Dell Financial Services: Please Hold for Further Harassment

"This is Dell Financial Services. Thank you for your patience. I will be with you momentarily."

For several months now, I have been the object of attention of a notorious gang of highway bandits that goes by the name of Dell Financial Services. This firm, an arm of Dell Computer, "facilitates customer financing of products and services sold by Dell through consumer and small business revolving loans and fixed-term business loan and lease financings in the U.S.", according to their web site. In other words, they extend credit to buy Dell computers. It stands to reason, then, that I must either be an outstanding potential marketing opportunity for them (perhaps I need to set up a data center in my walk-in?) or that I owe them large amounts of money (my own personal dot-com bust?). Why else would they be calling me 10-20 times a day, on two different lines?

The problem is, I have no thought, actually, of setting up a data center. Nor have I ever taken a loan to buy anything from Dell. Nor will I ever buy anything from Dell, even if they are the last computer company on earth. The one thing I ever bought from Dell was a computer, several years ago, which I finally managed to return. It was, at the time, a pretty high-end PC, with a brand new Turtle Beach sound card to fulfill my aural fantasies. The computer failed to boot about one out of three times. Every night I was on the phone with Dell technicians, who took me through a dizzying array of built-in troubleshooting utilities and had me do everything from rebooting to opening up the box and checking wires. After spending what I considered to be a ridiculous amount of time with perhaps four or five technicians, I asked them to honor their putative on-site service contract and take care of the problem. Many phone calls and complaints later, they finally agreed to send someone. He came when I was not home (my wife let him in), replaced the hard drive (which I had repeatedly told them was not the problem) and left. When I came home and turned it on, the system failed to boot. It was not the on-site guy's job to check out the system, I was told, just to install the drive. Actually the drive worked okay, but the problem was the same as before.

After weeks of these shenanigans I asked Dell to replace the computer. No, they insisted, we are known for service, and we would not dream of withdrawing that support. Our highly rated technicians are more than happy to spend hours and hours with you on the phone. Finally, after going through endless, useless reboots and technical routines which they frankly would not have had a prayer of getting a non-technical user to do, I demanded my money back. Oh no, says Dell, we can't do that, it's beyond the two week return period! So, a few days before the end of the 60 day period in which you can challenge a credit card charge, I called my credit card customer service line and protested Dell's charge. Now, I am not going to become a cheerleader for credit card companies, but to their credit (lol) they actually forced Dell to take the computer back and give me a full refund.

Last note, before I get to the present situation. Before contacting Dell's illustrious technicians I had set the BIOS to display the boot-up sequence, and I knew full well that the system often hung after loading the sound card drivers. This fact was conveyed to Dell's highly rated service group from the beginning. Nevertheless, I was assured that this had nothing to do with the problem. Just before Dell agreed (under pressure) to accept the computer back I found a review of the Turtle Beach sound card online. The guy who wrote the review, which was several pages in length, must have been one of the world's leading experts in sound cards, because he knew stuff about them that only a sophisticated acoustic engineer could know. And he mentioned that he had had exactly the problem I was having at first, and had downloaded an updated driver that solved the problem. So I did the same, and booted the PC about 20 times without an error. Be that as it may, I was so furious with Dell by that point that I decided never to deal with them again, and returned the PC anyway. (Sad to say, the Micron system that replaced it wasn't much better - I still have it, and it still tends to freeze in hot humid weather.)

There is a point here that is not irrelevant to my present issue. Dell built their reputation largely on getting top ratings for service from PC Magazine and its readers. Perhaps it says something about these kinds of ratings - they don't dig deep enough, and lack the ability to discern the superficially good from the really good. That Dell support was available to me is beyond dispute. That "support" of this sort was in my interest, or that of any consumer, is another story. After a couple of hours on the phone, if a system won't boot normally, the normal reaction should be: "Here's an RMA #, please send it back and we'll ship a new one." There is absolutely no justification for keeping a customer on the phone every night for days on end, and forcing them to run all kinds of tests, to solve a problem that should not be there in the first place. Dell did not ship a working system; that was their problem, and however they decided to fix it, they had no right to utilize excessive amounts of my time in doing so. Obviously, Dell likes to put on a user-friendly face, but has no issue with intruding themselves in an extremely annoying way into the lives of their customers.

