We are watching the movie “Minority Report”. There are a lot of ethical issues concerning technologies we can find in this movie. The biggest ethical issue with this movie is how pre-crime branch of government is prosecuting general public before they even commit any crime. These people that are arrested end up directly in some high-tech jail without any trial.
Another ethical issue I see is with how the pre-cogs are being treated. Pre-cogs are genetically created human clones and are kept in a controlled environment and they do not have normal interactions with other human beings. Neither do they have any social life like everybody else. To me it seems like they are treated like lab animals.
Pre-crime also seems to be hiding the facts about some errors it made in arresting innocent civilians just so that the people can think the system is working without any error and ultimately the founders make the big profit.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Class activities in April 2010 with guest speakers
In the month of April we discussed Ethics in IT and Societal Impacts. Our instructor invited a few guests to come to our class and discuss different ethical issues with IT and talk about technology in general.
One guest was a lawyer in capitol hill who discussed the ethical issues with Facebook, cell phones and also Google technologies. We talked about how Google is planning to scan all the books that were ever published and how it might raise the concerns about copy right violations. We also talked about piracy of MP3 music and other medias.
Another guest came from a IT think tank group. He made a presentation on the importance of IT and technologies.
One guest was a lawyer in capitol hill who discussed the ethical issues with Facebook, cell phones and also Google technologies. We talked about how Google is planning to scan all the books that were ever published and how it might raise the concerns about copy right violations. We also talked about piracy of MP3 music and other medias.
Another guest came from a IT think tank group. He made a presentation on the importance of IT and technologies.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Our other class activities in March 2010
In one class we had a guest speaker from capitol hill who is a lawer. We talked about data mining in general, public social web sites such as facebook and how taking quizs in facebook can expose our information to others. We also talked about ethical issues related to Google wanting to scan every books that every published and archiving them in their databases for public use.
Currently we are watching a movie called "Minority Report".
We recently also finished watching another movie called "Other People's Money" which taught us a great deal about Utilitarianism.
Currently we are watching a movie called "Minority Report".
We recently also finished watching another movie called "Other People's Money" which taught us a great deal about Utilitarianism.
Liabilities in ISP Business
Legal liability by definition is “obligations under law arising from civil actions or under contract. Legal liability can only be decided by courts even if the settlement is made out of the court by mutual agreement. Legal liability is the legal bound obligation to pay debts 3. For the ISPs legal liability can arise from violating any copyright liability, trademark liability, contract law and fraud and defamation.
Moral responsibility can refer to two different but related things. First an entity has moral responsibility for a situation if that entity has an obligation to ensure that something happens. Second an entity has moral responsibility for a situation when it would be correct to morally praise or blame that entity for the situation. According to Joel Feinberg, among others said that corporations and other groups of people can have what is called ‘collective moral responsibility’ for a state of affairs 4. In cnet news Janet Kornblum wrote an article about how a U.K. based ISP took down an Internet freedom controversial web site that many believe to have supports for terrorists 5. This is an example of a morally responsible ISP.
Accountability is a concept in ethics and governance with several meanings. It is often used synonymously with such concepts as responsibility, answerability, blameworthiness, liability and other terms associated with the expectation of account-giving. For ISPs accountability can arise from its user suffering from attacks from hackers and spammers.
Internet Service Providers provide services of bringing the internet connectivity to its users. Some of the ISP companies claim that they bring high speed internet service to its users. However, when users start getting SPAM emails, a portion of the delivery cost is passed onto the users in the form of wasted network bandwidth, increased strain on the utilization of system resources and disk storage space.
Richard Spinello argues that, these SPAMs are morally objectionable as SPAMs have harmful consequences as well as it violates the individual autonomy of Internet users. Spinello also says that SPAMs in addition degrades the fragile ecology of the Internet. Another example of inconvenience is defamation which is the communication that harms the reputation of another and lowers that person’s self esteem in the eyes of the community. Freedom of speech is our constitutional right. However, we all are morally responsible for what we say and the impact of that to others and the society. So, ISP should be morally accountable for what they allow their users to post in their hosting servers. However, Richard Spinello argues that, simply because an ISP presents an occasion for defamation does not necessarily imply that ISP is accountable. For an ISP to be accountable, to conditions are required:
a) The ISP must also have had some capability to do have done something about the defamation.
b) The ISP failed but failed to take action.
However, if the ISP promptly removes the defamatory remarks, issues a retraction on behalf of the victim and initiates good faith effort to track down the originator so that the defamation does not reoccur, then the ISP fulfilled their moral accountability and responsibility. Anton Vedder also argues that ISPs should be morally responsible for harm caused to individuals.
From the utilitarian view point, SPAMs, attacks, and speech that is communicated using any ISP’s electronic forums negatively effects a great number of users therefore it cannot be good. So, ISP is morally accountable and responsible for any content that is presented to the subscribers using the media that ISP provides.
Applying Vedder’s and Spinello’s arguments to the Amy Boyer case of cyberstalking it appears that Tripod and Geocities should be held accountable for the harm caused to Amy Boyer. Because, the ISPs had the capability to bring down the sites that contributed to the stocking and had contents about Boyer including threats. ISPs didn’t remove those contents. The ISPs also didn’t track down the originator of the contents in their server to ensure no harm is cause to the victim.
References:
1. Herman T. Tavani. (2007). “Ethics & Technology – Chapter 9”.
2. Arthur Sullivan and Steven M Sheffrin. (2003). Economics: Principles in action, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
3. David T. Risser. (2006). Collective Moral Responsibility.
4. Janet Kornblum. (September 18, 1997). ISP censorship seen as trend, Cnet news.
Moral responsibility can refer to two different but related things. First an entity has moral responsibility for a situation if that entity has an obligation to ensure that something happens. Second an entity has moral responsibility for a situation when it would be correct to morally praise or blame that entity for the situation. According to Joel Feinberg, among others said that corporations and other groups of people can have what is called ‘collective moral responsibility’ for a state of affairs 4. In cnet news Janet Kornblum wrote an article about how a U.K. based ISP took down an Internet freedom controversial web site that many believe to have supports for terrorists 5. This is an example of a morally responsible ISP.
Accountability is a concept in ethics and governance with several meanings. It is often used synonymously with such concepts as responsibility, answerability, blameworthiness, liability and other terms associated with the expectation of account-giving. For ISPs accountability can arise from its user suffering from attacks from hackers and spammers.
Internet Service Providers provide services of bringing the internet connectivity to its users. Some of the ISP companies claim that they bring high speed internet service to its users. However, when users start getting SPAM emails, a portion of the delivery cost is passed onto the users in the form of wasted network bandwidth, increased strain on the utilization of system resources and disk storage space.
Richard Spinello argues that, these SPAMs are morally objectionable as SPAMs have harmful consequences as well as it violates the individual autonomy of Internet users. Spinello also says that SPAMs in addition degrades the fragile ecology of the Internet. Another example of inconvenience is defamation which is the communication that harms the reputation of another and lowers that person’s self esteem in the eyes of the community. Freedom of speech is our constitutional right. However, we all are morally responsible for what we say and the impact of that to others and the society. So, ISP should be morally accountable for what they allow their users to post in their hosting servers. However, Richard Spinello argues that, simply because an ISP presents an occasion for defamation does not necessarily imply that ISP is accountable. For an ISP to be accountable, to conditions are required:
a) The ISP must also have had some capability to do have done something about the defamation.
b) The ISP failed but failed to take action.
However, if the ISP promptly removes the defamatory remarks, issues a retraction on behalf of the victim and initiates good faith effort to track down the originator so that the defamation does not reoccur, then the ISP fulfilled their moral accountability and responsibility. Anton Vedder also argues that ISPs should be morally responsible for harm caused to individuals.
From the utilitarian view point, SPAMs, attacks, and speech that is communicated using any ISP’s electronic forums negatively effects a great number of users therefore it cannot be good. So, ISP is morally accountable and responsible for any content that is presented to the subscribers using the media that ISP provides.
Applying Vedder’s and Spinello’s arguments to the Amy Boyer case of cyberstalking it appears that Tripod and Geocities should be held accountable for the harm caused to Amy Boyer. Because, the ISPs had the capability to bring down the sites that contributed to the stocking and had contents about Boyer including threats. ISPs didn’t remove those contents. The ISPs also didn’t track down the originator of the contents in their server to ensure no harm is cause to the victim.
References:
1. Herman T. Tavani. (2007). “Ethics & Technology – Chapter 9”.
2. Arthur Sullivan and Steven M Sheffrin. (2003). Economics: Principles in action, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
3. David T. Risser. (2006). Collective Moral Responsibility.
4. Janet Kornblum. (September 18, 1997). ISP censorship seen as trend, Cnet news.
Laws of Protecting Proprietary Software
Laws play a fundamental role in shaping a society and in preserving its order. Property laws preserve order by establishing relationships between individuals, different sorts of objects and the state of the relationship between individuals and objects. Ownership claims involving "intellectual objects" are both similar to and different from ownership of tangible objects. Non-tangible or "intellectual" objects represent creative works and inventions. Intellectual objects, such as software programs, are non-exclusionary. Intellectual objects can be easily reproduced at a relatively low cost. Legally, one cannot own an idea in the same sense that one can own a physical object. However legal protection is given only to the tangible expression of an idea that is creative or original. Current law says that intellectual property should be protected. A property right is a natural right for the individuals who worked to achieve the goal of getting the property or inventing the property, including intellectual objects. Property rights also encourage creators and inventors to bring forth their artistic works and inventions. So, property right law is essential for the positive growth of our society. Although, some critics argue that computer software should be excluded from copyright and patent protection laws, I do not believe that the law for protecting proprietary software has gone too far. Following are the reasons.
