Structuring
ethical curricula in the information age
Introduction
According to experts in the field of Information Technology, one of
the most pressing need facing students in computer related fields
is a lack of understanding of the social and ethical implications
of computerization. In "Integrated Social Impact and Ethical
Issues Across the Computer Science Curriculum" [Holz, Martin
92] we read:
“Computer technology is particularly powerful due to its potential
to change how we think about ourselves as human beings, how we make
decisions in governance and social policy, and how we save and pass
on knowledge …
This challenge is particularly difficult given the traditional mindset
of technically trained professionals who view social impact and ethics
issues as topics auxiliary to the foundation material in computer
science.
Technical issues are best understood (and most effectively taught)
in their social context, and the societal aspects of computing are
best understood in the context of the underlying technical detail…”
This paper will address what is often said to be the most serious
problem there is in implementing the sort of approach suggested in
1992 by Holz and Martin and still valid:
“The most serious problem in implementing this integrated approach
across the computer science curriculum is the lack of familiarity
that most professors have in locating and preparing materials to deal
with the social and ethical issues.”
We will identify some major ethical issues as they relate to computer
based interactions, and provide a compact guide which educators can
use to guide them in quickly obtaining materials needed for a more
thorough exploration of these issues.
Definitions
One of the first things we must recognize is the lack of familiarity
students may have with some terms we may take for granted; even people
in computing sciences may be unfamiliar with some of the terminology
used in discussion of the ethical issues relating to technology. While
they may have familiarity with the technology and with ethics, they
have not been exposed to many of technological implementations which
help create ethical conflicts. Additionally, since the computing sciences
are so new, it is possible that students and educators are not sufficiently
aware of the end-result of some computer based interactions. In some
cases, people may be using different terminology or analogies which
may not be conducive to a thorough discussion and understanding of
the topics at hand. For this reason, a beginning course in social
and ethical implications of technology must define terms - even those
which may appear obvious. Some suggested terms are: e-mail, Internet,
software, privacy, property, virus, world wide web, html, virus, copyright,
shareware, IRC, ftp. These terms are used frequently in discussion
of ethics and technology; however, some of the terms (privacy, property)
are subject to interpretation. Others, (html, www, ftp), are not as
widely known. The instructor may wish to let students list terms they
are familiar with, to build a list of key words for future classes.
Once there are some definitions, (and in some cases, a decision that
there are no adequate definitions that are generically applicable),
traditional ethical terms and concepts can offer a solid base for
exploration of modern technology. A discussion of Duty and Rights
is a good place to start. Such a discussion can refresh the concepts
of duty and rights; the instructor may wish to present in concise
form a overview of "ethics" including deontology, utilitarianism,
aristotlean and other ethical models of choice. From this point, issues
related to duty and rights become clear as we explore some of these
concepts.
Duty and Rights
Traditionally ethics are viewed as how we behave in our interaction
with other people, or in our behaviours which affect people. There
are some basic rules:
Don't lie (to other people)
Don't steal (from other people)
Don't hurt (other people)
These rules are, of course, based on principles, which are in turn
based on ethical theories of the varying types discussed above. The
premise of these theories and their applications appear to be how
we relate to other people and how our actions affect others as well
as ourselves. The introduction of computing technology introduces
an "interface". This interface is, of course, the computer.
When we communicate electronically, we can forget there are people
involved. This becomes more likely when we spend a lot of time in
computing environments, away from other human beings. These computing
environments are called "cyberspace" by some. In these environments,
depersonalization and desensitization can and do occur. This depersonalization
effect can manifest itself in various ways, from withdrawal from "real
life", to abberant social behaviours. However, it is important
to remember that what we may consider "wrong" may be considered
"right" in the cyberspace environment, or it may even be
considered a "non-issue". What sorts of behaviours and concepts
exist in this environment? We will examine those which exist, and
attempt to define some of the issues which we must address if we are
to overcome our ambivalence on standards for judging the ethical status
of a given situation.
Hacking Issues: Damage, Ownership, Breaking in
The first concept we will examine is "hacking". Much formal
written work has been done on hacking. There are books available at
most libraries which tell the stories of hackers breaking into computers,
and of the subsequent chases by law enforcement. Some even discuss
the successful arrest and prosecution of these 'bad guys'. [Sterling,
1992] [Stoll, 1989] However, there are people who question the validity
of some of the more conservative views toward computer hacking. Some
serious issues need to be raised in a discussion of hacking. Denning
[Denning, 1991] discusses the curiousity, peer pressure and thrill
that contribute to some hackers motivations. When we examine the psycho-socio
makeup of any group of young people, we find this is not at all an
abnormal set of motivations. We hear from many persons called hackers
that damage is wrong. This is not so far from our own perception of
what is wrong. We would all agree that damage is generally wrong.
This is a generic social principle.
"Leave only footprints, take only memories" is one slogan
some members of the hacking community adhere to. "We don't hurt
anyone" is a common claim of hackers. These claims lead us to
some issues, such as what is hurting? What is damage? Is reading your
electronic files "damaging" you? What is the importance
of intent and motivation? Do people have a right to "equal access"
as many hackers claim? What part do freedom and creativity, espoused
by many hackers, play in the general development of computing technologies?