Turn the page. It is five years later. I pick up my home phone, and get what I recognize as a junk call. The telltale sign: you say "Hello", and then you hear nothing for a second or two, until someone says, "Hello, am I speaking with...?" I usually hang up before that voice comes on. But this goes on for several days, until I get quite annoyed, and wait for the voice to see who it is. Now I hear, with those recognizable trained-actor intonations, "This is Dell Financial Services. Please hold..." Excuse me? You're calling to sell me some garbage and you want me to hold? Is this a joke?" I hang up. Days more, and the calls increase. They are coming at 8:00 a.m., in the evening, on weekends - I normally screen my home phone calls, but this is getting very annoying. Finally I decide, if I can end this by answering one call, I'll do it. So I answer. To my surprise, the person on the other end asks for a name I do not recognize. I tell them there is no such person here, and that if they call me again I will report them to the FCC. And perhaps I utter an expletive or two. The Indian voice on the other end informs me that "This will not solve the problem." I hang up.

The calls continue. In fact, several days later, I begin to get calls on my cell phone from a number I do not recognize: 908-854-1973. It turns out to be the same company. I recall that a long time ago, when I recorded my home phone message, I put my cell phone number on it for people who wanted to reach me right away. The company had finally gotten a human being to call my number, who did what a calling robot cannot do: recognize another number in the message.

Go ahead and Google 908-854-1973. You Google most phone numbers and what do you get? For public numbers, you get a listing; for cell or unlisted numbers you get maybe one or two direct hits, and then some partial stuff, or maybe nothing. For 908-854-1973 you get three pages of direct hits, almost all of them complaint forms: this one, for instance. Not only that, try Googling Dell Financial Services. You get not only their web site, but this page of users threatening a class action suit against DFS for harassment of consumers who aver that they do not owe Dell a penny or are being unfairly asked to pay extremely high interest rates that they did not agree to. Indeed, some of these people complain of "threatening phone calls day and night", "someone in India that was rude and kept talking around the issue", and the like. There appear to be few dozen people who want to sign on to this suit, most of them complaining either about telephone harassement, or incompetent accounting practices, or bills and hardware sent to the wrong address, resulting in demands for immediate repayment or usurious interest rates. One person points to a previous lawauit against DFS. Perhaps it is no surprise, then, that Dell has put DFS up for sale, and has already received bids. The only question is whether the bidders are aware of not only the potential class action liabilities, but the fact that DFS is involved with a company called CIT that is being hit hard by the subprime mortgage mess.

What appears to be going on, then, is that Dell has a troubled lending unit that is attempting to protect its shaky financial situation by hitting individual consumers, who can least defend themselves, as hard as possible for every penny. Their own accounting practices appear to be very lax. They have employed call centers, onshore or offshore, largely staff by persons of Indian background, who are trained to threaten and harass Dell's U.S. customers, employ calling robots that dial phones day and night. DFS apparently does not keep accurate records of their accounts, and has been the subject of lawsuits and possibly a future class action suit. This is the financing arm of the same company that, as I said, built its reputation on its alleged superiority in customer service!

What is wrong with this picture? Everything. But at bottom, the problem is our own notion of business ethics and what we allow technology companies to get away with. First, I tried calling Verizon and Verizon Wireless, and asked if they could block these harassment calls. No, we don't do that, they said. Why not? They should be required to do that. No one should be subjected to this kind of abuse without having a simple remedy. All phone companies should be responsible for following up and dealing with telephone harassment. This is a no-brainer. ISP's should be responsible for blocking spam; very simple algorithms could get rid of 90% of it, by targetting the servers that forward it. These companies (including Verizon) are making $billions off of their customers, but our lax model of business ethics lets them watch as their networks are used for illicit purposes. Napster can be taken down for allowing users to share files, though Napster itself did not engage in any illegal activity; but Verizon can pass along the most insidious crap without penalty. It is appalling.