1. Copyright is a legal form of protection given to a person or author.
2. If the software is not protected by copyright or proprietary protection laws then it will discourage the inventors and software programmers to spend their valuable time and money on inventing a solution and bring it in the market.
3. Even though software can be expensive, when we consider the amount of time, and investment an individual or an organization makes the price of the software seems very reasonable.
4. Most of the software comes with evaluation versions for users to try before they make the investment on the software.
5. For educational purposes, most of the students get access to software from the schools. So, students having limited finances does not justify stealing.
6. When someone purchases a software it is only for that person’s use or the use of a number of people which the licensing agreement allows.
7. Software may not be tangible but they are the result of people’s hard work and unauthorized use is stilling.
8. Any property physical or intellectual is a property and may not be stolen.
9. The programmers and companies that produce software cannot compete against free.
To balance the exclusive controls given to copyright holders against the broader interests of society, there is principle of fair use. This means that every author or publisher may make limited use of another person’s copyrighted work for the purposes of criticism, comment, news, reporting, teaching and research, etc. Fair use restricts the total control of copyright holders and it also supports reverse engineering for research, etc. When the original software is sold for the first time the owner loses rights over the work which is called first-sale doctrine. First-sale doctrine is another balancing scheme. However, to protect copyright holders, SBCTEA extends the time of protection for copyrighted works. Authorities such as DMCA has anti-circumvention clause also to protect copyright holders. Unauthorized uploading and downloading of software is also prohibited.
Labor theory of property says that a person is entitled to the result of his or her labor. Utilitarian theory says, property rights should be granted because they provide an incentive to bring ideas into the marketplace. The personality theory says, a property right should be granted because of the personality of the author that is invested in the creative work. At the same time, open source software are available in the market for users to use, distribute or run research on. So, there is always a balancing act which allows individuals or organizations to be able to use software without stilling or breaking the law.
References:
1. Herman T. Tavani. (2007). “Ethics & Technology – Chapter 8”.
1. Copyright is a legal form of protection given to a person or author.
2. If the software is not protected by copyright or proprietary protection laws then it will discourage the inventors and software programmers to spend their valuable time and money on inventing a solution and bring it in the market.
3. Even though software can be expensive, when we consider the amount of time, and investment an individual or an organization makes the price of the software seems very reasonable.
4. Most of the software comes with evaluation versions for users to try before they make the investment on the software.
5. For educational purposes, most of the students get access to software from the schools. So, students having limited finances does not justify stealing.
6. When someone purchases a software it is only for that person’s use or the use of a number of people which the licensing agreement allows.
7. Software may not be tangible but they are the result of people’s hard work and unauthorized use is stilling.
8. Any property physical or intellectual is a property and may not be stolen.
9. The programmers and companies that produce software cannot compete against free.
To balance the exclusive controls given to copyright holders against the broader interests of society, there is principle of fair use. This means that every author or publisher may make limited use of another person’s copyrighted work for the purposes of criticism, comment, news, reporting, teaching and research, etc. Fair use restricts the total control of copyright holders and it also supports reverse engineering for research, etc. When the original software is sold for the first time the owner loses rights over the work which is called first-sale doctrine. First-sale doctrine is another balancing scheme. However, to protect copyright holders, SBCTEA extends the time of protection for copyrighted works. Authorities such as DMCA has anti-circumvention clause also to protect copyright holders. Unauthorized uploading and downloading of software is also prohibited.
Labor theory of property says that a person is entitled to the result of his or her labor. Utilitarian theory says, property rights should be granted because they provide an incentive to bring ideas into the marketplace. The personality theory says, a property right should be granted because of the personality of the author that is invested in the creative work. At the same time, open source software are available in the market for users to use, distribute or run research on. So, there is always a balancing act which allows individuals or organizations to be able to use software without stilling or breaking the law.
References:
1. Herman T. Tavani. (2007). “Ethics & Technology – Chapter 8”.
Biometrics Technology - what does ethics say?
Biometrics can be defined as, the biological identification of a person, which includes eyes, voice, hand prints, finger prints, retina patterns, and handwritten signatures (Power, 2002). Irma van der Ploeg (2004) notes that with biometrics tools, a person’s iris can be “read” in the same way that a person’s voice can be printed, fingerprints can be “read” by a computer that is “touch sensitive” and “endowed with hearing and seeing capacities.” In 2002, an iris-scanning device, which is a type of biometric identification scheme, was first tested at London's Heathrow Airport. The scanning device captures a digital image of one's iris, which is then stored in a database. The digital image can be matched against images of individuals, including those entering and leaving public places.
At Super Bowl XXXV in January 2001, face-recognition technology was used by law-enforcement agencies to scan the faces of persons entering the football stadium. The scanned images were instantly matched against electronic images (faces) of suspected criminals and terrorists, contained in a central computer database. Initially, this was controversial; after September 11, 2001, it was widely supported.
European Proposals to use of biometric identifiers have also generated controversy. The Eurodac Project is a European Union proposal to use biometrics in controlling illegal immigration and border crossing in European countries. In 2002, a decision was made to go forward with the Eurodac proposal.
There are arguments both for and against the use of biometrics technology.
The arguments for Biometrics:
• Biometrics cannot be blamed for anonymity loss in today's world but larger social and technological forces caused this. Computers and computer networks like the Internet make it incredibly easy to collect and store people’s personal information, and to share this information to a large number of people.
• The Internet provides many resources for identity theft (e.g. search engines, genealogy databases).
• In the physical world, people have access to others' credit reports.
• For a small fee employers can perform checks on their employees through services provided by companies like Informus and Infoseekers.
• There is no need for biometrics in order for government agencies surveillance to take place. There are already satellites which can track a person's movements with extreme detail.
• Video surveillance cameras in department stores, online electronic transactions, and email sniffing are just three means by which others can keep track of one's digital identity.
• Biometrics protects privacy by safeguarding identity and integrity. Biometric authentication systems provide very secure protection against impersonators. Weaknesses in token-based and knowledge-based authentication systems can be exploited and broken into.
• Biometrics is a friend to privacy because it can be used to limit access to information.
• Biometrics is a privacy-enhancing technology. Many current biometric algorithms use biometric characteristics to construct a unique code that can be reconstructed only with the particular biometric identifier or a person's actual physical characteristic.
• Biometric data is electronic code that is separate and distinct from personal information, and provides an effective, secure barrier against unauthorized access to personal information.
The arguments against Biometrics:
• Critics argue that biometric authentication methods present a serious threat to privacy rights. These arguments have been broken down into three categories: anonymity, tracking and surveillance, data matching and profiling.
• Individuals lose their anonymity in any system or digital environment that uses biometric authentication methods. Option of anonymity for electronic purchases and in the political arena as part of people’s expectation of privacy.
• Privacy advocates see biometrics as being able to help in government monitoring of citizens by the State. Biometric measures can be used as universal identifiers for individuals because each biometric measure is unique.
• Isolated identifying and non-identifying information in different databases can be used to create extensive records that profile people's shopping and spending habits.
• The biggest danger of biometrics, according to privacy advocates, is that biometric identifiers can be linked to databases of other information that people do not want to share. The threat to privacy arises from "the ability of third parties to access this data in identifiable form and link it to other information, resulting in secondary uses of the information, without the consent of the data subject." [1]. This would be a violation of the Code of Fair Information Practices, since the individual would no longer have control over the dissemination of his personal information.
• People generally have negative feelings towards biometrics, in particular fingerprints, because of its association with criminal identification, and more recently because of its use in State welfare schemes to prevent recipients from making double claims on their benefits.
• Biometric identifiers are an "example of the state's using technology to reduce individuality." [2]. This type of identification corrupts the relationship between citizen and state because it empowers the State with control over its citizens.
• Religious groups argue that biometric authentication methods are "the mechanism foretold in religious prophecy (e.g. the Mark of the Beast)" [3].
• Further religious objections are based on the premise that individuals must give up themselves, or part of themselves, to a symbol of authority which has no spiritual significance.
• Though there are no documented cases of biometrics technologies causing actual physical harm to users, certain methods are considered as invasive. For example, retina scanning requires the user to place his eye as close as 3" away from the scanner so that it can capture an image of his retina pattern. Fingerprint recognition devices too are deemed as invasive because they require the user to actually touch a pad.
• In terms of privacy protection for users of biometric systems, it suggests only self-regulation for the private sector. This means that there would be no legal way to punish companies for misuse of biometric information.
• There are many companies who do not audit how information is used and disclosed.
• Businesses commonly sell information to each other in order to use data mining algorithms to discover consumer trends, and send them targeted advertising material.
• Sometimes authorities use biometrics technology in public places to catch criminals and suspected terrorists. For example at super bowl XXXV in 2001Some argue that it would be a violation of privacy to do so without appropriate court orders.
My position on this controversial topic:
I personally would like to separate the issues involving biometric technology in two groups. The first issue has to do with unauthorized parties gaining access to one’s personal information including credit card information, medical information, work history, etc. and then sharing this information with third parties for data mining and information matching for the benefit of their business. The second issue has to do with government agencies using biometric technology in public gatherings without public knowing about it or having appropriate court order.
