assignment1/a.tex

   1 %&a
   2 \begin{document}
   3 \maketitle
   4 Regarding the case of \JS{} we bring out an advice for further action. In the
   5 first paragraph we dwell a little over the facts and in the second paragraph we
   6 reason from several ethical theories and lastly in the third paragraph a
   7 conclusion is drawn.
   8
   9 \paragraph{Facts}
  10 Surrounding the case of \JS{} we are aware of several facts.
  11 \Jo{} was a seasoned hacker and thought of as such by his fellow students.
  12 The remark that the teacher made was understood by \Jo{} as a challenge while
  13 the other student did not thought so.
  14 \Jo{} immediately gave in and confessed
  15 while stating he did not meant to do harm with it.
  16 While the dean has a good idea of what hacking is in the eyes of computer
  17 science students. On the other hand, some others in the board see ``hacking''
  18 as deviant behaviour.
  19
  20 Not all information is relevant for the case. Factual information about the
  21 location of the university and the courses \Jo{} currently takes are not
  22 relevant. On the other side, some other information could be useful.
  23 Information about the curriculum concerning courses about hacking and security
  24 can shed a light on the motives of \Jo{} and what is common knowledge about,
  25 possible ethical, hacking.
  26
  27 \paragraph{Ethical perspective}
  28 The gut reaction to this case is to not give Jon a conditional heavy penalty
  29 but to let him go clear with a stern lecture. The action was clearly thought
  30 through and but it seems he was unable to understand the impact of his action.
  31 This intuition arises mainly from the fact that no data was touched and \Jo{} a
  32 well-performing student is. The only setback is the fact that \Jo{} is a
  33 seasoned hacker and possible should have known better.
  34
  35 Looking just at law one can conclude that it is justified to punish \Jo{} since
  36 breaching into unauthorized systems is against the law. However, laws form no
  37 ethical wager and therefore we should test the case against several theories to
  38 form a conclusion.
  39
  40 \emph{Consequentialism} is the view on ethics that dictates that an action is
  41 good or bad when the consequences are good or bad. From a purely
  42 consequentialists point of view \Jo{} should not need to be punished. This is
  43 because no files were read and thus no privacy has been infringed on. One could
  44 even argue that the consequences were positive since the system administrators
  45 can improve the security of the system.
  46
  47 \emph{Deontologism} is the view on ethics that dictates that if an action is
  48 good or bad is only determined by the nature of the action. From the given
  49 facts it is clear that some members of the board think of hacking as an
  50 inherently bad behaviour. \Jo{} on the other hand thinks it is fun and does it
  51 for the sake of creativity and testing the limits of the system. The shift in
  52 normativity in cyberspace has been described by
  53 Nissenbaum~\cite{nissenbaum2004hackers}. This influences the deontological way
  54 of reasoning significantly since for one side the action is not inherently bad
  55 but for the other it is.
  56
  57 Another trend in \emph{deontologism} is \emph{contractarianism}. In this
  58 framework the right or wrongness of an action is determined by what rational
  59 people would do.  This view on ethics poses the same problem as
  60 \emph{deontologism} in the sense that there is no consensus about what rational
  61 people would do.
  62
  63 To reason from a purely \emph{deontological} or \emph{consequentialistic} point
  64 of view can be considered dangerous since they are very absolute and allow
  65 strange loopholes. Therefore Ross~\cite{ross1930good} came up with a theory
  66 that combines the two systems in such a way that sometimes inherently bad
  67 actions may be taken as long as it serves a greater good. This theory can be
  68 projected on the case. \Jo{} committed an inherently bad action for the sake of
  69 improving himself and the security of the system.
  70
  71 It is not fair to punish \Jo{} severely, for example by expelling him, just to
  72 send a message. In this way \Jo{} is even more demonized. Also, one could argue
  73 that the university, as an academic organization should try to act in an
  74 objective rational way without setting a political statement. Since hacking has
  75 gotten a political connotation, punishing \Jo{} very severe will send out a
  76 political message.
  77
  78 \paragraph{Conclusion}
  79 My personal view of hackers is not to see them as deviants but as
  80 creative people and the fact that there were no severe consequences combined I
  81 would vouch giving \Jo{} a stern lecture. Moreover, to improve the view on
  82 hackers it might be useful to focus more on ethics in the curriculum. By means
  83 of educating a much stronger message can be sent on how to behave in cyberspace
  84 as a professional.
  85
  86 \bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
  87 \bibliography{a}
  88 \end{document}