Second, back to my earlier problem, computer hardware and software companies have to be responsible for shipping products that work, or for getting them working without undue effort on the part of the user. This is obvious and indisputable, yet it is a principle that is basically ignored in the regulation of U.S. technology businesses. I am not, of course, underestimating the level of sophistication involved in producing even an ordinary laptop or word processor. But that is not the issue. The technology issues are handled hierarchically, at each level of manufacture, so that by the time Dell or any other company snaps together its PC's, they do not have to be responsible for what happened in the clean rooms where the chips or disks were manufactured. If they send me something that does not work, they are tacitly stating that they are confident enough in the technology to sell it to me. If it does not work as it should, they have to do something about it. To the extent that it helps me to avoid shipping things back and forth I am happy to sit in front of a screen and try a couple of things; and when it is no longer in my interest, it should be their problem to deal with. And this goes for software too; but that is such a long discussion it needs its own post.

Third, we have a cheap labor issue, and the Indian subcontractors are being exploited just as much as we are. It is not cost effective to pay top dollar to people who are supposed to collect money, since collection is by nature an uncertain enterprise. So you look for the most cost efficient way of doing that, and perhaps you pay for the service on a commission basis. In any case, the subcontractor is given an interest in producing results, and if they are willing to engage in practices that would be considered unethical by our normal social standards, like calling people constantly, at odd hours, and taking their cell numbers off voicemail messages, then the company (Dell, in this case) is insulated from the charge of unethical practices while reaping the benefits. Of course, by exploiting cheap Indian labor for this purpose, U.S. private enterprise also helps cause enmities among the people who are all victims of this system. Some of the perpetrators are indeed Indian - the Indian businessmen who are greedy enough to agree to do Dell's dirty work. But the people we talk to on the phone are just hungry grunts who are not trained in customer service or to act professionally; indeed doing so could probably cost them their jobs. They are the frontline soldiers who are supposed to do the dirty work while absorbing all the verbal abuse that their irate victims give them. The ultimate responsibility lies with our own government and legal system: its lax communication laws, and lax regulation of collection practices. Secondarily, with Dell and their competitors, who are never satisfied with the $billions they make and always need to exploit every opportunity for increasing their relatively thin margins. Third, with the exploitative subcontractors in India or elsewhere who act like they are training attack dogs and feel immune to basic ethical standards that are at least sometimes observed by similar U.S. companies.

And fourh, with us, for putting up with this garbage over and over again, year after year, election after election. As political interest groups go, technology users must be one of the largest there is. Yet which one of the candidates has offered anything remotely resembling a comprehensive platform for technology policy (or finance policy, in spite of the mess we're now in) - from acceptable uses of bioletric identification to responsibility for post-sale consumer support, from telephone harassment to 30% financing rates for PC purchases? Nobody, and no one but a few small privacy and technology user groups is demanding that they do. That is a travesty. Nearly every single person in the U.S. has an interest in proper regulation of technology, but we don't raise our voices about this. So it will be the case that we have to put up with shoddy products and unethical practices, until we get serious about cases like Dell Financial Services.

Finally, I have a personal moral dilemma. I recently discovered that the person Dell is trying to reach is someone who lives in my building. I actually have a contact number for him, though I've met him only once and never tried using it. There is a good possibility that this individual intentionally gave Dell my number; perhaps he owes them money and wanted to throw them off. Should I get Dell of my back, and give this individual what he probably deserves? It is tempting. So far, I have not. (Indeed, the few times I have answered the cell phone calls, the party on the other end terminates the call after putting me on hold, so I cannot even give them information it I want to.) Between the corporate abuse practiced by Dell and its partners, and the unethical action by an individual with whom I am slightly acquainted, I find the former by far the more obnoxious, and do not want to further their cause. They may have a problem I can help them with, but I do not wish to do so, because they do not deserve to have their techniques legitimized. And I trust that eventually, some lawyer or state attorney general or other entity will put a stop to DFS and their practices; or, as an act of poetic justice, they may just go under. That would warm my heart a bit, but it would be better to fix what is broken in both technology and financial policy in this country. As for my dubious friend in the building, he will get his comeuppance too. This kind of person does not need assistance to get himself in trouble. Then again, assisting him might be a worthy act nonetheless.