In my opinion, technology can be used for both to benefit us or to cause harm. I would argue that government should have more regulations on biometric technology usage rather than relying on self regulations in private sectors. So that the victim can get legal protection and help and companies think twice before they involve themselves into unauthorized or unethical conducts. I do not personally see any issues with getting my retina scanned or fingerprint taken for identification purposes. For one example, this could make the line in the airport security checkpoints move faster as it helped the Heathrow airport. I however do not want to have my private information that is not public information to be linked to my biometric identification information.
I also do not see any issue and support the law enforcement using the biometric technology to track and catch criminals and potential terrorists. In recent days we have seen lot of security britches in the airports and other institutions which was cause by the lack of information sharing between government agencies. The use of biometric technology can reduce the chance of this kind of incidents from occurring and create better security for the nation and its citizens.
References:
1. "Privacy and Biometrics" http://www.ipc.on.ca/web_site.eng/matters/sum_pap/papers/pri-biom.htm
2. Davies, Simon G. "Touching Big Brother. How biometric technology will fuse flesh and machine." http://www.pclink.com/sarakawa/files/biometric.htm
3. "IBIA Announces Privacy Principles" March 25, 1999. http://www.ibia.org/press3.htm
4. Herman T. Tavani. (2007). “Ethics & Technology – Chapter 7”.
At Super Bowl XXXV in January 2001, face-recognition technology was used by law-enforcement agencies to scan the faces of persons entering the football stadium. The scanned images were instantly matched against electronic images (faces) of suspected criminals and terrorists, contained in a central computer database. Initially, this was controversial; after September 11, 2001, it was widely supported.
European Proposals to use of biometric identifiers have also generated controversy. The Eurodac Project is a European Union proposal to use biometrics in controlling illegal immigration and border crossing in European countries. In 2002, a decision was made to go forward with the Eurodac proposal.
There are arguments both for and against the use of biometrics technology.
The arguments for Biometrics:
• Biometrics cannot be blamed for anonymity loss in today's world but larger social and technological forces caused this. Computers and computer networks like the Internet make it incredibly easy to collect and store people’s personal information, and to share this information to a large number of people.
• The Internet provides many resources for identity theft (e.g. search engines, genealogy databases).
• In the physical world, people have access to others' credit reports.
• For a small fee employers can perform checks on their employees through services provided by companies like Informus and Infoseekers.
• There is no need for biometrics in order for government agencies surveillance to take place. There are already satellites which can track a person's movements with extreme detail.
• Video surveillance cameras in department stores, online electronic transactions, and email sniffing are just three means by which others can keep track of one's digital identity.
• Biometrics protects privacy by safeguarding identity and integrity. Biometric authentication systems provide very secure protection against impersonators. Weaknesses in token-based and knowledge-based authentication systems can be exploited and broken into.
• Biometrics is a friend to privacy because it can be used to limit access to information.
• Biometrics is a privacy-enhancing technology. Many current biometric algorithms use biometric characteristics to construct a unique code that can be reconstructed only with the particular biometric identifier or a person's actual physical characteristic.
• Biometric data is electronic code that is separate and distinct from personal information, and provides an effective, secure barrier against unauthorized access to personal information.
The arguments against Biometrics:
• Critics argue that biometric authentication methods present a serious threat to privacy rights. These arguments have been broken down into three categories: anonymity, tracking and surveillance, data matching and profiling.
• Individuals lose their anonymity in any system or digital environment that uses biometric authentication methods. Option of anonymity for electronic purchases and in the political arena as part of people’s expectation of privacy.
• Privacy advocates see biometrics as being able to help in government monitoring of citizens by the State. Biometric measures can be used as universal identifiers for individuals because each biometric measure is unique.
• Isolated identifying and non-identifying information in different databases can be used to create extensive records that profile people's shopping and spending habits.
• The biggest danger of biometrics, according to privacy advocates, is that biometric identifiers can be linked to databases of other information that people do not want to share. The threat to privacy arises from "the ability of third parties to access this data in identifiable form and link it to other information, resulting in secondary uses of the information, without the consent of the data subject." [1]. This would be a violation of the Code of Fair Information Practices, since the individual would no longer have control over the dissemination of his personal information.
• People generally have negative feelings towards biometrics, in particular fingerprints, because of its association with criminal identification, and more recently because of its use in State welfare schemes to prevent recipients from making double claims on their benefits.
• Biometric identifiers are an "example of the state's using technology to reduce individuality." [2]. This type of identification corrupts the relationship between citizen and state because it empowers the State with control over its citizens.
• Religious groups argue that biometric authentication methods are "the mechanism foretold in religious prophecy (e.g. the Mark of the Beast)" [3].
• Further religious objections are based on the premise that individuals must give up themselves, or part of themselves, to a symbol of authority which has no spiritual significance.
• Though there are no documented cases of biometrics technologies causing actual physical harm to users, certain methods are considered as invasive. For example, retina scanning requires the user to place his eye as close as 3" away from the scanner so that it can capture an image of his retina pattern. Fingerprint recognition devices too are deemed as invasive because they require the user to actually touch a pad.
• In terms of privacy protection for users of biometric systems, it suggests only self-regulation for the private sector. This means that there would be no legal way to punish companies for misuse of biometric information.
• There are many companies who do not audit how information is used and disclosed.
• Businesses commonly sell information to each other in order to use data mining algorithms to discover consumer trends, and send them targeted advertising material.
• Sometimes authorities use biometrics technology in public places to catch criminals and suspected terrorists. For example at super bowl XXXV in 2001Some argue that it would be a violation of privacy to do so without appropriate court orders.
My position on this controversial topic:
I personally would like to separate the issues involving biometric technology in two groups. The first issue has to do with unauthorized parties gaining access to one’s personal information including credit card information, medical information, work history, etc. and then sharing this information with third parties for data mining and information matching for the benefit of their business. The second issue has to do with government agencies using biometric technology in public gatherings without public knowing about it or having appropriate court order.
In my opinion, technology can be used for both to benefit us or to cause harm. I would argue that government should have more regulations on biometric technology usage rather than relying on self regulations in private sectors. So that the victim can get legal protection and help and companies think twice before they involve themselves into unauthorized or unethical conducts. I do not personally see any issues with getting my retina scanned or fingerprint taken for identification purposes. For one example, this could make the line in the airport security checkpoints move faster as it helped the Heathrow airport. I however do not want to have my private information that is not public information to be linked to my biometric identification information.
I also do not see any issue and support the law enforcement using the biometric technology to track and catch criminals and potential terrorists. In recent days we have seen lot of security britches in the airports and other institutions which was cause by the lack of information sharing between government agencies. The use of biometric technology can reduce the chance of this kind of incidents from occurring and create better security for the nation and its citizens.
References:
1. "Privacy and Biometrics" http://www.ipc.on.ca/web_site.eng/matters/sum_pap/papers/pri-biom.htm
2. Davies, Simon G. "Touching Big Brother. How biometric technology will fuse flesh and machine." http://www.pclink.com/sarakawa/files/biometric.htm
3. "IBIA Announces Privacy Principles" March 25, 1999. http://www.ibia.org/press3.htm
4. Herman T. Tavani. (2007). “Ethics & Technology – Chapter 7”.
War Game
We have recently watched a short video on US military computer science cadets at West Point who are learning everything about cyber attacks and hacking and how to defend a network from these attacks. The cadets played a war game and competed amongst 7 military academies against expert hackers from National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA hackers tried to infiltrate the networks to bring down services and infect computers among other kind many other kinds of attacks. In intense environment, under pressure the cadets successfully examined and blocked unsafe internet addresses, cleaned infected computer, perform various other tasks to recover partially erased hard drive, bring up affected services, etc.
These cadets learned hacking technique from the best hackers at the government security agencies and are held responsible at the highest ethical standards. The cadets are scheduled to be deployed to foreign countries where they will serve and put their experiences to work. It is important to note that we may see soldiers killed in wars but not aware of internet attacks, however cyber attacks are very real threats against our nation.
After watching the video, our class was divided into two groups to play a similar war game. I was a part of the attack team and following are the kind of attacks we planned to launch against the network that defender team was protecting.
1. Electro-Magnetic Pulse Attack.
2. Denial of Service Attacks.
3. Social Engineering.
4. Spear Phishing Government Employees/Officials.
5. Penetration attacks.
6. Battlefield.
7. Equipment Disruption.
8. Cyber Espionage.
9. Attack on US’s command and control.
10. Compromised counterfeit hardware.
11. Wireless and wired network sniffers.
12. Spam propaganda.
13. Packet spoofing.
14. GUI intruder tools.
15. Executable code attacks (against browsers).
16. "Stealth" and other advanced scanning techniques.
17. Windows-based remote controllable Trojans (Back Orifice).
18. BotNets and Zombies.
19. Conventional warfare (i.e. storming beaches) (data from field to policy makers).
20. Trade wars (economic warfare).
21. Attack of critical infrastructure and associated IT networks (i.e. bringing down the one northeast electrical grid that runs the entire eastern seaboard).
22. Price manipulation of commodities.
These cadets learned hacking technique from the best hackers at the government security agencies and are held responsible at the highest ethical standards. The cadets are scheduled to be deployed to foreign countries where they will serve and put their experiences to work. It is important to note that we may see soldiers killed in wars but not aware of internet attacks, however cyber attacks are very real threats against our nation.