Is creating new accounts damage? Is reading a password file damage,
and if so, what kind of damage is it? Damage to who? Is exploring
a system damage? Is it true that we would not be as technologicially
advanced today if not for hackers? What constitutes breaking into
a system? If a system is on the Internet and it is left "open",
is it breaking in if you log in without specific authorization? If
you can log in as guest, are you breaking in if you do? If you are
not specifically invited to access a system, are you breaking in if
you access that system? What are the responsibilities of the adminstrators
of systems? Is it helping administrators to break into systems and
tell them how you did it? How should we define and assess penalties
for electronic crimes. What -are- electronic crimes? What -is- damage?
Who defines it? We come full circle.
Ownership Issues: Who owns data about you? Should software be free?
Who owns the Internet?
Some of the questions we ask about hacking seem to be based on our
lack of true understanding and definition of various forms of ownership;
of systems and of the Internet in general. Classical definitions of
IP aside, there appears to be in our computing community some dissension
as to who actually owns (or who SHOULD own) "things" on
the Internet. The Internet itself is not owned by anyone, although
small parts of it seem to be getting swallowed up by commercial interests.
There are people who feel that software itself should be free. Reasons
such as the encouragement of social cohesiveness and enhanced development
capability are usually cited by those taking this position. [Stallman]
SPA (The Software Publishers Association) and other business oriented
groups work to combat software piracy (which would not exist if software
were free). [SPA] Piracy is rampant, depriving developers of huge
revenues. Why do people feel it justifiable to copy software and use
it without paying for it? These issues are worth discussion. Do people
have a right to try software first? Do developers have a duty to let
them? What about the argument that without copyright, there is little
(if any) incentive for innovation?
Privacy Issues: Who should be able
to read your mail? Who owns information about you?
"Who owns what" also applies to concepts like E-Mail. Based
on our traditional concepts of mail, we consider electronic mail to
be private; however this is not necessarily the case.
It is not only trivial to read someone's mail, but many companies
do it as a matter of routine. There are other questions we must consider
when we move from paper mail into electronic mail. Who owns your electronic
mail? Do companies have the right to read it? Does your service provider
have the right to read it? Do they have a duty to inform you if this
is their practice? Can a University rightfully decide what is an appropriate
topic for you to discuss in public forum or e-mail? These issues are
complex.
There are others. Privacy and ownership of information are not only
up for discussion in broad generic philosophical terms, but in real
life impacting terms. Information on you is collected routinely. Who
owns this information? Some of the types of information include your
health records, driving records, neighbors, employment history. What
ethical conflicts arise in the gathering and accessibility of this
kind of information? Is a computer a good place to store this information?
What, if any, safeguards should be required? What can you do to protect
your privacy? What is the governments role in providing privacy. Is
there a right to privacy in cyberspace? To answer some of these questions,
we must first initiate informed discussions.
Anonymity Issues: Does anonymity change behaviour? Is anonymity ever
justified? What are your rights in electronic transactions?
Anonymity in life (specifically, in non-computer based) has been shown
to change behaviours. In experiments throughout history, people have
been shown to be less responsible in a group situation or where their
indentity is not known. Computers can encourage and facilitate anonymity,
and multiple or fake (not necessarily fradulent) identities. What
sorts of ethical issues arise due to this process? Do you have the
right to know who you are talking to? Do you have the right to hide
who you are? Anonymous mailers and anonymous remailers add more depth
to the discussion. It is possible to be totally anonymous on the internet,
although total anonymity requires some effort. In what situations
is anonymity justified, if it is ever justified at all? What are the
affects of anonymity on electronic communications?
Cryptography Issues: Who owns the
code?
Privacy, some say, can only be ensured by cryptography. Some people
say strong cryptography is needed to ensure the government cannot
read private individual communications. Some cryptographic products
are on the lists of things that cannot be exported, and are seen as
'weapons'. What are the issues surrounding cryptography and who are
the cypherpunks? What is PGP? What is PEM? This information is also
available from various electronic sources.
Viruses Issues: Do you have a "right"
to pass out viruses? Do you have a "duty" not to? Are computer
viruses artificial life?
Viruses are another new concept in computing. The debate surrounding
them seems to center around several issues: is virus writing a right?
should virus distribution be made illegal. These questions are usually
met with a variety of arguments from both sides, ranging from "Viruses
are constitutionally protected" to "Viruses are Artificial
Life" research. Neither of these has been proven and the debate
goes on.
There are various mailing lists and
newsgroups dealing with the topic: comp.virus, alt.comp.virus are
two of the more used ones. FTP sites with information about viruses
include ftp.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (login anonymous, username as
password), and ftp.datafellows.com.
Other sites which are easily accessible via the Internet contain live
viruses and viral source code. It is the opinion of this author that
such distribution of viruses constitutes irresponsible action on the
part of the account owner and should be discouraged. However, it is
not illegal in some countries to make this information available,
so discouraging will probably take the form of peer and societal pressures.
Conclusion
The resources provided by this paper can provide instructors and students
with information sufficient to begin a discussion on ethical issues
related to computing. This list of resources is, however, by no means
exhaustive. It is our hope that by encouraging the student to explore
these issues, we are at the same time encouraging an evolution in
the computing community's approach to these dilemmas.
- end -
GO
BACK
copyright
© 2004 digitalcraft.org