The document discusses the importance of teaching cyber ethics to internet users, particularly students, emphasizing the need for responsible and ethical behavior online. It highlights case studies of unethical online behavior, such as anonymous ratings of teachers, and presents definitions and methods for teaching cyber ethics, including the creation of guidelines and school policies. Additionally, it critiques reliance on bans and filtering as sufficient solutions to teach online behavior, advocating for personal responsibility and understanding of consequences instead.

1. 1
Text to go with Cyber Ethics Presentation by Geoff Lowe
Slide1
Everyday, the Internet offers a lot of freedom, social interaction and many other possibilities.
Recent events, reported in the news media, suggest that now more than ever it is important to
ensure that Internet sites (such as rate my teachers) encourage ethical behaviour, and that users
behave ethically. In this presentation there will be a brief overview of some case studies suggesting
the need for cyber ethics. This will be followed by definitions of cyber ethics, discussions of who
needs to be ethical, how this should be taught to students, and alternatives to cyber ethics.
Slide 2
There have been a number of recent news stories about unethical uses of the internet (Kwek, 2011;
Wilkinson 2011; Atkin, 2011). Interestingly, in the case of the Facebook party that made the news
recently (Grubb, 2011) it has been argued that the girl was not to blame. She did not realise that
something could go wrong and it was someone else that made her invite go viral. Regardless of
whether or not this is true this suggests a need for cyber ethics to educate users as to what is
possible online and why they should protect their privacy.
The rate my teachers website is another example of unethical behaviour online. Last year, a
colleague informed me that I had been rated on this website. When I checked it out it was true.
Like many teachers that I have spoken to since, I was unaware that a website such as this even
existed. It allows anyone to anonymously enter a teacher’s name then rate that teacher and make
comments without permission, then immediately put that on Facebook. Anyone can do this without
the teacher ever knowing that this has happened. Contrary to the views of the designers of rate my
teacher this website arguably encourages unethical behaviour including a cycle of classroom
disruption and defamation. The Teacher Support Network (2010) advocates shutting down this
website.
Slide3
What is cyber ethics? One general definition of cyber ethics is that it is a code of behaviour for using
the Internet (Norton, 2007; the United States Department of Justice Computer Crime and
Intellectual Property Section, 2011). Norton (2007) and the United States Department of Justice
Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (2011) do not define this code in detail but they
do agree that, on one hand, it encourages acceptable, safe and responsible behaviour on the
Internet which is similar to that of everyday life, and on the other hand, discourages harmful and
illegal behaviour online.

2. 2
Slide 4
Bell (2002, p. 5) argues that exposing students to clear and understandable guidelines is important
and useful in enabling them to comprehend and comply with cyber ethics. The three “P” statements
are a good example of such guidelines. The first is Privacy – “I will protect my privacy and respect
the privacy of others”. The second is Property – “I will protect my property and respect the property
of others”. Thirdly, “I will use my technology in constructive ways and in ways which do not break
the rules of my family, church, school or government” (Bell, 2002, pp. 4-5).
Slide 5
Another definition of cyber ethics relies upon sets of rules; dos and don’ts. According to Endicott-
Popovsky (2009) “the ability to create a list of ‘DOs’ versus a list of ‘DON’Ts’ for using electronic
resources remains the teacher-librarian’s task as we try to facilitate use in safe and sane ways” (p.
29). Norton (2007) provides one example of a list of dos and don’ts. For example:
do use the Internet to help you do your schoolwork… Don’t copy information from the Internet and
call it your own… Do use the Internet to learn about music, video and games… Don’t use the
Internet to download or share copyrighted material.
The US Department of Justice (2002) also advocates using rules to define what is ethical and
unethical behaviour. For example,
DO use the Internet to meet children in other countries or to keep in touch with pen pals who live
far away in this country or other countries… DON'T give your password to anyone. Passwords are
intended to protect your computer and your files. It's like giving the key to your house away!
Slide 6
Who should exercise cyber ethics? The answer in the literature is exclusively Internet users
(Fredrick, 2010; United States Department of Justice Computer Crime and Intellectual Property
Section, 2011). This includes schools and parents on the behalf of children. One problem with this is
that it lets web designers and website owners off the hook. Clearly, a reason why users are able to
behave unethically on the internet is because web designers and website owners make this possible
and seemingly encourage it. In the case of the rate my teacher website a key assumption of the
owners is that students should be allowed to do online what they cannot do in public
(RateMyTeachers, 2010).
Slide 7
There are a number of ways that cyber ethics can be taught in schools. One ideal way is using case
studies (Endicott-Popovsky 2009, p. 30). This encourages students to reflect on and verbalise what is

