assignment2/a.tex

   1 %&a
   2 \begin{document}
   3 \maketitleru[%
   4         course={Philosophy and Ethics of Computer and Information Sciences},
   5         authorstext={Author:}]
   6 \section{Grey Hat Cracking Should Be Legalized}
   7 In the digital world the notion of property is significantly different than the
   8 notion of property in the real world. Property in the digital world can be
   9 interchanged, duplicated and changed without physical intervening. This means
  10 that property and ownership is much more a matter of trust and regulations than
  11 anything else.
  12
  13 By this definition the notion of ``going equipped'' in the digital world is
  14 vastly different than in the physical world. One can go ``non-equipped'' but
  15 having the tools within reach and the other way around. There is hardly a
  16 concept of distance in the digital world.
  17
  18 Grey hat hacking means black hat hacking with good intents. Grey hat hacking is
  19 not hacking for the sake of cracking but for the sake of improving the security
  20 and notifying the owner of the system. Often this is compared to breaking into
  21 a house and informing the owners on how to improve their door locks. However,
  22 with the aforementioned notion of property, this is not an analogous issue.
  23 Again, grey hat hacker is built around trust. While the actions look the
  24 same, a grey hat hacker will not look at the compromised data and will not
  25 plant back doors. Therefore it is very important that specialized police
  26 officers monitor the web and, when necessary, hack and test systems.
  27
  28 \section{Web Scrapers and Robot Denial Files}
  29
  30 \section{An Immune System for the Internet}
  31 The idea of benevolent viruses patching security holes is a outright terrible
  32 idea because of a set of reasons.
  33
  34 Firstly this breaches the privacy of the user. Analogous, a burglar that breaks
  35 into a house to install better locks would be considered wrong as well. The
  36 system is property of the user and the internet has been an anarchistic place
  37 that had no rules and regulations. If the user chooses not to protect their
  38 system then that is their own loss. However, when the system also attacks other
  39 systems it should be fixed. This is not always the case and depending on the
  40 view on the internet of the user breaking into the system is worse then a
  41 possible attack on the system. This case is a living example of the security
  42 versus privacy duality. Unprotected users are unwanted invaded by, apparently
  43 benevolent, worms. Who can proof these worms are benevolent, who develops them,
  44 those questions become very relevant.
  45 \end{document}