Introduction
Technological advances have contributed to several ethical concerns. These ethical concerns threatened to destroy the trust and responsibility among humanity. The consequences of these ethical concerns necessitated the establishment of several acts that would offer appropriate control and limitation in use and misuse of technology.
Thus, this analytical treatise attempts to explicitly review the advances in information technology that resulted in the establishment of new acts to control ethical concerns. The acts explored in this paper include the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000 and the Electronic Funds Transfer Act of 1978.
Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000
The use of the internet as a communication tool has developed tremendously in the last decade. Reflectively, it has grown to encompass the aspect of information exchange and the creation of cultures by special interest groups. Same as face-to-face communication, internet media can reverse a group’s view of life either positively or negatively.
If the content directed to an audience is demystifying, the final effect over some time is the same. Before the introduction of the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000, very little regulation existed on protecting the minor against exposure to explicit sexual or violent material via the internet. Pornography is an erotic representation material that is solely designed for instigating sexual arousal (Federal Communications Commission, 2010).
In the legal language, obscenity is an offensive act that interferes with morals and is unlimited, that may target the minors. On the other hand, adult pornography is has limited access to adults and may be in the form of magazines, erotic books, recordings, and films that have parental advisory messages indicating the age of viewers. Therefore, it was necessary to establish an act that would define the boundary of internet material users.
Through banning internet obscenity and pornography directed to minors, the Supreme Court endeavored to protect the moral of the society from decay as a result of unlimited explicit contents that may directly corrupt the minds of juveniles and other young irresponsible persons who may be easily swayed by what they see.
Thus, by banning, obscenity, the Supreme Court was reaffirming the rights of the society to protect its moral views and norms that would not arguer well its set limits of behavior since obscenity consists of materials that appeal to prurient interest and are utterly lacking redeeming the social value. Besides, these materials or acts are patently offensive since they affront community contemporary standards and valueless to the moral cycles of the societal building blocks (Federal Communications Commission, 2010).
The issue of decency was meant to protect minors from X rated content that would create fantasy, false judgment, and lead to a certain behavior that is not acceptable in society. Thus, the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000 was informed by the rising abuse of internet use freedom by decadent bodies that were disseminating explicit content through the internet to young people below the legal adult age bracket.
As a result, the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000 introduced criminal sanctions to a party or parties who knowingly “(A) uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person or persons under 18 years of age, or (B) uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner available to a person under 18 years of age, any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or organs” (Federal Communications Commission, 2010, p. 02).
Thus, the Children’s Internet Protection Act of 2000 was initiated to counter the rising cases of internet sources abuse directed to the minors. This act targeted restoration of morality and decency in the society and protection of the minors from inappropriate internet materials that are easily accessible just by a click of the button.
Electronic Funds Transfer Act of 1978
In contemporary society, internet transaction has grown rapidly into the most preferred means of transaction. Since internet transaction surpasses the boundaries of the judiciary, several critical issues arise. The first major challenge is formulating a balanced legal obligation that involves more than one law.
For instance, managing the geographical location of the agreement may prove challenging, especially when the same involves countries with different laws on the same. Besides, establishing universal acceptance formalities and verifiable content such as acceptance evidence and signatures are difficult to keep for future reference. Also, there are no clear laws regulating contract agreements for international internet transactions. Moreover, litigation and arbitration venue may not be defined (Lloyd, 2009).
Specifically, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act of 1978 was initiated following the technological development of electronic means of transferring funds. Among the methods that became possible through technological advancement include transfer through ATM, debit cards, among other automated bank withdrawals. Several instances of fraud were reported across the globe as many dishonest agencies and parties involved themselves in fraudulent activities in the course of transferring funds.
To minimize the unethical behavior, the act was introduced in 1978 as a means and a remedy of correcting and regulating errors in transactions done via electronic ways. Besides, the act was intended to provide a uniform platform for liability allocation and limiting losses as a result of loopholes in these forms of funds transfer such as stealing of cards, inconsistent recording, and general fraud (Lloyd, 2009).
Since the introduction of computers had reduced paper checks, which acted as the tangible evidence and legal tender for fund transfer, there was an urgent need for regulation. The electronic fund’s transfer explosion necessitated the need for a universality accepted standards that would accord customers with the same degree of confidence as was the case with the paper checks. The act generally provided a sixty days window for correction of any errors or canceled transfers without any serious losses.
The introduction of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act of 1978 provided an ideal ground for an accepted code of identification and comparative methods of acceptance, reception, and authorization of electronic devices used in the transfer of funds.
Through the disclosure requirement, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act of 1978 has made it very easy to follow up on the source of fund, the recipient and even the intermediary bank to ensure that the regulations on transfer of funds via electronic means are not abused. Also, the act provides for a mandatory 2-year window for safe storage of all documentation to ensure compliance to e-transfers (Lloyd, 2009).
Generally, the Electronic Funds Transfer Act of 1978 was introduced to minimize abuse of technology that made it possible for electronic funds transfer. The act regulates the actions of the senders, recipients, and intermediaries in the transaction cycle.
References
Federal Communications Commission, (2010). Children’s Internet Protection Act.
Lloyd, C. (2009). Electronic Funds Transfer Act. Web.