Your decision on the Hacking Case

Your decision on the Hacking Case

If you were to decide on the Landmark Hacking, what will be your judgment? Support your answer.

Given the scarce documents regarding the case, it is not just to create a judgment right away. Since there are not enough documents presented to me, I will not be able to make a judgment right away. But suppose that the documents that I have are the only documents that can be presented, I may be more likely to dismiss the case for lack of supporting evidence. Use of a single telephone number for accessing the Thames account cannot be attributed right away to Leilani Garcia only. If people other than Leilani use the telephone number for accessing the ISP, then Leilani and Cesar Mañalac could not be the only suspects right away. If there are company rules by Thames that usage of the account excludes people like Leilani, then Leilani should not have used the account even if she gained access to it. However, if Mañalac has authority to give access to the Thames account then there is no need to argue about the case. But if Mañalac is not authorized to do so, then the case should proceed.

Laws Controlling the Use of Computer Technology

Laws Controlling the Use of Computer Technology

Are you in favor of the enactment and enforcement of laws that will regulate and control the use of computer technology? Why or why not? Defend your answer.

I am in favor with the laws on computer technology mainly because such acts protect various proponents that are related to the technology. It could be forgiven that the laws are somewhat crude; anyway, they are just preliminary moves regarding the laws on computer technology. What could not be forgiven however is when these laws become stagnant, when they are no longer relevant to the present and future needs of the citizens. With the laws on computer technology in the Philippines, computer programs are rendered as not patentable but copyrightable. This ensures protection of the owners of the computer programs against unfair use of their intellectual property. This also ensures protection of other parties interested in producing similar programs that may be an improvement on the existing program. With computer programs being not patentable, the citizens are not locked to existing patented programs which more or less are resting on a monopoly since programs similar to the patented one can not be produced. More often than not, the laws on computer technology are very much favorable for the protection of all parties engaged in the use of computer technology. And even if the exiting laws are not yet fully refined, they should evolve to be.

Three Examples of Computer Crimes

Three Examples of Computer Crimes

Discuss at least three examples of computer crimes.


Ping of Death

In April 18, 2000 a 15-year old Canadian boy was arrested and charged with two counts of “mischief to data” and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police seized his computer for his attacks. He was protected by his pseudonym “Mafiaboy.” The attacks were on yahoo.com, amazon.com, buy.com, cnn.com, ebay.com, E*Trade, ZDNet, Dell Computer, Outlaw.net, and also victimizing computers from Stanford University and University of California Santa Barbara. Maximum penalties for juveniles were put on him by the Canadian Federal prosecutors but social workers aiding Mafiaboy said that he still has no remorse for his crimes.


Gate Programs and Password Crackers

This was from the Case of Randal Schwartz and Intel Corporation. Schwartz was a contributor to the PERL programming language and was a contractor for Intel. Schwartz put gate programs on Intel’s computers and accessed the Internet from them. His actions made Intel’s computer vulnerable and are also not in accord with Intel’s rules. Schwartz was able to crack various passwords from Intel computers and did not notify Intel about it. Schwartz received 5 years of probation, 480 hours of community service, 90 days of jail time, and $68,000 restitution for Intel.


Keyloggers, Software Piracy and Bank Account Theft

Juju Jiang, 24 years old, of Flushing, New York was sentenced to 27 months imprisonment, and three years supervised release after that, with around $200,000 restitution for computer fraud and software piracy. Jiang installed keyloggers on terminals of Kinko’s store to collect usernames and passwords. With the confidential information he obtained, he accessed or tried to access bank accounts belonging to other persons, and transferring funds to unauthorized accounts. His two counts of software piracy came from his sale of copies of Microsoft Office 2000 Professional Edition.

Definition of Computer Crime

Definition of Computer Crime

From the cases summarized above, explain what constitutes a computer crime.


It would not give justice to give a generalized definition for a very complex issue of what constitutes computer crime. That is why the laws are expressed in excruciating detail. But in the light of the cases in the module, computer crimes could be viewed as resulting to normal non-computer crimes like stealing, fraud, etc., but it is just that, computers are involved. So it is not uncommon for computer laws to be viewed as adoption of the non-computer laws, tweaked to be applicable to computing contexts.

Explanation of Court Rulings

Explanation of Court Rulings

Account for the court ruling in the four cases discussed above on ethical grounds. That is, explain from an ethics standpoint the court ruling in each case.


Whelan vs. Jaslow

Whelan did not commit software piracy or plagiarism since no verbatim copies were made. It may be true that the case was resolved using an old appreciation of computer science. Actually, this is a trend in the open source scene were most open source projects are inspired by commercial applications. The commercial and open source projects have the same functionality but no piracy or plagiarism need to be done to accomplish it.


Computer Associates vs. Altai

Altai did an almost noble thing of doing a second version of their program since they do not want to be unethical, in a sense. Altai could have capitalized on a key asset that they have, the ex-Computer Associates employee, but they did not. Computer Associates’ move of suing Altai could be somehow viewed as malicious. Too bad for CA, the case of Whelan vs. Jaslow was viewed as outdated so the case was not in their favor.