Like Most Know-It-Alls, He Doesn't Know What He Doesn't Know

"Some Brand-Name Bloggers Say Stress of Posting is a Hazard to Their Health" reads one headline. "In Web World of 24/7 Stress, Writers Blog Till They Drop", warns another. Not here, babe - I post when I have the time, to three separate blogs. And I don't have the time when I'm doing my taxes, dealing with my kids, or preparing to speak at philosophy conferences. Not to mention grabbing some R&R on the Monterey coast. Which is what I've been up to lately, in more or less reverse order, so there you go. The stress-free blogger. It won't make me rich on advertising links, but neither will having a nervous breakdown.

Then again, I do want to post more frequently than I have since I started this blog, mainly because I have this nagging feeling that the subject is actually important. Maybe not quite up there with famine or terrorism, but significant to people's lives. So at first glance it is rewarding to see that some stalwarts of the technology literati have been running a column on matters ethical. Sort of. I refer, of course, to WIRED, that low-tech vehicle for high-tech advertising, pop science sound bytes, technopop culture and occasional light porn. Sometimes they also print some stuff about digital technology (most of it wireless, but whatever).

WIRED has offered some key articles on information ethics in its time, standouts for me include John Perry Barlow's famous piece on digital patent and copyright issues, and the exposure of clandestine biometric imaging practiced at the 2001 Tampa Superbowl. But their more recent descent into yuppie lifestyle reporting and geek fantasy entertainment is, as they put it, tired, if not expired, IMHO. This rag has definitely lost direction, or found a direction that is so vapid it seems quite lost - doing superficial pieces on genetic research and cognitive science like some Omni-wannabe, or lauding their favorite films and rock groups, often without even giving lip service to things like innovative uses of digital technology in the popular arts. They could do a whole magazine on that but it might make people think they really are geeks, and distract from the cool-to-be-techno image they are trying to uphold. Nine Inch Nails, Joy Division and Radiohead... er, that is, Blade Runner, Donnie Darko and Manga. Sheesh. How did they miss Smash Bros Brawl? Oh, by getting it on with Halo 3. Is this supposed to be an encyclopedia of pop iconography or a technology magazine with something resembling a social conscience?

How reassuring to see that they actually have an ethics column. Sort of. God forbid WIRED should ever hire me as editor in chief, I'd put in a "lifestyle" column and say "you're welcome, and the rest of the issue is about technology and real life". But at least it is something of an attempt to address an important question or two. Something - but what, exactly? What is an ethics column doing with a byline like "Mr. Know-It-All"? That self-deprecating title reads like an indication that the current WIRED editors get agita every time they feel compelled to print anything that might be thought of as socially significant. Somebody might think we're preaching to them; better let them know we don't take ourselves too seriously. "Mr. Know-It-All" indeed! Anyway, let's look at the column on its own merits and then decide whether to go wiredless.

"Mr Know-It-All" is the sort of question-and-answer type column that began (to my knowledge) with Ann Landers-type personal advice columns. Several years ago the New York Times handed a byline to Randy Cohen as "The Ethicist". This was something like the equivalent of giving Dick Cavett a byline as "The Art Critic", as Cohen was mainly known previously as a copy writer for t.v. jokesters like Letterman and Rosie O'Donnell, according to his Wikipedia entry. It used to be written by Clive Thompson, about whom I Know-Nothing (though someone by that name who writes on technology and culture runs this bloggy web site). But now Brendan I. Koerner is Mr. Know-It-All. Like Cohen, he is a somewhat known a quantity. He contributes stuff to Slate and The New York Times (including the Magazine section; so, no stranger to Cohen's column, I daresay) - an eclectic output roughly along the lines of "new technology" or "new ideas".

