendly judge to drag the proceedings out to the point where the question is moot. The decision might come too late to help Bloggs in 2006, although it might help future candidates. Even so, it still leaves us with the question of whether it's ethical. The easiest -- although probably not universally appreciated -- answer would be that politicians and political parties should be held to at least the same standards as businesses, if not a higher one, and that political cybersquatting is wrong. The main objection to that is
that traditionally political campaigns have been held to a much looser
standard. If politicians can't stretch the truth -- OK, lie -- slander their
opponents, and pull underhanded stunts, the political system, as we know it
in the Despite the moral relativism in that, let's take it at face value. Are political campaigns different and how does that affect Bloggs and what he's allowed to do to counter the pre-emptive strike by the Omegas? Normally, in business we frown -- both legally and ethically -- on such things as hacking and launching DOS (denial of service) attacks against competing Web sites. But since we've changed the rules for political campaigns, allowing them more latitude in how they conduct themselves, why wouldn't Bloggs be allowed to hack the Omega sites or launch a major DOS attack against their servers, bringing their entire operation to a halt? Legally, it might present a
challenge, but we're only considering the ethical implications. Besides,
Bloggs could conceivably outsource the project to an offshore location where
it no longer presents legal problem for him in the If anyone were to object on ethical grounds, Bloggs could use similar justifications to the ones proposed by the Omegas: they were negligent, or imprudent, in not setting up adequate protections to prevent the hacking or DOS attacks, there are still plenty of other outlets though which they can get their message out, and "politics operates by different rules." It would seem very unfair if the Omegas could sabotage Bloggs' campaign, but he couldn't retaliate in some way. I'm still uncomfortable with the "politics operates by different rules" argument, but I have a feeling I'm in the minority on that score. Why do we hold politicians, who affect every aspect of our lives, to different (and lower) standards of behavior than businesses that affect us in only limited ways? |
|
© Copyright 2005 Carlton Vogt |