From: Mart Lubbers Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 16:35:03 +0000 (+0100) Subject: almost final X-Git-Url: https://git.martlubbers.net/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=e13a1a01cb405f1e98f5f5f55696f1d9be59b879;p=paefcais1617.git almost final --- diff --git a/assignment1/a.bib b/assignment1/a.bib index 0187813..36c1af4 100644 --- a/assignment1/a.bib +++ b/assignment1/a.bib @@ -8,3 +8,10 @@ year={2004}, publisher={Sage Publications} } + +@misc{ross1930good, + title={The good and the right}, + author={Ross, WD}, + year={1930}, + publisher={Oxford: Clarendon Press} +} diff --git a/assignment1/a.tex b/assignment1/a.tex index aa2420c..4b6f480 100644 --- a/assignment1/a.tex +++ b/assignment1/a.tex @@ -32,94 +32,57 @@ 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. -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}