It is notable, if not quite disturbing, that Koerner is also a member of the so-called New America Foundation, a slightly fuzzy thinktank that includes such not-so-fuzzy Reagan/Bush conservatives as Frances Fukayama and Christine Todd Whitman. (Just as it is notable, if not quite disturbing, that WIRED editor Chris Anderson did a stint at the basically conservative journal The Economist.) Does this mean WIRED is giving an ethics podium to some quietly right-wing ideologue? Not necessarily; NAF is politically diverse, allegedly "non-partisan", "radically centrist", perhaps vaguely environmentalist. I do wonder, though, what any progressive individual might hope to accomplish in this menagerie; which leads me in turn to wonder whether Koerner is not basically a conservative with a soapbox in the form of a geek-chic pop science venue.

So what does Koerner have to say? Rather than going back through a year or so of columns I'll just start with his entry as Mr. Know-It-All in last month's issue (April 08), "Juicing on the Job". A reader (I'll take it to be a male) writes that a coworker is making him look bad by "using unprescribed modafinil to work crazy hours". The boss wants him to keep up. Should he report the drug use, or maybe do the same? According to Koerner, both of these would be the wrong move. No argument from me there. As for practical advice, Koerner has some good ideas (talk to the guy first), some bad ones ("consider dropping some background information on modafinil in your boss's inbox" - without telling him why?) and some slightly idealistic ones (think about whether you really want to be in this cutthroat company. Maybe get a nice low pressure job working for the Post Office?)

But what is really the ethical problem here? First, let's get rid of "unprescribed" - how the hell does the reader know that the modfinil is "unprescribed"? The coworker is obviously not his best friend, so we can't take the qualifier "unprescribed" as known information. This puts things in a different light. We don't have an ethical issue with a person who is working his butt off and is taking some medication he may actually need. (Modanifil is not really a stimulant, from what I read, but a drug that increases wakefulness and attention for people who have a tendency to nod off during the day. Hmmm, gotta talk to my doctor about this...)

On the other hand, does this company have any standard for the work hours to which people can be held accountable? Nobody signs an employment contract to be a 24x7 slave. If your hours are effectively unlimited then you'd better be making enough money to quit at some point and live on the Riviera for a year or two. Maybe it's time. If not, the ethical problem here looks to be with the employer who expects everyone to keep up with the most insanely driven overachiever; the coworker is not at fault for anything, really. Suppose the coworker was pulling your leg; he is not actually taking any drugs at all, he is just a workaholic who needs little sleep and wants to get ahead. What's the problem? The problem is your greedy boss, who figures he'll use this as a standard that was not really established when you accepted the position. Changing the rules mid-game, or just not publicizing them at all, is an ethical problem - it's called unfairness. Finding the source of the problem does not mean it is easy to solve, but it at least gets us clear on how to judge people, and ourselves.

Let's move on. Another reader asks the important question whether it is alright to use his laptop while sitting at a bar. Koerner and I agree that in one sense at least, it is not alright - for even if isopropyl alcohol swabs may be good for cleaning your keyboard, grain alcohol spills are not. But said reader is being given the evil eye by the bartender. Should he tell the bartender to take a flying leap at a Rolling Rock? Koerner quotes a guy in Oregon who blogs about bartending to the effect that the bartender should not have an issue with it. So, who am I to argue with such expertise? But picture that your job is to run around all night planting pints of pilsner and drippy daiquiries from one end of this polished wood surface to the other - do you really want to have to worry that you, or a patron, are going to spray some guy's $4000 notebook with sticky strawberry liqueur, and watch him start screaming for a manager? Come on. If you're at the bar to find a hot date, put the cpu back in the bag if you know what's good for you; and if not, go get a table and order some nachos. The bartender has enough to worry about without dancing around your laptop.

In the current (May 2008) issue, a concerned parent asks if it is bad for her 1 month old son to be held while she is watching t.v. Mr KIA (no relation to the car) treats this as a scientific question (no, it probably won't harm him) but then suggests that the real issue is not to use the t.v. as babysitter. Which Mr. KML (that's knows-much-less, yours truly) has certainly never done. This week. (But smoking pot in the 70's depleted my short-term memory cells, and they still haven't grown back - as far as I can recall.) Of course our columnist could have sent the lady a polite note that "you are factually misinformed about the risks, so this is not a topic for a KIA column, thanks anyway". Or he could have asked why the woman doesn't just put the little thing on her shoulder, facing away from the t.v., or cradle it in her arms looking up - the most natural positions anyway. But if there is an ethical issue here, isn't it really this: supposing that there is reliable evidence that having a tot in front of the t.v. causes it harm, is it okay to do it anyway if you really want to watch the show and hold the tot? And you don't need a know-it-all to answer that, just a little common sense.

