%&a
\begin{document}
\maketitle
-Regarding the case of \JS{} we bring out an advice for further action. In the
-first paragraph we dwell a little over the facts and in the second paragraph we
-reason from several ethical theories and lastly in the third paragraph a
-conclusion is drawn.
+Regarding the case of \JS{} I will bring out an advice for further action. In
+the first paragraph we dwell a little over the facts. Following we analyse the
+facts from different ethical frameworks. Lastly, the third paragraph will draw
+a conclusion and a verdict.
\paragraph{Facts}
-Surrounding the case of \JS{} we are aware of several facts.
-\Jo{} was a seasoned hacker and thought of as such by his fellow students.
-The remark that the teacher made was understood by \Jo{} as a challenge while
-the other student did not thought so.
+Surrounding the case of \JS{} we became aware of several facts.
+\Jo{} is a seasoned hacker and is thought of as such by his fellow students.
+Moreover, \Jo{} is admired for his hacking skills.
+\Jo{} was in his opinion challenged by a remark the teacher made about the
+superb security of the medical centre's system. \Jo{}'s fellow students did not
+thought so.
\Jo{} immediately gave in and confessed
while stating he did not meant to do harm with it.
While the dean has a good idea of what hacking is in the eyes of computer
science students. On the other hand, some others in the board see ``hacking''
-as deviant behaviour.
+as deviant behaviour.
-Not all information is relevant for the case. Factual information about the
-location of the university and the courses \Jo{} currently takes are not
-relevant. On the other side, some other information could be useful.
-Information about the curriculum concerning courses about hacking and security
-can shed a light on the motives of \Jo{} and what is common knowledge about,
-possible ethical, hacking.
+Not all information is relevant for the case. Factual information given about
+the location of the university and the courses \Jo{} currently takes are not
+relevant. On the other hand, some other information that would be useful is
+missing. Information about the curriculum concerning courses about hacking and
+security can shed a light on the motives of \Jo{} and what is common knowledge
+about, possibly ethical, hacking.
\paragraph{Ethical perspective}
-The gut reaction to this case is to not give Jon a conditional heavy penalty
-but to let him go clear with a stern lecture. The action was clearly thought
-through and but it seems he was unable to understand the impact of his action.
-This intuition arises mainly from the fact that no data was touched and \Jo{} a
-well-performing student is. The only setback is the fact that \Jo{} is a
-seasoned hacker and possible should have known better.
+My gut reaction to this case is to not give Jon a heavy penalty
+but instead to let him go clear with just a stern lecture. The action was
+clearly thought through and but he did not seem to be able to understand the
+impact of his action. This intuition arises mainly from the fact that no data
+was touched and \Jo{} is a well-performing student. However, there is also a
+voice that says that because \Jo{} is a seasoned hacker he could have and
+should have known better.
+
+Looking just at law one can conclude that it is justified to punish \Jo{} since
+breaching into unauthorized systems is against the law. However, laws form no
+absolute ethical wager and therefore we should test the case against several
+theories to form a conclusion. Law does acts as a kind of average of ethics in
+a society or at least the average of the lawmakers ethics.
+
+The main two ethical theories are \emph{consequentialism} and
+\emph{deontologism}. I will analyze the case from both of the theories.
+
+\emph{Consequentialism} is the view on ethics that dictates that an action is
+good or bad when the consequences are good or bad. From a purely
+consequentialists point of view \Jo{} should not need to be punished. This is
+because no files were read and thus no privacy has been infringed on and no
+negative consequences other than the time lost on this case have happened. One
+could even argue that the consequences were merely positive since the system
+administrators can improve the security of the system. This is of course a
+little short sighted because bad results have happened indirectly. If the hack
+becomes public the people will likely lose faith in the security of the system.
+Moreover, while the leak will be known to the administrators it might not be
+possible to fix it immediately due the nature of the breach or sheer resources.
+In short this means that in the eyes of \Jo{} his action had no negative
+effects but in contrary some members of the board will reason the other way
+around.
+
+Another entirely different theory is the \emph{Deontological theory}.
+\emph{Deontologism} is the view on ethics that dictates that if an action is
+good or bad is only determined by the nature of the action. From the given
+facts it is clear that some members of the board think of hacking as an
+inherently bad behaviour. \Jo{} on the other hand thinks it is fun and does it
+for the sake of creativity and testing the limits of the system. The shift in
+normativity in cyberspace has been described by
+Nissenbaum~\cite{nissenbaum2004hackers}. This influences the deontological way
+of reasoning significantly since for one side the action is not inherently bad
+but for the other it is. This is a similar phenomenon that we see when we
+analyze the case with a \emph{consequentialistic} approach.
