invitation to computer science 5 th edition chapter 17 making decisions about computers,...

Invitation to Computer Science 5th Edition

Chapter 17

Making Decisions about Computers, Information, and Society

Invitation to Computer Science, 5th Edition 2

Objectives

In this chapter, you will learn about:

• Case studies involving:– MP3– PGP– Hackers– Technology and ethics– Genetic information and medical research

• What we covered and what we did not


Introduction

• In this chapter:– We introduce skills that will help you to think and

reason carefully when making personal decisions about computing


Case Studies

• Case 1: The Story of MP3-Compression Codes, Musicians, and Money– 1989: Fraunhofer Institute patented MP3 in Germany– 1997: Tomislav Uzelac created the first commercially

viable MP3 playback program– 1998: WinAmp was offered for free on the Internet– Peer-to-peer file sharing: set up by Napster


Figure 17.1 Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Created by Napster


Asking Ethical Questions

• Ethics – The study of how to decide if something is morally

right or wrong

• Consequentialism– Focuses on the consequences of an act to

determine if the act is good or bad

• Utilitarians– Answer the question Good for whom? with a hearty,

Good for everyone!


Utilitarian Argument #1: MP3 Copying is OK

• Market research – Shows that MP3 downloading has increased the sale

of music CDs


Utilitarian Argument #2: MP3 Copying is Not OK

• The decline of music CD sales– Long-term effect of widespread copying of

copyrighted materials

• Dialectic– Used by ethicists to try to get better and better

ethical decisions– Ultimate goal is for both sides to “win” by moving

closer to the truth from two different perspectives


Case 2: PGP: The U.S. Governmentvs. Phil Zimmermann

• 1991– Phillip Zimmermann developed an encryption

algorithm called “Pretty Good Privacy,” PGP

• In any analogy between two “things,” there are both similarities and differences


Case 2: PGP: The U.S. Governmentvs. Phil Zimmermann (continued)

• Analogy #1: E-mail is Like a Private Conversation

• Analogy #2: E-mail is Like Phone Conversations

• Some similarities and differences in Analogy #1– The presumed audience may be larger than

intended– Private conversation is high-bandwidth– Conversation happens in real time– Having e-mail capability costs money



• Some similarities and differences in Analogy #2– Phone calls typically include more information than

e-mails– Both phone calls and e-mails are done at a physical

distance– Phone calls are meant to be in real time, but e-mails

are asynchronous



• Analyzing the ethical significance of the similarities and differences– Three methods of communication all differ in the

amount of information exchanged– PGP allows e-mail users to return to the default of

privacy– What are the consequences of enforcing a ban on

PGP, and what are the consequences of allowing people to use PGP?


Case 3: Hackers: Public Enemies or Gadflies?

• Hacker – Someone who breaks into computer systems and

launches Internet worms and viruses or perpetrates other computer-related vandalism


Analogy: Breaking into a Computer is Like Breaking into Someone’s House

• Similarities between burglars and hackers – In both cases, the intruders are there without our

permission and without us being aware of their presence

• Differences between burglars and hackers – Burglar is likely to take something from your house,

and that removal will deprive you of something– Hacker takes your intellectual property and privacy


Utilitarian Argument: Costs and Benefits of Hacking

• Challenges when using a utilitarian argument in a dialectic about hacking– It is sometimes hard to predict consequences with

any accuracy– There seems to be a distinction between “good

hackers” and “bad hackers”


Deontological Argument: Hacking with a Golden Heart

• Utilitarian and other consequentialist arguments – Focus on the consequences of an act to determine if

the act is ethical

• Deontologist – Focuses more on the intent of an act and how that

act either is or is not a defensible, responsible act


Deontological Argument: Hacking with a Golden Heart (continued)

• The “hacker ethic” claims– Information sharing is a powerful positive good– It is the ethical duty of hackers to facilitate access to

information and computing resources – System cracking for fun and exploration is ethically

OK as long as the cracker commits no theft, vandalism, or breach of confidentiality


Thinking Straight about Technology and Ethics

• Paramedic ethics for technology– Who are the stakeholders in this situation?– What does each stakeholder have to gain or lose?– What duties and responsibilities in this situation are

important to the stakeholders?– Can you think of an analogous situation that doesn’t

involve computing?– Either make a decision or revisit the steps


Case 4: Genetic Information and Medical Research

• Step 1: Identify stakeholders

• Step 2: What is at stake?

• Step 3: Identify duties and responsibilities

• Step 4: Think of analogies

• Step 5: Make a decision or loop through the method again


What We Covered and What We Did Not

• Technical decisions– Involve human values, whether we recognize it or

not

• When you have to decide if something involving technology is right or wrong– Remember to think carefully about consequences

and duties

Summary

• Ethics – The study of how to decide if something is morally

right or wrong

• Dialectic– Used by ethicists to try to get better and better ethical

decisions

• Deontologist – Focuses more on the intent of an act and how that act

either is or is not a defensible, responsible act

• The “hacker ethic” claims– Information sharing is a powerful positive good


invitation to computer science 5 th edition chapter 17 making decisions about computers,...

Documents