Now this one I have to quote: "Am I obligated to share my laptop password with my wife?" Let's spend some time on this, as it is really a very significant question in contemporary culture. Mr. KIA quite reasonably points out that marriage does not eliminate a right to privacy, but it does imply trust. Trust is the issue, but the sound byte format is not sufficient for dealing with the question. You could deal with the practical side of it very quickly. For example: "No, you don't have to show her your password; or the code for your bank card; what's in your will; or the amounts or beneficiaries on your insurance policies. Then again, there are some private things she doesn't have to show you either." There's a practical answer. It just avoids morality altogether (or introduces a negative moral sentiment: revenge).

Koerner suggests a mutual agreement to keep certain folders off limits. This unanalyzed suggestion is a good example of why moral analysis is a lot more complex than it seems. No one has asked, so far, whether the wife has a computer of her own to use; whether there has been any breach of trust in the relationship already; whether you have any independent reasons to password- protect your computer; or even what level of computer users you both are. Lets go through the ramifications and see where we end up.

1. Suppose your wife wants access to the laptop for purely practical reasons, to use some picture editor you have, or check the family budget spreadsheet you set up. And suppose further that neither of you has any reason to distrust the other, and you both already respect one another's privacy. Then the following questions arise:

a. Why do you need a password at all? Is it to protect it from someone else's prying eyes? Then give her the password, period. I have never password protected my computer at home. Even if there were times when I was not a model husband I would rather keep computer content as innocent as possible and explain any apparent indiscretions than tell her, "sorry honey, off limits".

b. Does she have a computer to use? If so, why does she want your password? If she wants content or functionality that can be transferred to hers, that is what she should be asking for.

c. If she doesn't have one, maybe she should be asking for that; or, assuming again that she has no reason to question your intentions in having a private password, why doesn't she ask you to sign her on?

d. Maybe you're not home, and she needs access right away. Fine, you can give her the password, and change it later. She should not even know that you did if she doesn't require ongoing access. If she does, see c. above. And if she needs to use it only occasionally, then you can explain that you change your password every once in a while for general security purposes, and she can have it any time she wants, but she shouldn't expect to just get in any time without telling you.

2. If your wife complains about any of these arrangements, then perhaps she has some other agenda and is just using this as an excuse to check up on you. Then, as Koerner says, there may be other problems in the marriage. Let's assume, then, that there has already been a breach of trust, and further, that you both know that she feels there has. Again there are various possible angles:

a. If she mistrusts you, then telling her, "okay, but don't go to this folder" will only increase the mistrust. It is no different, really from saying, "here, use this other computer I have, but don't go to this one". Once the trust is broken, it is not limited by folders.

b. Has the breach of trust been acknowledged by both sides? Suppose she correctly suspects you of something dishonest but you have not admitted it. Your password protection is just a bandaid to keep you out of trouble. But suppose you break down and give her access, but tell her "just don't go to My Documents/Cindy"; what good will that do? She already mistrusts you, and you already know that, so what reason do you have to think she'll stay out of /Cindy? She is probably using the password issue to see if your reaction confirms her suspicions.

c. There may be a difference in the level of expertise that significantly affects your negotiations. Suppose you each have computers, but you are basically a Word, Excel and Picasa user and she is a UNIX guru with Brainbench certification in network security. You might feel that even if there were some compromising stuff on her system, she could easily hide it so that with your superficial computer skills you wouldn't have a prayer of finding anything. Whereas your system is an open book to her. Not fair, you say - my password is virtually the only level of privacy I have, whereas you have privacy by virtue of my lack of expertise. Of course, this will lead to an argument: "You have no reason to suspect me, but I have a reason to suspect you!" Maybe - but that's today. The situation could be reversed in the future and you would not have the recourse she has. This will not solve the problem of trust, but it might be a legitimate reason to deny her access anyway. And if the skills are reversed, her getting access to your system might be reasonable, but pretty useless. Unless you are a complete dunderhead.

