well-performing student is. The only setback is the fact that \Jo{} is a
seasoned hacker and possible should have known better.
-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.
-
-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.
+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.
+
+\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.
+
+\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.
+
+Another trend 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.
+
+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.
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.
+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.
\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
-% 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
+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.
-\nocite{*}
\bibliographystyle{ieeetr}
\bibliography{a}
\end{document}
repositories / paefcais1617.git / commitdiff