+
+A sub in \emph{deontologism} is \emph{contractarianism}. In this
+framework the right or wrongness of an action is determined by what rational
+people would do. This view on ethics poses the same problem as
+\emph{consequentialism} and \emph{deontologism} in the sense that there is no
+consensus about what rational people would do. The chasm between opinions about
+hacking results in a chasm between opinions about the sentence to \Jo{}.
+
+To reason from a purely \emph{deontological} or \emph{consequentialistic} point
+of view can be considered dangerous since they are very absolute and allow
+strange loopholes. Therefore Ross~\cite{ross1930good} came up with a theory
+that combines the two systems in such a way that sometimes inherently bad
+actions may be taken as long as it serves a greater good. This theory can be
+projected on the case. \Jo{} committed an inherently bad action, in the eyes of
+some, for the sake of improving himself and the security of the system. Whether
+this is a greater good is again thought of very differently in the board.
\paragraph{Conclusion}
+It is not fair to punish \Jo{} severely, for example by expelling him, just to
+send a message. In this way \Jo{}, and therefore hackers, will be demonized.
+Also, one could argue that the university, as an academic organization should
+try to act in an objective rational way without setting a political statement.
+Hacking has more and more gotten a political connotation lately. Thus punishing
+\Jo{} very severely will send out a political message which a university should
+refrain from as much as possible.
+
+A university is a progressive objective and scientific organization that must
+be aware of the change in normativity happening. Therefore my advice is to keep
+the original meaning of hacking in mind when giving a verdict. \Jo{} thinks of
+himself as an original hacker and acted as such. We must not see hackers as
+deviants but as creative people. Together with the fact that \Jo{} handled
+accordingly by not looking at the data and wanting to report the leak to the
+system administrators makes me vouch for just giving \Jo{} a stern lecture.
+Moreover, to improve the view on hackers it might be fruitful to focus more on
+ethics in the curriculum. We can send a message much stronger than sheer
+punishment to the population by educating how to behave in cyberspace as a
+professional.
-%Facts
-% What important facts are you given for this case?
-
-% Is any of the information you have been given irrelevant to the ethical
-% assessment of the case?
-Some irrelevant information is:
-- the location of the school
-- the courses he is taking
-
-% Is there any additional information that you need that has not been
-% provided?
-Information that would be usefull is information about the way security and
-hacking ethics are taught at the university.
-
-%Ethical Theories and Concepts
-% Consequences
-% Who are the stakeholders ? Who is affected?
-The stakeholders are the faculty members and administrators. Affected is Jon.
-
-% What are the consequences of this course of action?
-The consequences are minimal besides the work the police, and dean had with the
-case. The hacking itself didn't have severe consequences because no files were
-read.
-Jon would even argue that there are positive consequences, namely that he could
-give advice to the system administrators.
-
-% Are some consequences especially objectionable?
-Therefore the consequences are not objectable
-
-% Rules
-% Are any rights violated in this case?
-Breaching into systems unauthorized is not permitted. Especially since it were
-patient records.
-
-% What considerations of justice/fairness apply?
-
-
-
-% What considerations of respect for persons apply?
-Very sensitive information was possible leaked and that can hurt the victims
-greatly.
-
-% What other moral rules apply in this case?
----
-
-% Character
-% Are any factors in the case related to character flaws/strengths?
-Jon is smart and wants to boast to his fellow-students. Also some faculty
-members believe ``Hacking'' is the lowest of lowest of crimes which is an
-uninformed statement that does not comply to Jon's view on hacking activities.
-
-% What is the future impact on character for possible solutions to the
-% case study?
-This decision will set the tone for futere hacking related problems. It can
-harm the
-
-%Public Policy Implications
-% Distinguish
-% What you feel you personally should do in this case (personal morality)
-Personally a stern lecture would be greatly sufficient.
-
-% What everyone should be required to do (duty and law)
-By law and duty this should be punished. However, not to set a tone.
-
-% What everyone should be encouraged to do (supererogatory)
-
-
-% Also distinguish:
-% Present state of affairs
-% --Law-> Minimally acceptable state of affairs
-% --Exhortation-> Idea state of affairs
-
-\nocite{*}
\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
\bibliography{a}
\end{document}
repositories / paefcais1617.git / blobdiff