d. If you both agree that you have deceived her, then at least one issue is settled, and she does not need access to your PC to prove it. But there is still a problem. If you did it once, will you do it again? And how far do her legitimate rights to monitor your activities extend? Is this going to be a Charles and Camilla type affair? How can she know? You've been dishonest, why should she believe you when you say it's over, or that it's the last time? The truth is, though, checking your laptop periodically is not going to solve anything. Unless, as I say, you're a complete dunderhead (or you are trying to end your marriage, which is perhaps a hidden motivation here). Because you will simply arrange your next indiscretion to take place without office automation support. Perhaps she wants to check your cell phone messages too? Maybe you should let her, if you have nothing to hide anymore. Maybe she'll even shadow you after work. After a relatively short time, all the checking she can possibly do will get to be so tedious and time-consuming that she will realize she either has to trust you or dump you. And then the question of whether she has or doesn't have your password becomes moot.

e. Assuming she does have a right to check up on you from time to time, there is still the question of whether you are to be informed of it, and how. You are not, after all, a member of an international spy ring, or a suspected serial killer. You presumably have some kind of right to know you are being monitored. A woman I was once in a relationship with decided at some point see if she could do a little better on Match.com. When I found out I was devastated. She shut down her page and her search immediately and swore it was over. Nevertheless, I checked her laptop and her cell phone for several months after this incident. Often I did it right in front of her, and I told her I intended to do it. I reported to her anything that I found that I thought was suspicious and gave her a chance to explain it. After a few months it was clear that she really did not have any inclination to do this again, and the matter was over. If your wife is going to monitor your devices, you have a right to know about it. Maybe this alone will be enough to discourage the behavior and everyone will be happier for it. In any case, there have to be some limits, and you have to know what they are, or else the whole concept of a relationship built on trust is just gone.

Koerner's suggestion of keeping some folders off limits clearly underplays the difficulties involved in evaluating the situation. One other thing I should mention about his responses - most of them appeal, in good journalistic fashion, to an opinion uttered by some expert he gave a shout to. It raises the question of whether Mr. Know-It-All really knows even as much as what's contained in these short-answer quizzes.

But my ultimate point is not really about Koerner, but about WIRED's approach to computer ethics. InformatiomWeek, a far more staid and "uncool" IT industry magazine, often carries serious articles on ethical issues in technology. WIRED seems to fear that their audience of IT enthusiasts lacks sufficient attention span to take in a serious discussion of these issues. Better to hire a journalist and stick with the 1-paragraph sound bite format than get an actual philosopher with some expertise in computer ethics and risk having someone yawn at WIRED in the local java joint. WIRED already sticks all its substantive articles as far back as possible, giving everyone a chance to page through the glitzy ads and the cutesy pictures and the single-page pop science and gadget profiles before they decide to commit to actually reading something. The longer pieces prior to the serious articles are broken up into discrete subjects and numbered, for those whose modafinil prescriptions have run out. And the articles in the back of the current (May 2008) issue are representative of WIRED's present commitment to IT ethics. Only one of them even addresses an issue that has significant digital ethics implications - the installation of a vast downtown surveillance system in the Big Apple - and that piece does not so much as mention the tiny little issue of privacy. The pop culture articles often barely mention technology; the technology articles barely mention ethics. What's wrong with this picture book?

I have nothing against an advice column. I have nothing against Brendan Koerner or anyone else publishing his opinions. I have a problem with a magazine that considers itself the mouthpiece of technically-minded members of Generation X, Y, Q, or whatever, the folks who grew up in the digital age and whose lives are shaped by technology, and makes its main contribution to the debates on the ethics of technology these 30-second blurbs from someone who has no background or training in analyzing ethical issues. That's not not wired, it's uninspired.