From 97a3a9b637554fa1fa89603dd986223bd2d7d4d5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mart Lubbers Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2016 15:31:20 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] elaborate more --- assignment1/a.bib | 10 ++++++++++ assignment1/a.tex | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- 2 files changed, 36 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) diff --git a/assignment1/a.bib b/assignment1/a.bib index e69de29..0187813 100644 --- 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 --- 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 -- 2.20.1