3. 3
often regarded as anonymous, disembodied activity. Another way to teach cyber ethics in schools is
using Internet safety sites such as those mentioned earlier (see also, Fredrick, 2010). A third way is
using collaboration between teachers and a teacher Librarian to deliver classroom activities.
According to Bell (2002, p. 5), the librarian at York Junior High, in the USA, noticed how often
students were copying and using images without citing their sources. The librarian and two art
teachers decided to collaborate in order to increase student awareness of the principle of respect
for intellectual property and graphics. They created lessons and a project to provide a positive
alternative to copying images.
Slide 8
In the teaching of cyber ethics, Starr (2003) advocates the incorporation of cyber ethics into the
school and classroom culture. One way to do this is to create a written acceptable use policy to be
posted in the classroom. Endicott-Popovsky (2009, p. 31) agrees with Starr and adds that
development of an Internet use policy utilising collaboration between students, administrators,
teachers, parents and IT staff can ensure that all stakeholders are committed and involved in the
successful implementation. “Enforceable school policies can establish acceptable norms for online
behaviour and access.” (Endicott-Popovski, 2009, p. 31). Another way to incorporate cyber ethics
into the school and classroom culture, according to Starr (2003) is for teachers, administrators and
other school staff to ensure that they always model appropriate behaviour. “If we provide positive
images and effectively communicate ethical values in all areas of their lives, those values will be
reflected in the technological environment as well.” (Starr, 2003).
Slide 9
Two simple alternatives to the teaching of cyber ethics are bans and filtering (Starr, 2003). As
stated by Fredrick (2010, p. 35), a lot of time has been spent creating firewalls and filters for use on
school networks in order to block inappropriate material on the Internet. A 2009 report, funded by
the Commonwealth Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, shows that
86% of Australian schools block Facebook, 57% block YouTube, and 14% block Wikipedia (SMH,
2011, February 28). While keeping out the predators and blocking the bad stuff is an admirable
cause (Fredrick, 2010, p. 35) there have been a number of criticisms of bans and filtering. Frederick
(2010, p. 35) and Starr (2003) argue that bans and filtering does not give students an online compass
to govern their behaviour in the online world beyond school. Some educators argue that school
social-media bans are overkill and block access to a proliferation of quality education tools online
(SMH, 2011, February 28). There is evidence that some teachers and schools are fighting and by-
passing bans and filters and pushing for bans to be lifted (SMH, 2011, February 28).
Slide 10
As shown in this presentation there is clearly a need for students to be taught cyber ethics. While
there are alternatives to teaching cyber ethics to students these are not without their problems. As
suggested by a number of sources, a reason why unethical online behaviour occurs is because the
Internet tends to be seen as exempt from the norms and expectations of everyday life. It is an
unnatural and artificial place where anything can go. To ensure that designers and users behave
ethically it is important to draw parallels between the real and the electronic world. It is important

4. 4
to make direct comparisons between what students do on the Internet and how they behave in their
everyday lives; “call a spade, a spade”. That is, stealing is stealing, vilification is vilification, bad
things happen in the community and bad things can happen on the Internet.
Slide 11
Schwartau (2011) argues that
the law has no influence over those little voices in your head. What the voices tell you and
how you choose to behave is entirely up to you… just because something can be done does
not mean it should be done.
Nevertheless, the Commonwealth government has enacted laws that make cyber bullying illegal.
Schwartau (2011) states that “ethics is about understanding how your actions affect other people,
knowing what is right and wrong and taking personal responsibility for your actions - even if they are
legal”. For the sense of responsibility to be effective it requires clear consequences for unethical
behaviour.
The value of bans and filters is that they require that educators and parents know what students and
children are doing on the Internet. If one takes away prohibitions and emphasises the importance of
choice and consequences it is not guaranteed that some students or all students will behave
appropriately. This suggests a need for educators and parents to know what students, their sons
and daughters are doing online. Without bans or filters does this mean that parents and educators
need to rely on trust and honesty?