After watching the video, our class was divided into two groups to play a similar war game. I was a part of the attack team and following are the kind of attacks we planned to launch against the network that defender team was protecting.
1. Electro-Magnetic Pulse Attack.
2. Denial of Service Attacks.
3. Social Engineering.
4. Spear Phishing Government Employees/Officials.
5. Penetration attacks.
6. Battlefield.
7. Equipment Disruption.
8. Cyber Espionage.
9. Attack on US’s command and control.
10. Compromised counterfeit hardware.
11. Wireless and wired network sniffers.
12. Spam propaganda.
13. Packet spoofing.
14. GUI intruder tools.
15. Executable code attacks (against browsers).
16. "Stealth" and other advanced scanning techniques.
17. Windows-based remote controllable Trojans (Back Orifice).
18. BotNets and Zombies.
19. Conventional warfare (i.e. storming beaches) (data from field to policy makers).
20. Trade wars (economic warfare).
21. Attack of critical infrastructure and associated IT networks (i.e. bringing down the one northeast electrical grid that runs the entire eastern seaboard).
22. Price manipulation of commodities.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Whistle - Blowing
Knowledge I gained from the readings:
---------------------------------------------------
Whistle-Blowing is reporting a wrong doing or corruption to general public. When a person makes a public disclosure of a wrong doing, then that is considered whistle blowing. In this ethics class we discussed a scenario of a team of programmers who developed a software product which was not yet fully tested and there were known bugs. The product was developed for a local transportation agency and lot of general public uses public transportation. The case studio also described that the management of both parties decided to deploy the product with the bug which might put public at harm’s way. In this case after bringing the issue to upper management first and not getting any satisfactory resolution to the issue, if the programmers go to general public and disclose the issue out in the open then that would be considered whistle blowing. Whistle-blowing usually happens when a harmful product coming into the market due to the negligence of the involved parties. We also saw a video about an FBI agent, Colleen Rowley, who came forward after critical information linked to the September 11 attacks, was ignored. Even though Whistle-blowing in encouraged and can save us from unnecessary harms, most of the times employees are not willing to come forward and bring the issue out in the open in fear of lose their jobs or facing other issues.
Every individual has moral and ethical responsibilities towards the people of the society. As an employee of an organization, it is a person’s moral responsibility to be loyal to their employer as long as they don’t feel that there is any wrong doing on their employer’s part. Likewise an employer should be also loyal to its employees.
There are many school of thoughts on the topic of employer-employee relationship in terms of loyalty. Ronald Duska (1991) argues that in employment contexts, loyalty only arises in special relationships based on a notion that he calls "mutual enrichment”. Duska believes that employer-employee relationships – at least where corporations are concerned – are based on self-interest and not on mutual enrichment. He concludes that employees should not necessarily feel any sense of obligation of loyalty to corporate employers. Ladd also believes that a corporation can not be as loyal to its employees as the employees would be to its employer. I personally do not agree with Duska. I think employee and employer should have mutual respect and loyalty to each other. I however somewhat agree with Ladd because there are many examples in the job market where we see employees who worked for a company for many years with loyalty, are often losing their jobs due to downsizing and outsourcing for the greater good for the business. Loyalty is not something that an employee must give exclusively or blindly to one’s employer. A professional as an individual, must also have loyalty and an obligation to the society as a whole, especially where safety, life and health issues are at stake.
However, sometime the wrong doing or misconduct of an employer can put a loyal employee in a situation where for the greater good of the society, the employee must bring the issue to public to get the public’s attention and blow the whistle to alert the public to a potentially unsafe product.
According to Michael Martin (2003) blowing the whistle is a “tragedy to be avoided, though it may sometimes be a necessary evil”. Not blowing the whistle when it is necessary can cause a great deal of damage to the society.
Richard De George (1999) says that one is permitted and obligated to blow the whistle when the harm that will be done by the product to the public is serious and considerable, engineers (or employees) have made their concerns known to their superiors and engineers (or employees) have received no satisfaction from their immediate supervisors and they have exhausted the channels available within the corporation, including going to the board of directors. The engineers (or employees) have documented evidence that would convince a reasonable, impartial observer that his/her view of the situation is correct and the company policy is wrong. And there is strong evidence that making the information public will in fact prevent the threatened serious harm. Other scholars also have similar thoughts.
Almost always, Whistle-blowers have been looked at as being disloyal to their companies, or as trouble makers when they are really only attempting to keep the general public safe. Sometimes their relationship with their employer or even with the public is tainted after the act. Because of this many are afraid to blow the whistle. From the utilitarian point of view one must do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. In most cases, whistle-blowers are attempting to do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.
Whistle-blowers are often responsible peoples who notice wrong doing and from greater good of the community and public they attempt to do something to prevent the wrong doing and harmful acts. They often blow whistle not because they have any bad intention towards the employer they work for but out of honesty, courage and good ethical values. And taking a step alone against a greater entity is more often than not terrifying however, if someone shows the courage to stand up for the greater good of the community, often times they alone can make a huge difference in people’s lives.
Whistle-Blowers are protected by law that can protect the Whistle-blowers from employer retaliation. There is also punishment if there are false claims. Although the law protects from employer retaliation, the law cannot protect someone from future termination, suspension, demotions and even mistreatment. So, many are worried about stepping up to make a claim. There is protection, but it is not enough.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whistle blowing is an act of bravery. It is also an act of showing responsibility towards the society. Whistle blowers may not get treated by many rightfully, but they get the satisfaction of doing the right thing and saving people from pain, suffering and harm. Sometimes we may not have the courage to do the right thing because of different reasons. But doing right thing is the most important thing and people ultimately realize the services the whistle blowers provide to the society.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
I also learned that whistle blowers are not as protected as they were once because of changes in laws. If this is the case and whistle blowers do not come forward because they feel that by blowing whistle they will be on their own and they are not protected they lot of businesses might not follow the law and rules of ethics and do unethical things. How do we solve this situation?
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As, I think that blowing whistle is an act of bravery and is the right thing to do to benefit the society, I will blow whistle if needed even if it may not protect me. However, I will do my best to avoid the situation by bringing the issue to upper management first and trying to resolve the issue.
Reference:
---------------
1. Herman T. Tavani. (2007). Ethics & Technology – Chapter-4.
2. IT550 Class Note – Chapter – 4 (Blackboard). Marymount University.
---------------------------------------------------
Whistle-Blowing is reporting a wrong doing or corruption to general public. When a person makes a public disclosure of a wrong doing, then that is considered whistle blowing. In this ethics class we discussed a scenario of a team of programmers who developed a software product which was not yet fully tested and there were known bugs. The product was developed for a local transportation agency and lot of general public uses public transportation. The case studio also described that the management of both parties decided to deploy the product with the bug which might put public at harm’s way. In this case after bringing the issue to upper management first and not getting any satisfactory resolution to the issue, if the programmers go to general public and disclose the issue out in the open then that would be considered whistle blowing. Whistle-blowing usually happens when a harmful product coming into the market due to the negligence of the involved parties. We also saw a video about an FBI agent, Colleen Rowley, who came forward after critical information linked to the September 11 attacks, was ignored. Even though Whistle-blowing in encouraged and can save us from unnecessary harms, most of the times employees are not willing to come forward and bring the issue out in the open in fear of lose their jobs or facing other issues.
Every individual has moral and ethical responsibilities towards the people of the society. As an employee of an organization, it is a person’s moral responsibility to be loyal to their employer as long as they don’t feel that there is any wrong doing on their employer’s part. Likewise an employer should be also loyal to its employees.
There are many school of thoughts on the topic of employer-employee relationship in terms of loyalty. Ronald Duska (1991) argues that in employment contexts, loyalty only arises in special relationships based on a notion that he calls "mutual enrichment”. Duska believes that employer-employee relationships – at least where corporations are concerned – are based on self-interest and not on mutual enrichment. He concludes that employees should not necessarily feel any sense of obligation of loyalty to corporate employers. Ladd also believes that a corporation can not be as loyal to its employees as the employees would be to its employer. I personally do not agree with Duska. I think employee and employer should have mutual respect and loyalty to each other. I however somewhat agree with Ladd because there are many examples in the job market where we see employees who worked for a company for many years with loyalty, are often losing their jobs due to downsizing and outsourcing for the greater good for the business. Loyalty is not something that an employee must give exclusively or blindly to one’s employer. A professional as an individual, must also have loyalty and an obligation to the society as a whole, especially where safety, life and health issues are at stake.
However, sometime the wrong doing or misconduct of an employer can put a loyal employee in a situation where for the greater good of the society, the employee must bring the issue to public to get the public’s attention and blow the whistle to alert the public to a potentially unsafe product.
According to Michael Martin (2003) blowing the whistle is a “tragedy to be avoided, though it may sometimes be a necessary evil”. Not blowing the whistle when it is necessary can cause a great deal of damage to the society.
Richard De George (1999) says that one is permitted and obligated to blow the whistle when the harm that will be done by the product to the public is serious and considerable, engineers (or employees) have made their concerns known to their superiors and engineers (or employees) have received no satisfaction from their immediate supervisors and they have exhausted the channels available within the corporation, including going to the board of directors. The engineers (or employees) have documented evidence that would convince a reasonable, impartial observer that his/her view of the situation is correct and the company policy is wrong. And there is strong evidence that making the information public will in fact prevent the threatened serious harm. Other scholars also have similar thoughts.
