assignment1/a.tex

   1 %&a
   2 \begin{document}
   3 \maketitle
   4
   5 Regarding the case of \JS{}.
   6 %Initial reaction
   7 %       What was your initial, gut reaction to the case when it was first presented
   8 %       to you?
   9 The gut reaction to this case is to not give Jon a conditional heavy penalty.
  10 The action was clearly thought through and but still he was unable to
  11 understand the effects. This intuition arises mainly from the fact that no data
  12 was touched and Jon a well-performing student is but on the other hand he is a
  13 seasoned hacker in the eyes of his fellow students.
  14
  15 %Facts
  16 %       What important facts are you given for this case?
  17 Several aspects of the case can shed light on the situation,
  18 - Jon was a seasoned hacker and thus should have known the responsibility he
  19         had. He was admired for these skills.
  20 -  Jon read the teacher's statement about security as a challenge while the
  21         other students did not read it as such.
  22 - Jon immediately gave in and confessed while stating he did not meant to do
  23         harm with it.
  24 - Jon said that this was his hobby. This means that he knows exactly what he is
  25         doing.
  26 - The dean has a good idea of what hacking is in the eyes of computer science
  27         students. However, some other in the board see ``hacking'' as deviant
  28         behaviour and even explicitly quote it.
  29
  30 %       Is any of the information you have been given irrelevant to the ethical
  31 %       assessment of the case?
  32 Some irrelevant information is:
  33 - the location of the school
  34 - the courses he is taking
  35
  36 %       Is there any additional information that you need that has not been
  37 %       provided?
  38 Information that would be usefull is information about the way security and
  39 hacking ethics are taught at the university.
  40
  41 %Ethical Theories and Concepts
  42 %       Consequences
  43 %               Who are the stakeholders ? Who is affected?
  44 The stakeholders are the faculty members and administrators. Affected is Jon.
  45
  46 %               What are the consequences of this course of action?
  47 The consequences are minimal besides the work the police, and dean had with the
  48 case. The hacking itself didn't have severe consequences because no files were
  49 read.
  50 Jon would even argue that there are positive consequences, namely that he could
  51 give advice to the system administrators.
  52
  53 %               Are some consequences especially objectionable?
  54 Therefore the consequences are not objectable
  55
  56 %       Rules
  57 %               Are any rights violated in this case?
  58 Breaching into systems unauthorized is not permitted. Especially since it were
  59 patient records.
  60
  61 %               What considerations of justice/fairness apply?
  62
  63
  64
  65 %               What considerations of respect for persons apply?
  66 Very sensitive information was possible leaked and that can hurt the victims
  67 greatly.
  68
  69 %               What other moral rules apply in this case?
  70 ---
  71
  72 %       Character
  73 %               Are any factors in the case related to character flaws/strengths?
  74 Jon is smart and wants to boast to his fellow-students. Also some faculty
  75 members believe ``Hacking'' is the lowest of lowest of crimes which is an
  76 uninformed statement that does not comply to Jon's view on hacking activities.
  77
  78 %               What is the future impact on character for possible solutions to the
  79 %               case study?
  80 This decision will set the tone for futere hacking related problems. It can
  81 harm the
  82
  83 %Public Policy Implications
  84 %       Distinguish
  85 %               What you feel you personally should do in this case (personal morality)
  86 Personally a stern lecture would be greatly sufficient.
  87
  88 %               What everyone should be required to do (duty and law)
  89 By law and duty this should be punished. However, not to set a tone.
  90
  91 %               What everyone should be encouraged to do (supererogatory)
  92
  93
  94 %       Also distinguish:
  95 %               Present state of affairs
  96 %                       --Law-> Minimally acceptable state of affairs
  97 %                       --Exhortation-> Idea state of affairs
  98
  99 \nocite{*}
 100 \bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
 101 \bibliography{a}
 102 \end{document}