James Moor and Computer Ethics

During the 1980s, there was a total fear that computers had a mind of their own. Some believed that they could take over the world. We saw this in the clip that we watched in class where they actually believed that the computer could start World War III. However, it is important to see that they are learning that you can basically train/ teach computers to do almost anything. Some of this fear is expressed in James Moor’s article about computer ethics. I think that a lot of what he wrote is still relevant, yet at times you can tell that it was written in 1985. We still need to think about how much we should trust computers to do things for us. I like the point that he makes about computers creating new methods of communication. This also creates an issue that we have talked about a few times in lecture. Personal contact is taken out of the picture because it is easier to email, instant message, and text people. New methods created by computers make our lives much easier; however, we lose face- to- face contact. Few people stop and think about how easy our generation has it with all of the technology in front of us to do a research project. In addition, registering for classes in person would be a complete nightmare and waste of time.

I found Moor’s section about ‘the invisibility factor’ to be the most interesting and prominent to our lives in 2009. He gives the example of a programmer who realized he/she could steal excess interest from a bank and transfer it to his/her own account. The excess interest could be a minute amount, but could add up over time. People could also create a program to steal someone’s credit card number off of an online shopping website. This part of the article made me think of Bernie Madoff. Obviously, his lack of proper ethics/ morals goes far beyond the examples that Moor discusses. The problem with invisible programs occurs when even programmers can not catch them. Moor finishes by saying how we like a good amount of the invisibility with computers, but that this is what makes us vulnerable. Today, I would imagine that there are more people that are trained to catch harmful invisible computer programs. Sometimes I agree and think we do put too much trust in computers. I was curious what others thought about this. I was thinking about whether or not an invisible program could have prevented Madoff from scamming so many people. On the other side, I think that part of the reason he got away with it because such a program could be consider an invasion of privacy.

Moor's Just Consequentialism

As we wrapped up our discussion of ethical frameworks this week, it struck me that while Kantianism, Utilitarianism, and Social Contract Theory were are "logically viable," none of them particularly captured the way I (and most others, I suspect) make ethical decisions. Sure, I often weigh the benefits of a moral decision against the costs, a la Utilitarianism; I am also not immune to the pressure to act with good will towards my fellow rational beings, as in Kant's categorical imperative; and yes, it's true, I also feel a certain moral obligation to follow the rules set down by the society I live in, as social contract theory would have me. Alas, none of these theories can solely explain the thought process I hope most of us go through when we make ethical decisions.

Thus, I was pleased that the interview with James Moor in the book included an overview of his Just Consequentialism. It seems, from his brief summary, that this theory combines aspects of the other three covered in the chapter in a multi-step decision process. It seems to me that by allowing for examination of "duties, rights, and consequences" of a given decision, one should arrive at a better understanding of the moral implications thereof than he would by only considering one of those aspects. I grant, as does Moor, that this method may leave a significant gray area because of person to person differences in valuing duties, rights, and consequences. I think, however, that the understanding gained by considering issues from all three angles is worth the gray area.

Sharing electronic media: Should it be illegal?

In our discussion of ethical theory, we have seen many instances where an action can be considered right or wrong depending on which theory is used to justify it. For example, the act of lying is always considered immoral under Kantian ethics because there are no exceptions to moral laws. On the other hand, a Utilitarianist would argue that in some situations lying is not immoral because the benefits created by that lie would outweigh the harm they cause to the affected parties.

Consider another example where moral contradictions are often reached. Sharing electronic media is becoming an increasingly debatable issue in computer ethics as communication networks and technological devices make it easier to do so. In our country, it is illegal to distribute free copies of copyrighted material such as CDs and DVDs. What ethical principles can you use to justify this law?

However, what if the distributor is sharing downloaded music with his or her friends who could not afford to buy the music anyway? Under Utilitarian ethics, would this action no longer be immoral?

Computing Misconceptions

Although it was just a "break activity" yesterday (Wednesday), the clip from WarGames that we watched has been one of the more striking points that we've brought up in discussion this week. It was really interesting (and rather hilarious) to get a look at what people thought about computers back in the mid-eighties.  It's easy to laugh at the notion that a computer could be this unstoppable force that will ultimately lead to the destruction of humanity, but do we really have a true grasp on how computing works now?

Surely in a time where nearly everyone has access to a computer, the general public must have a decent understanding of how computers function and what they are capable of.  However, a quick look at films of today suggests that this isn't the case. For example, take a look at this collection of clips from Die Hard 4 (2007)).  Much of DH4's plot revolves around computer hacking, and these segments show a number of the characters hacking their way to all sorts of  "secure" information.  However, are any of them dealing with computer code or command-line interfaces? No, they essentially just hit the "hack" button in their hacking utility that happens to have a very nice, clean graphical interface.  Computers have certainly come a long way, but this is a pretty blatantly inaccurate representation of hacking.

Another example of just how out of touch we can be with technology is a now famous quote from Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) regarding Net Neutrality in which he describes the internet as a "series of tubes"). I find it a bit scary to consider that legislation regarding important issues such as net neutrality and copyright law will be decided by people like Ted Stevens, who don't seem to have a strong understanding of today's technology. This makes the area of Computer Ethics an even murkier subject.  How can judgements be made about right and wrong when many people do not understand the basics of how computer technology functions today?

Welcome!

Welcome to the COMP 380 section 1 blog. To get started, if you are not already a member of Blogger, you should create an account; you don't need to give away any of your personal information in your profile, just make sure that enough of your full name appears so that everyone in the class knows who you are! (First and last name or first initial and last name will work.) Then you will want to become a "follower" of this blog. To do so, click on the link to the right.

Once you have created your account, write to me (tnicholas@cs.unc.edu) and tell me which e-mail address you've associated with this account and which section you are in. I will add you as an author for the blog, which means you'll be able to create posts as well as comments.

When it is your turn to post a Weekly Response, click on "New Post" in the upper right-hand corner of your Blogger dashboard page and type 2-3 solid paragraphs of specific, detailed, interesting response to this week's readings and class discussion, lecture, and activities, into the text box. Give your response a title. Then click "Publish Post." Weekly Responses should be posted by Thursday of each week, giving the rest of the class the weekend to read and comment.

To edit your post, click on "New Post" and then on the tab "Edit Posts."

To comment on one of the Weekly Responses, click on the title of that post or the clickable word "comments" below the post and compose your response. Then click "Post Comment."

Three or four of you will be posting Weekly Responses each week; you will each post a Weekly Response once this semester. Make it good. Try not to be repetitive of what has already been posted. You must also keep up with reading these responses and make two or three significant (that is, beyond "I agree" and the like: two direct, solid sentences or more per comment) comments per week as well.

For more details on how Blogger works, click on the "Help" tab in the upper right-hand corner.

Obviously, all of the guidelines in terms of respectful disagreement and thoughtful response that we follow in class also apply here.