Almost always, Whistle-blowers have been looked at as being disloyal to their companies, or as trouble makers when they are really only attempting to keep the general public safe. Sometimes their relationship with their employer or even with the public is tainted after the act. Because of this many are afraid to blow the whistle. From the utilitarian point of view one must do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. In most cases, whistle-blowers are attempting to do the greatest good for the greatest amount of people.
Whistle-blowers are often responsible peoples who notice wrong doing and from greater good of the community and public they attempt to do something to prevent the wrong doing and harmful acts. They often blow whistle not because they have any bad intention towards the employer they work for but out of honesty, courage and good ethical values. And taking a step alone against a greater entity is more often than not terrifying however, if someone shows the courage to stand up for the greater good of the community, often times they alone can make a huge difference in people’s lives.
Whistle-Blowers are protected by law that can protect the Whistle-blowers from employer retaliation. There is also punishment if there are false claims. Although the law protects from employer retaliation, the law cannot protect someone from future termination, suspension, demotions and even mistreatment. So, many are worried about stepping up to make a claim. There is protection, but it is not enough.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whistle blowing is an act of bravery. It is also an act of showing responsibility towards the society. Whistle blowers may not get treated by many rightfully, but they get the satisfaction of doing the right thing and saving people from pain, suffering and harm. Sometimes we may not have the courage to do the right thing because of different reasons. But doing right thing is the most important thing and people ultimately realize the services the whistle blowers provide to the society.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
I also learned that whistle blowers are not as protected as they were once because of changes in laws. If this is the case and whistle blowers do not come forward because they feel that by blowing whistle they will be on their own and they are not protected they lot of businesses might not follow the law and rules of ethics and do unethical things. How do we solve this situation?
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As, I think that blowing whistle is an act of bravery and is the right thing to do to benefit the society, I will blow whistle if needed even if it may not protect me. However, I will do my best to avoid the situation by bringing the issue to upper management first and trying to resolve the issue.
Reference:
---------------
1. Herman T. Tavani. (2007). Ethics & Technology – Chapter-4.
2. IT550 Class Note – Chapter – 4 (Blackboard). Marymount University.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Reading - What Makes Right Acts Right
Knowledge I gained from the reading:
---------------------------------------------------
Sir William David Ross disagrees with many other moral theorists that there is a single moral principle that can be used to derive more specific moral obligations. He supports the theory that there are moral rules that are basic in moral thought. According to Ross, we should fulfill our moral duties and use moral judgments in times when these duties conflict in specific circumstances.
When a person performs a task or fulfills a promise just because it is morally the right thing to do and because he fulfills his promise regardless of the outcome or consequences in his favor or not, then that person is doing the right thing. On the other hand, sometime it is necessary to break a promise for a greater good and use the moral judgment and when we break the promise in this kind of situation then that is the right thing to do. For example, if I promised to meet a friend for dinner and then found out that another friend is sick and does not have a way to get to a doctor, then in this case the right act for me would be to break my promise for dinner and instead take the sick friend to a doctor.
In general, by keeping promises or implicit promises, taking care of a previous wrongful act or duties of reparation, returning services or duties of gratitude, doing the right thing or duties of justice, trying to improve other’s conditions or duties of beneficence, improving our own condition or duties of self-improvement and not injuring others or causing others harm we can make an act right.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
After reading this article, we can come to conclusion that by using common sense and better judgments we can choose to do right and avoid doing wrong. We should fulfill our moral obligations to the society and others and not cause harm to others. If we think that we previously have engaged ourselves in any wrongful act then it is our moral duty and obligation to fix the issue.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no question in my mind that, doing good and avoiding bad is our moral responsibility. We should always be ready to help each other and use best judgment if we run into any conflict when we perform our duties.
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my personal and practical life, I will use better judgment and always do what is ethically right and perform my moral responsibilities to the society in general.
References:
-----------------------
W. D. Ross. (1930). The Right and the Good.
---------------------------------------------------
Sir William David Ross disagrees with many other moral theorists that there is a single moral principle that can be used to derive more specific moral obligations. He supports the theory that there are moral rules that are basic in moral thought. According to Ross, we should fulfill our moral duties and use moral judgments in times when these duties conflict in specific circumstances.
When a person performs a task or fulfills a promise just because it is morally the right thing to do and because he fulfills his promise regardless of the outcome or consequences in his favor or not, then that person is doing the right thing. On the other hand, sometime it is necessary to break a promise for a greater good and use the moral judgment and when we break the promise in this kind of situation then that is the right thing to do. For example, if I promised to meet a friend for dinner and then found out that another friend is sick and does not have a way to get to a doctor, then in this case the right act for me would be to break my promise for dinner and instead take the sick friend to a doctor.
In general, by keeping promises or implicit promises, taking care of a previous wrongful act or duties of reparation, returning services or duties of gratitude, doing the right thing or duties of justice, trying to improve other’s conditions or duties of beneficence, improving our own condition or duties of self-improvement and not injuring others or causing others harm we can make an act right.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
After reading this article, we can come to conclusion that by using common sense and better judgments we can choose to do right and avoid doing wrong. We should fulfill our moral obligations to the society and others and not cause harm to others. If we think that we previously have engaged ourselves in any wrongful act then it is our moral duty and obligation to fix the issue.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no question in my mind that, doing good and avoiding bad is our moral responsibility. We should always be ready to help each other and use best judgment if we run into any conflict when we perform our duties.
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my personal and practical life, I will use better judgment and always do what is ethically right and perform my moral responsibilities to the society in general.
References:
-----------------------
W. D. Ross. (1930). The Right and the Good.
Reading - What Makes Someone’s Life Go Right?
Knowledge I gained from the reading:
---------------------------------------------------
In his article “WHAT MAKES SOMEONE’S LIFE GO BEST” the author Derek Parfit describes his theories about self-interest. Parfit explains his theories by asking a very fundamental question, what is best for a person in his or her life which would make the person’s life go as well as possible. He categorizes people in three different types and put them in three different buckets of theories.
1. Hedonistic Theories: This theory says, what would be best for someone is what would make his life happiest. These kinds of individuals believe that, pleasure and pain are two distinctive kinds of experiences. To them pleasure is to satisfy an intense thirst or lust such as listening to music, solving an intellectual problem, knowing that someone special is happy, etc. Pleasures are wanted by people but on the other hand pain is considered unwanted. More the pain less it is wanted and likewise, pleasures are more desirable or wanted when it is better or greater. Their relations to our desire are what pain and pleasure have in common. Preference – Hedonism claims that, between two experiences, the one that is preferred is more pleasant. When comparing between two experiences, a pain does not always literally mean pain, rather it means less desirable. For example, if I have a choice to go to a movie or listen to music and I prefer to go to movie, then it means that going to movie is more desirable to me and gives me more pleasure. In no way it means that listening to music would give me pain rather it means that at that moment it is less desirable to me. It is not only pleasure that we consider when deciding which is more desirable but also two states of pains can be compared to figure out what is more desirable than the other. For example, if a patient is in pain but the medication would also have a painful side affect then the patient would more often than not choose a pain that would do the most good. In this case both experiences would be considered pain but one would be less desirable than the other.
Author also describes another theory which he calls the Success theory that is much similar to Preference – Hedonism theory and appeals only to someone's desires about his own life. According to Parfit, this theory differs from Preference-Hedonism in only one way, The Success Theory appeals to all of our preferences about our own lives. The following example illustrates the differences between these two theories. Suppose that I strongly want not to be deceived by other people, On Preference - Hedonism it would be better for me if I believe that I am not being deceived. It would be irrelevant if my belief is false, since this makes no difference to my state of mind. On the Success theory, it would be worse for me if my belief is false. In general, in Success theory, it is bad for one if one’s desire is not fulfilled.
2. Desire – Fulfillment Theories: This theory says, what would be best for someone is what, throughout his life, would best fulfill his desires. Desire-Fulfillment Theories is also considered as the unrestricted theory. In this theory it is said that, what is best for someone is what would best fulfill all of his desires, throughout his life. To describe this theory, the author gives an example of two strangers meeting where one person has a fatal disease. The other person’s sympathy is aroused and he strongly wants this stranger to be cured. Later on, when they have forgotten each other, the stranger is cured. According to Unrestricted Desire – Fulfillment theory, this event is good for the person who was wishing the other person to be cured, and makes that person’s life goes better. According to Parfit, this is an unrealistic theory and we should reject this theory.
3. Objective List Theories: This theory says that, certain things are good or bad for us, whether or not we want to have the good things, or to avoid the bad things. The good things in this case might include moral goodness, rational activity, having children and being a good parent, knowledge and the awareness of true beauty. The bad things might include being betrayed, manipulated, slandered, deceived, being deprived of liberty or dignity, and enjoying either sadistic pleasure or aesthetic pleasure in what is in fact ugly. According to this theory, what would make my life go best depends on what I would prefer now and in the various alternatives knowing all of the relevant facts about these alternatives. An Objective List Theorist says that the most relevant facts are what would in fact be good or bad for us and anyone who knew these facts would want what is truly good for him, and want to avoid what would be bad for him.
