%&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.
-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
-ethical wager and therefore we should test the case against several theories to
-form a conclusion.
+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. One could
-even argue that the consequences were positive since the system administrators
-can improve the security of the system.
+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
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.
+but for the other it is. This is a similar phenomenon that we see when we
+analyze the case with a \emph{consequentialistic} approach.
-Another trend in \emph{deontologism} is \emph{contractarianism}. In this
+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{deontologism} in the sense that there is no consensus about what rational
-people would do.
+\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 for the sake of
-improving himself and the security of the system.
+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{} is even more 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. Since hacking has
-gotten a political connotation, punishing \Jo{} very severe will send out a
-political message.
+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.
-\paragraph{Conclusion}
-My personal view of hackers is not to see them as deviants but as
-creative people and the fact that there were no severe consequences combined I
-would vouch giving \Jo{} a stern lecture. Moreover, to improve the view on
-hackers it might be useful to focus more on ethics in the curriculum. By means
-of educating a much stronger message can be sent on how to behave in cyberspace
-as a professional.
+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.
\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
\bibliography{a}
repositories / paefcais1617.git / commitdiff