elaborate more

diff --git a/assignment1/a.bib b/assignment1/a.bib
index e69de29..0187813 100644 (file)
--- a/assignment1/a.bib
+++ b/assignment1/a.bib
@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+@article{nissenbaum2004hackers,
+       title={Hackers and the contested ontology of cyberspace},
+       author={Nissenbaum, Helen},
+       journal={New Media \& Society},
+       volume={6},
+       number={2},
+       pages={195--217},
+       year={2004},
+       publisher={Sage Publications}
+}

diff --git a/assignment1/a.tex b/assignment1/a.tex
index 01bc9c2..aa2420c 100644 (file)
--- a/assignment1/a.tex
+++ b/assignment1/a.tex
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ the other student did not thought so.
 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
@@ -32,21 +32,34 @@ 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.
 
-\paragraph{Conclusion}
+For the analysis we distinguish between the two main views on ethics.
+The consequentialists 
+
+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.
 
-%Facts
-%      What important facts are you given for this case?
+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.
 
-%      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
+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.
 
-%      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.
+\paragraph{Conclusion}
+Because my current view of hackers is not to see them as deviants but as
+creative people and the fact that there were no severe consequences I would
+suggest giving \Jo{} a stern lecture and invest energy in teaching about
+hacking in corresponding courses. In this way a message can be sent to the
+other students, as some of the board members wanted, about hacker ethics.
 
 %Ethical Theories and Concepts
 %      Consequences