There is one fundamental difference between Preference-Hedonism and the Success theory with the Objective List theory. The first two kinds of theories give an account of self-interest and appeals to what a person does and would prefer. In contrast, the Objective List theory appeals directly to facts about value.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
After reading this article, we can come to conclusion that what is best for people is not just their being in the conscious states that they want to be in. Nor is it just their having knowledge, engaging in rational activity, being aware of true beauty. By choosing only one theory and living our lives by those principals is not good for us. What is good for someone is to take best from all Hedonists claim, Objective List theorists and all other theories. What also makes someone’s life go right or best is what is good for someone, to be engaged in good activities, and to strongly want to be so engaged.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the theories sounded good. However, Success theory sounded a bit unrealistic to me because it said that if someone’s belief turns out to be false whether he knows about it or not is going to be bad for him. I could not relate to this concept and found it to be challenging to understand.
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my personal and practical life, I will choose right from wrong more carefully and find pleasure in doing small but valuable things that will put positive impact in society. In turn I will get pleasure and this will be better for my own life.
Reference:
---------------
Derek Parfit. (1984). From Parfit, Reasons and Persons.
---------------------------------------------------
In his article “WHAT MAKES SOMEONE’S LIFE GO BEST” the author Derek Parfit describes his theories about self-interest. Parfit explains his theories by asking a very fundamental question, what is best for a person in his or her life which would make the person’s life go as well as possible. He categorizes people in three different types and put them in three different buckets of theories.
1. Hedonistic Theories: This theory says, what would be best for someone is what would make his life happiest. These kinds of individuals believe that, pleasure and pain are two distinctive kinds of experiences. To them pleasure is to satisfy an intense thirst or lust such as listening to music, solving an intellectual problem, knowing that someone special is happy, etc. Pleasures are wanted by people but on the other hand pain is considered unwanted. More the pain less it is wanted and likewise, pleasures are more desirable or wanted when it is better or greater. Their relations to our desire are what pain and pleasure have in common. Preference – Hedonism claims that, between two experiences, the one that is preferred is more pleasant. When comparing between two experiences, a pain does not always literally mean pain, rather it means less desirable. For example, if I have a choice to go to a movie or listen to music and I prefer to go to movie, then it means that going to movie is more desirable to me and gives me more pleasure. In no way it means that listening to music would give me pain rather it means that at that moment it is less desirable to me. It is not only pleasure that we consider when deciding which is more desirable but also two states of pains can be compared to figure out what is more desirable than the other. For example, if a patient is in pain but the medication would also have a painful side affect then the patient would more often than not choose a pain that would do the most good. In this case both experiences would be considered pain but one would be less desirable than the other.
Author also describes another theory which he calls the Success theory that is much similar to Preference – Hedonism theory and appeals only to someone's desires about his own life. According to Parfit, this theory differs from Preference-Hedonism in only one way, The Success Theory appeals to all of our preferences about our own lives. The following example illustrates the differences between these two theories. Suppose that I strongly want not to be deceived by other people, On Preference - Hedonism it would be better for me if I believe that I am not being deceived. It would be irrelevant if my belief is false, since this makes no difference to my state of mind. On the Success theory, it would be worse for me if my belief is false. In general, in Success theory, it is bad for one if one’s desire is not fulfilled.
2. Desire – Fulfillment Theories: This theory says, what would be best for someone is what, throughout his life, would best fulfill his desires. Desire-Fulfillment Theories is also considered as the unrestricted theory. In this theory it is said that, what is best for someone is what would best fulfill all of his desires, throughout his life. To describe this theory, the author gives an example of two strangers meeting where one person has a fatal disease. The other person’s sympathy is aroused and he strongly wants this stranger to be cured. Later on, when they have forgotten each other, the stranger is cured. According to Unrestricted Desire – Fulfillment theory, this event is good for the person who was wishing the other person to be cured, and makes that person’s life goes better. According to Parfit, this is an unrealistic theory and we should reject this theory.
3. Objective List Theories: This theory says that, certain things are good or bad for us, whether or not we want to have the good things, or to avoid the bad things. The good things in this case might include moral goodness, rational activity, having children and being a good parent, knowledge and the awareness of true beauty. The bad things might include being betrayed, manipulated, slandered, deceived, being deprived of liberty or dignity, and enjoying either sadistic pleasure or aesthetic pleasure in what is in fact ugly. According to this theory, what would make my life go best depends on what I would prefer now and in the various alternatives knowing all of the relevant facts about these alternatives. An Objective List Theorist says that the most relevant facts are what would in fact be good or bad for us and anyone who knew these facts would want what is truly good for him, and want to avoid what would be bad for him.
There is one fundamental difference between Preference-Hedonism and the Success theory with the Objective List theory. The first two kinds of theories give an account of self-interest and appeals to what a person does and would prefer. In contrast, the Objective List theory appeals directly to facts about value.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
After reading this article, we can come to conclusion that what is best for people is not just their being in the conscious states that they want to be in. Nor is it just their having knowledge, engaging in rational activity, being aware of true beauty. By choosing only one theory and living our lives by those principals is not good for us. What is good for someone is to take best from all Hedonists claim, Objective List theorists and all other theories. What also makes someone’s life go right or best is what is good for someone, to be engaged in good activities, and to strongly want to be so engaged.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the theories sounded good. However, Success theory sounded a bit unrealistic to me because it said that if someone’s belief turns out to be false whether he knows about it or not is going to be bad for him. I could not relate to this concept and found it to be challenging to understand.
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my personal and practical life, I will choose right from wrong more carefully and find pleasure in doing small but valuable things that will put positive impact in society. In turn I will get pleasure and this will be better for my own life.
Reference:
---------------
Derek Parfit. (1984). From Parfit, Reasons and Persons.
Reading - Utilitarianism by Mill
Knowledge I gained from the reading:
---------------------------------------------------
Utilitarianism is the idea that says that, the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all conscious beings. It means that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. In ethical concept happiness of the greatest number of people in the society is considered the greatest good. So, Utilitarianism is the theory that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its usefulness in bringing the most happiness to all those are affected by it. An action is right if it tends to maximize happiness of everyone affected.
The most influential contributors to this ideology were Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher and legal and social reformer, and John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher, political theorist and political economist.
Utilitarianism is often described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" [1], and is also known as "the greatest happiness principle". Utility or the good to be maximized has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure. Preference utilitarian theorists define it as the satisfaction of preferences. Utilitarianism can be characterized as a quantitative and reductionist approach to ethics. It can be contrasted with deontological ethics, which do not regard the consequences of an act as being a determinant of its moral worth.
The origins of utilitarianism are often traced as far back as the Greek philosopher Epicurus, but, as a specific school of thought, it is generally credited to Jeremy Bentham [2]. Bentham found pain and pleasure to be the only intrinsic values in the world: "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” [1] From this, he derived the rule of utility: the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.
In his famous work, Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill argues that cultural, intellectual and spiritual pleasures are of greater value than mere physical pleasure because the former would be valued higher than the latter by competent judges. A competent judge, according to Mill, is anyone who has experienced both the lower pleasures and the higher. His famous quote in his book was, "it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied". [5] This shows Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures. He justified this distinction by the thought that "few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures." [5] John Stuart Mill also made a clear distinction between happiness and pleasure; and made it evident that Weak Rule Utilitarianism was focused on maximizing happiness rather than pleasure made it clear that what one desires and what is good is not always the same thing.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
After reading this article I learned that utilitarianism pays more importance on doing the most good for the most number of people. I personally think that, if we are in a situation where not following utilitarian ideology may cause a great deal of pain and suffering or harm to many people then we might consider following utilitarian way of thinking and concentrate on doing most good for a greater number of people. However, if doing greater good to greater number of people causes significant pain and suffering for even a few people then we should reconsider the situation and try to do good for everybody if we have a choice, given that we can still do good for most people but that good may not be a greater good. What I mean here is that, our first choice should be to try to do good for everybody.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the society where we live it is not always easy to decide what will do most good to the most number of people. We sometimes are in situations where doing most good to greater number of people might cause harm to someone dear to us. How do we handle this kind of situations?
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilitarianism is a great ideology. However every situation is different and unique. So, I will use my best judgment and first try to do as much good for all the people and if that is absolutely not possible then do most good for greater number of people.
References:
1. Jeremy Bentham. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.
2. Rosen, Frederick (2003). Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. Routledge, p. 28.
3. John Stuart Mill. (1863). Utilitarianism
---------------------------------------------------
Utilitarianism is the idea that says that, the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its utility in providing happiness or pleasure as summed among all conscious beings. It means that the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome. In ethical concept happiness of the greatest number of people in the society is considered the greatest good. So, Utilitarianism is the theory that the rightness or wrongness of an action is determined by its usefulness in bringing the most happiness to all those are affected by it. An action is right if it tends to maximize happiness of everyone affected.
The most influential contributors to this ideology were Jeremy Bentham, an English philosopher and legal and social reformer, and John Stuart Mill, an English philosopher, political theorist and political economist.
Utilitarianism is often described by the phrase "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" [1], and is also known as "the greatest happiness principle". Utility or the good to be maximized has been defined by various thinkers as happiness or pleasure. Preference utilitarian theorists define it as the satisfaction of preferences. Utilitarianism can be characterized as a quantitative and reductionist approach to ethics. It can be contrasted with deontological ethics, which do not regard the consequences of an act as being a determinant of its moral worth.
The origins of utilitarianism are often traced as far back as the Greek philosopher Epicurus, but, as a specific school of thought, it is generally credited to Jeremy Bentham [2]. Bentham found pain and pleasure to be the only intrinsic values in the world: "nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure.” [1] From this, he derived the rule of utility: the good is whatever brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.
