up

diff --git a/assignment1/a.tex b/assignment1/a.tex
index 78a672d..01bc9c2 100644 (file)
--- a/assignment1/a.tex
+++ b/assignment1/a.tex
@@ -1,31 +1,41 @@
 %&a
 \begin{document}
 \maketitle
-
-Regarding the case of \JS{}.
-%Initial reaction
-%      What was your initial, gut reaction to the case when it was first presented
-%      to you?
-The gut reaction to this case is to not give Jon a conditional heavy penalty.
-The action was clearly thought through and but still he was unable to
-understand the effects. This intuition arises mainly from the fact that no data
-was touched and Jon a well-performing student is but on the other hand he is a
-seasoned hacker in the eyes of his fellow students.
+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.
+
+\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.
+\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.
+
+\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.
+
+\paragraph{Conclusion}
 
 %Facts
 %      What important facts are you given for this case?
-Several aspects of the case can shed light on the situation, 
-- Jon was a seasoned hacker and thus should have known the responsibility he
-       had. He was admired for these skills.
--  Jon read the teacher's statement about security as a challenge while the
-       other students did not read it as such.
-- Jon immediately gave in and confessed while stating he did not meant to do
-       harm with it.
-- Jon said that this was his hobby. This means that he knows exactly what he is
-       doing.
-- The dean has a good idea of what hacking is in the eyes of computer science
-       students. However, some other in the board see ``hacking'' as deviant
-       behaviour and even explicitly quote it.
 
 %      Is any of the information you have been given irrelevant to the ethical
 %      assessment of the case?

diff --git a/assignment1/preamble.tex b/assignment1/preamble.tex
index a573cc1..4f793f5 100644 (file)
--- a/assignment1/preamble.tex
+++ b/assignment1/preamble.tex
@@ -3,7 +3,9 @@
 \usepackage[british]{babel}
 \usepackage{geometry}
 
-\newcommand{\JS}{\emph{Jon Stevens}}
+\newcommand{\Jo}{\emph{Jon}}
+\newcommand{\St}{\emph{Stevens}}
+\newcommand{\JS}{\Jo\ \St}
 
 \author{Mart Lubbers\\\small{s4109503}}
 \date{\today}