In his famous work, Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill argues that cultural, intellectual and spiritual pleasures are of greater value than mere physical pleasure because the former would be valued higher than the latter by competent judges. A competent judge, according to Mill, is anyone who has experienced both the lower pleasures and the higher. His famous quote in his book was, "it is better to be a human dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied". [5] This shows Mill's distinction between higher and lower pleasures. He justified this distinction by the thought that "few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures." [5] John Stuart Mill also made a clear distinction between happiness and pleasure; and made it evident that Weak Rule Utilitarianism was focused on maximizing happiness rather than pleasure made it clear that what one desires and what is good is not always the same thing.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
After reading this article I learned that utilitarianism pays more importance on doing the most good for the most number of people. I personally think that, if we are in a situation where not following utilitarian ideology may cause a great deal of pain and suffering or harm to many people then we might consider following utilitarian way of thinking and concentrate on doing most good for a greater number of people. However, if doing greater good to greater number of people causes significant pain and suffering for even a few people then we should reconsider the situation and try to do good for everybody if we have a choice, given that we can still do good for most people but that good may not be a greater good. What I mean here is that, our first choice should be to try to do good for everybody.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the society where we live it is not always easy to decide what will do most good to the most number of people. We sometimes are in situations where doing most good to greater number of people might cause harm to someone dear to us. How do we handle this kind of situations?
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilitarianism is a great ideology. However every situation is different and unique. So, I will use my best judgment and first try to do as much good for all the people and if that is absolutely not possible then do most good for greater number of people.
References:
1. Jeremy Bentham. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.
2. Rosen, Frederick (2003). Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. Routledge, p. 28.
3. John Stuart Mill. (1863). Utilitarianism
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Reading - A Historian For Our Time
Knowledge I gained from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------
By reading A Historian For Our Time I learned that Herodotus, the fifth-century B.C. Greek Traveler was way ahead of his time in terms of thinking and observing the culture and customs of different society of that time. He was not only a traveler but his philosophical observations and quotes are still valued a great deal in this modern age. Herodotus, observed and came into conclusion that, it is hard if not nearly impossible for some, to go against what they believe in and what they have been taught by the culture they are used to. Herodotus also observed that it is hard for people to change. Even if they do, it does not happen very frequently. I have also learned that, Herodotus had his own unique style in which he described his observations and comparing with other historians, Herodotus's style of describing an observation of his seems to be more enjoyable and easy to follow.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From this reading, I have learned that, specialization in anything can have both a good and a bad impact in people’s life and culture. I have also learned that expertise could be viewed as the inverse of wisdom in some cases. It is not always easy to bring sudden change to any unit of our society. Change takes time and the process is slow. To make a positive change to put a positive impact in society we would have to work very hard against trends. People usually get comfortable with what custom they currently have in place and usually are hesitant to take risks. We should be open-minded to try out new things in life. I have also learned that too much of anything is bad and nothing is worse than excess. We should also not only look at things that are in surface but look beyond it to find the real meaning and purpose of things in life.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
This story again leaves me with thoughts or questions, in personal and professional lives we have learned that being good in one thing is admirable. Such as, a good cook is appreciated for his good cooking and not other things but in this article at one point it was said that, too much narrow expertise is the inverse of wisdom. So, should we ignore what we have learned for all these years? Again am I resisting the opportunity of changes in my thoughts and what I have been learning and believing over the years? How much effort one would have to put to change the culture or custom of any unit of the society including individual’s life style? What prompts changes and at what point are we willing to try it out and take a risk?
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have learned that, change is good and we should be open to take positive suggestions and adopt to changes. We should try to learn as much as possible and gather wisdom rather than gaining too much of a narrow expertise in one area. To bring changes in one’s personal or practical life it would take hard work and dedication and lot of research to find pros and cons. I have also learned that changes don’t come easily but it is a slow process. I will also take the teaching with me that too much of anything is bad.
Reference:
---------------
Robert D. Kaplan. (2007, January-February). A Historian For Our Time. The Atlantic.
URL: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200701/kaplan-herodotus
-----------------------------------------------
By reading A Historian For Our Time I learned that Herodotus, the fifth-century B.C. Greek Traveler was way ahead of his time in terms of thinking and observing the culture and customs of different society of that time. He was not only a traveler but his philosophical observations and quotes are still valued a great deal in this modern age. Herodotus, observed and came into conclusion that, it is hard if not nearly impossible for some, to go against what they believe in and what they have been taught by the culture they are used to. Herodotus also observed that it is hard for people to change. Even if they do, it does not happen very frequently. I have also learned that, Herodotus had his own unique style in which he described his observations and comparing with other historians, Herodotus's style of describing an observation of his seems to be more enjoyable and easy to follow.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
From this reading, I have learned that, specialization in anything can have both a good and a bad impact in people’s life and culture. I have also learned that expertise could be viewed as the inverse of wisdom in some cases. It is not always easy to bring sudden change to any unit of our society. Change takes time and the process is slow. To make a positive change to put a positive impact in society we would have to work very hard against trends. People usually get comfortable with what custom they currently have in place and usually are hesitant to take risks. We should be open-minded to try out new things in life. I have also learned that too much of anything is bad and nothing is worse than excess. We should also not only look at things that are in surface but look beyond it to find the real meaning and purpose of things in life.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
This story again leaves me with thoughts or questions, in personal and professional lives we have learned that being good in one thing is admirable. Such as, a good cook is appreciated for his good cooking and not other things but in this article at one point it was said that, too much narrow expertise is the inverse of wisdom. So, should we ignore what we have learned for all these years? Again am I resisting the opportunity of changes in my thoughts and what I have been learning and believing over the years? How much effort one would have to put to change the culture or custom of any unit of the society including individual’s life style? What prompts changes and at what point are we willing to try it out and take a risk?
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have learned that, change is good and we should be open to take positive suggestions and adopt to changes. We should try to learn as much as possible and gather wisdom rather than gaining too much of a narrow expertise in one area. To bring changes in one’s personal or practical life it would take hard work and dedication and lot of research to find pros and cons. I have also learned that changes don’t come easily but it is a slow process. I will also take the teaching with me that too much of anything is bad.
Reference:
---------------
Robert D. Kaplan. (2007, January-February). A Historian For Our Time. The Atlantic.
URL: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200701/kaplan-herodotus
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Reading - A Crime of Shadows
Knowledge I gained from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------
Reading this article left me with disappointment and confusion. Everything happened in this case seemed to me as unethical and unlawful. The knowledge I gained by reading this article is that life is not always fair. Even though J committed or a despicable crime being a family man and created ethical issues by his questionable conduct, he did not commit a crime that he got punishment for. Most important knowledge I gained from this case is that, you are not always judged by your intention but mostly by your conduct.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It seemed to me that J was caught between the law and unethical conduct. J got the punishment he deserved, for doing something no family man should do even though the way he was arrested by the police did not seem to be fair to him when we hear J’s side of the story. Personal insight in this story for me is, we should keep ourselves away from forbidden temptations and play by the rule and ethics.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
I could understand how strongly Michele Deery felt about arresting and putting online predators out of the streets and behind the bars. However, I felt that she did not play totally by the rules and her conduct of luring J into something he claimed he did not intend to do seemed to me as of a kind of abuse. The question this story left me with is that, why Deery did not stop communicating with J when over and over she saw that his interests were not along the line with what she was looking for in a predator. Another question I have is that why she was not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt by meeting with him first? She could have worn a wire and recorded their conversation and get his intention in record after meeting him for real.
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading this story, I have learned that, one should never do anything unethical or something that is not widely accepted by the society. Law does not go by what we say our intention is but law requires evidence. So, one should always abide by the laws of a society.
Reference:
---------------
Mark Bowden. (2009, December). A Crime of Shadows. Vanity Fair.
-----------------------------------------------
Reading this article left me with disappointment and confusion. Everything happened in this case seemed to me as unethical and unlawful. The knowledge I gained by reading this article is that life is not always fair. Even though J committed or a despicable crime being a family man and created ethical issues by his questionable conduct, he did not commit a crime that he got punishment for. Most important knowledge I gained from this case is that, you are not always judged by your intention but mostly by your conduct.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It seemed to me that J was caught between the law and unethical conduct. J got the punishment he deserved, for doing something no family man should do even though the way he was arrested by the police did not seem to be fair to him when we hear J’s side of the story. Personal insight in this story for me is, we should keep ourselves away from forbidden temptations and play by the rule and ethics.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
I could understand how strongly Michele Deery felt about arresting and putting online predators out of the streets and behind the bars. However, I felt that she did not play totally by the rules and her conduct of luring J into something he claimed he did not intend to do seemed to me as of a kind of abuse. The question this story left me with is that, why Deery did not stop communicating with J when over and over she saw that his interests were not along the line with what she was looking for in a predator. Another question I have is that why she was not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt by meeting with him first? She could have worn a wire and recorded their conversation and get his intention in record after meeting him for real.
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading this story, I have learned that, one should never do anything unethical or something that is not widely accepted by the society. Law does not go by what we say our intention is but law requires evidence. So, one should always abide by the laws of a society.
Reference:
---------------
Mark Bowden. (2009, December). A Crime of Shadows. Vanity Fair.
Reading - Custom Is King
Knowledge I gained from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------
By reading Custom is King I learned that it is hard if not nearly impossible for some, to go against what they believe in and what they have been taught by the culture they are used to. Some would say, it is written in our gene. The bottom line is people don’t change. Even if they do, it does not happen very frequently.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It is not always easy to bring sudden change to any unit of our society. Change takes time and the process is slow. This is true for business as well as in our personal life. To make a positive change to put a positive impact in society one would have to work very hard against trends. The reason being, people easily get comfortable with what custom they currently have in place and usually are hesitant to take risks. People who do take risks however, often succeed in life. In the case of this article, if Greeks or Indians were to take a risk and do what they were asked by breaking their customs then they would have gotten paid. This last statement is just to make a point however eating another human being is morally wrong and unethical.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
This story leaves me with a thought or question, how much effort one would have to take to change the culture or custom of any unit of the society. What about a corporation that is used to run business in certain way even though there might be a better solution out there? What prompts changes and at what point are we willing to try it out and take a risk?
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have learned that, to bring changes in one’s personal or practical life it would take hard work and dedication and lot of research to find pros and cons. I have also learned that changes don’t come easily but it is a slow process.
Reference:
---------------
Article from class handout reading.
-----------------------------------------------
By reading Custom is King I learned that it is hard if not nearly impossible for some, to go against what they believe in and what they have been taught by the culture they are used to. Some would say, it is written in our gene. The bottom line is people don’t change. Even if they do, it does not happen very frequently.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
It is not always easy to bring sudden change to any unit of our society. Change takes time and the process is slow. This is true for business as well as in our personal life. To make a positive change to put a positive impact in society one would have to work very hard against trends. The reason being, people easily get comfortable with what custom they currently have in place and usually are hesitant to take risks. People who do take risks however, often succeed in life. In the case of this article, if Greeks or Indians were to take a risk and do what they were asked by breaking their customs then they would have gotten paid. This last statement is just to make a point however eating another human being is morally wrong and unethical.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
This story leaves me with a thought or question, how much effort one would have to take to change the culture or custom of any unit of the society. What about a corporation that is used to run business in certain way even though there might be a better solution out there? What prompts changes and at what point are we willing to try it out and take a risk?
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have learned that, to bring changes in one’s personal or practical life it would take hard work and dedication and lot of research to find pros and cons. I have also learned that changes don’t come easily but it is a slow process.
Reference:
---------------
Article from class handout reading.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Reading - Killer@Craigslist
Knowledge I gained from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------
By reading the Killer@Craigslist article it is clear that Internet was created to gather, share and search for knowledge that is available all around us. As time went on Internet became a large virtual market place where everything and every service is sold and there are buyers for everything. I have also learned that Internet could be a very unsafe place if one is not careful enough. Every activity on the Internet leaves digital foot prints behind which can be used to track people and their Internet activities by the Internet service providers and the government authorities. Not only that, there could be a number of crimes one can be a victim of starting from murder to identity theft to many more countless crimes if one is not careful.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Internet did not introduce murder as a crime for the first time, in this case it definitely aided in expediting the communication process that lead to the crime. So, cybertechnology and inter could be unsafe and we have to be careful about what we do and who we communicate with on the Internet. However this same technology was used to track down the killer in this case. It is not the technology but the user of the technology is responsible for the way he or she uses the technology in their lives. Some might say that it is unethical to track people’s activities on the Internet. But from this story it is clear that without Internet activity tracking there were not too many other evidences which could have been used to capture and arrest a killer. For our own safety we have to accept the fact that not only mine but everybody’s Internet activities are monitored and this can in turn save our lives.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading this story, it appears that the killer was growing up in an environment where he did not see much affection between his parents. His parents were divorced multiple times. As a kid he did not have many friends and was not the most popular person in the school. However there are a lot of people like this in the society but not everybody turns out to be a killer. This story leaves me with a question in mind as to what turned Markoff into a killer who was such a brilliant student with a bright future.
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, after reading this story, I will be more careful about protecting my privacy, who I communicate with and what kind of personal information I share on the Internet. My general Internet activities will be much carefully planned and executed. And not only Internet, but I will use better judgment all together in life.
Reference:
---------------
Maureen Orth. (2009, October 1). Killer@Craigslist. Vanity Fair.
-----------------------------------------------
By reading the Killer@Craigslist article it is clear that Internet was created to gather, share and search for knowledge that is available all around us. As time went on Internet became a large virtual market place where everything and every service is sold and there are buyers for everything. I have also learned that Internet could be a very unsafe place if one is not careful enough. Every activity on the Internet leaves digital foot prints behind which can be used to track people and their Internet activities by the Internet service providers and the government authorities. Not only that, there could be a number of crimes one can be a victim of starting from murder to identity theft to many more countless crimes if one is not careful.
Personal insights I am able to make from the reading:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Although the Internet did not introduce murder as a crime for the first time, in this case it definitely aided in expediting the communication process that lead to the crime. So, cybertechnology and inter could be unsafe and we have to be careful about what we do and who we communicate with on the Internet. However this same technology was used to track down the killer in this case. It is not the technology but the user of the technology is responsible for the way he or she uses the technology in their lives. Some might say that it is unethical to track people’s activities on the Internet. But from this story it is clear that without Internet activity tracking there were not too many other evidences which could have been used to capture and arrest a killer. For our own safety we have to accept the fact that not only mine but everybody’s Internet activities are monitored and this can in turn save our lives.
Questions and challenges the reading has left me with:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading this story, it appears that the killer was growing up in an environment where he did not see much affection between his parents. His parents were divorced multiple times. As a kid he did not have many friends and was not the most popular person in the school. However there are a lot of people like this in the society but not everybody turns out to be a killer. This story leaves me with a question in mind as to what turned Markoff into a killer who was such a brilliant student with a bright future.
Practical and personal applications I am able to make for the knowledge gained:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally, after reading this story, I will be more careful about protecting my privacy, who I communicate with and what kind of personal information I share on the Internet. My general Internet activities will be much carefully planned and executed. And not only Internet, but I will use better judgment all together in life.
Reference:
---------------
Maureen Orth. (2009, October 1). Killer@Craigslist. Vanity Fair.
What some other students thought about Madoff
About Madoff's case, forgot to mention one thing. Some of the other student that wrote in the discussion board didn't think that clients had much responsibility out of ignorance. However, I feel that all parties had more or less responsibilities. Customers acted the way they did out of greed. Also they should have notified SEC of any wrong doing by Madoff and his firm which they didn’t.
Cyberethics and Cybertechnology
Read chapter 1 and completed homework question. Now I know what is cyberethics and cybertechnology. I have learned some other ethical terms as well. Well cyberethics is not a widely used term. It means computer related ethics.
Bernard Madoff Case
I watched a video on Bernard Madoff and the case against him and his firm. I have heard about Madoff but didn't know much of the story in detail. The video was very interesting and I learned a lot from it. I feel that all parties involved, Madoff, his firm, his employees, clients and even SEC contributed to this situation. Madoff was a dishonest businessman. His employees and entire firm were conducting business in such way that they only cared about their part of the cut. They had acted the way they did out of greed. Clients knew that the way Madoff was doing business was not the right way and they even knew why he was running business that way. However they didn’t feel obligated to report this to authorities just because they were under the impression that they were making their money. Even SEC should be accounted responsible as they didn’t investigate Madoff on time and even when they initially did they did a poor job. It also felt to me that SEC agents were not comfortable going after a reputed and respected person in Wall Street such as Madoff.
Learning Style Quiz
I have taken the learning style quiz and it seems like I am fairly well balanced on the two dimensions of each provided scale. My scores were 3, 3, 3 and 1. I am not good with memorizing anything. I like logic better than theory. I hope my writing skills improve. I like being in the class. Online class is not my thing.
My Code of Conduct
I work in IT and being a senior software developer, my primary responsibility is to product quality software product that meets customer requirements as closely as possible and delivers the product in an efficient and timely fashion. So, after giving it much thought, I figured that my own code of conduct should have something to do with what I do in my day to day work life. And I will implement the same ethics in my personal life as well.
So, here is my Code of Conduct that I will live by for rest of my career and personal life.
“LISTEN, UNDERSTAND, COMMUNICATE and then DELIVER”.
Professionally, I will make sure I listen to my customer and understand their needs. I will be taking lots of notes during requirement and other meetings. I will not do guess work and communicate as much as needed to clarify what I need clarification on. And when I fully understand the fact I will deliver the product developed per the customer’s need.
In personal life, I can use the same code of conduct or ethics. I will not jump into conclusion on any topic without fully understanding it. That way I will be a better communicator and will have inputs on any conversation or other areas of communications which will have a greater and positive impact.
So, here is my Code of Conduct that I will live by for rest of my career and personal life.
“LISTEN, UNDERSTAND, COMMUNICATE and then DELIVER”.
Professionally, I will make sure I listen to my customer and understand their needs. I will be taking lots of notes during requirement and other meetings. I will not do guess work and communicate as much as needed to clarify what I need clarification on. And when I fully understand the fact I will deliver the product developed per the customer’s need.
In personal life, I can use the same code of conduct or ethics. I will not jump into conclusion on any topic without fully understanding it. That way I will be a better communicator and will have inputs on any conversation or other areas of communications which will have a greater and positive impact.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Ethics, Low, Policy & Technology - 011210
This is my blog for Marymount University IT-550 class. In this class we will learn about ethics, law and policies in information technology world. There will be a lot of reading in this class. I am not much of a reader or writer. As far as writing goes, writing application programs is what I do best. However, I will try my best to enjoy and have fun in this course. Hopefully I will develop some writing skills from all the readings, assignments, blogging and working on final research paper.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)