Apple vs. Microsoft and HP

The case could be analogous to having masterpieces and their replicas. Look and feels were just matters of style, and styles by nature are prone to mimicking. But still no software was pirated and no written work was plagiarized. Today actually, Apple’s look and feels for their applications were being mimicked by various projects but there are no issues with it.


Lotus vs. Paperback Software, Mosaic Software, and Borland

In here, the basic premise of software piracy or plagiarism was not committed. Of course, if several proponents are creating the same functions for their software, it is not uncommon for their different applications to have similar menu structures. I think I can smell unethical motives not in the issue of the menu structures but in the courts that decided for Mosaic and Paperback. It could be noticed that the previous two companies were not as big as Lotus or Borland. It could not be helped but have a hint that there was partiality in the rulings where smaller companies lost but a big company did not, on cases having the same nature. Today there exists the Microsoft Office suite and the OpenOffice.org suite. OpenOffice.org actually has a menu structure that is very similar to the Microsoft Office menu structure. But no software piracy or plagiarism was committed.

An Issue Discussed from 6 Perspectives

Discuss one of the issues taken up in this module from the point of view of the preliminary and finalist theories discussed in Modules 3 and 4. Note that you must discuss the issue you choose from six perspectives (three preliminary theories and three finalist theories). To put it another way, you must come up with six perspectives on the issue.

Issue: Internet Pornography


First Perspective – Ethical Relativism

In the light of this ethical principle, all absolutist views about Internet pornography will be rejected as this principle supports exceptional cases to almost every rule due to different contexts and conditions among acts like pornography in the Internet. So Internet pornography is tolerated in some contexts and not in other contexts. But a single rule imposed on just one side of the two-sided Internet pornography issue is frowned upon by this ethical perspective.


Second Perspective – Ethical Absolutism

In this perspective, the issue of Internet pornography is either good or bad and there should never be a gray area. This perspective is backed up by rigid factors that are universal, constant and having unchanging reasons for judging the issues.


Third Perspective – Ethical Egoism and Ethical Altruism

Since the object of the ethical egoism perspective concentrates on the “self” (it may also be altruism that is masked behind self-interest), tolerance or intolerance of the Internet pornography issue cannot be a matter of social proportions rather; it is just an individual issue. An individual could assess the issue as an object of aversion or desire and this individual assessment cannot be generalized to apply to all individuals. Since ethical altruism is also an individual issue, this perspective is similar in some ways with ethical egoism regarding the issues of computing like Internet pornography.


Fourth Perspective – John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism

For this perspective, the issue must be subjected to the “greatest happiness” function. Of course this means that the issue should produce happiness and help people involved to avoid pain. It is inherent in this principle to resolve the issues using the greatest happiness function for promoting judgment that could achieve near universality.


Fifth Perspective – Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperatives

“First, to have moral worth, an action should be done out of duty.” This cannot be applied to all circumstances and all contexts regarding Internet pornography since the duties regarding actions of Internet pornography vary widely. “Second, an action done from duty does not have its moral worth in the purpose, which is to be achieved through it, but in the maxim by which it is determined”. This also does not have universal application considering that Internet pornography’s maxim might be to educate or even just to entertain. In this regard Internet pornography could be a hypothetical imperative since the issue could be good for something else. Since some might also hold that Internet pornography has its inherent value, and that it is good in itself the issue could be regarded by some as a categorical imperative. What is apparent is that this perspective also has diverse views on the issue.


Sixth Perspective – Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics

In this perspective, the issue could be subjected to classification as instrumental, final, or supreme. We could classify the issue as being one of the three in different contexts. Although sexually-related activities are more often given the bad hype, some proponents view sexually-related activities as having pure and non-malicious worth. Internet pornography might also be regarded as being driven by moral or intellectual virtue. Since the perspective makes heavy use of moderation. So the issue of Internet pornography as much as any other issue could be a candidate to being a virtue through moderation.

Chat Groups and Free Expression

Chat Groups and Free Expression

If you were granted indefinite and unrestricted access to the Internet, would you be interested to join a chat group that holds no barrier as far as free expression and communication are concerned? Why? Why not?


Actually, I am not very interested in chat groups, although I am interested in having freedom of expression in various forms. Just like an adaptation of the cliché goes: I may not be interested in what other people are saying, but I may fight for the right of those people to say what they want. Most people find the right to freedom of expression that they are seeking in the Internet, where expressions are ironically easier to restrain. The amount of noise in the Internet is often enormous that people have to actively filter what they want to ingest. What’s good with the lesser restrictions in expression is that information is formed in usually many sources, although sometimes this is also a liability because some sources could contradict with their stands on the same issue. But this just reflects the healthy state of communication. Communication in the Internet can be regarded as having its own evolutionary nature, where flaming, racism, and other malicious form of communication naturally die down, and the healthy state of the intended communication naturally survives.

Denial of Access as a Social Justice Issue

Denial of Access as a Social Justice Issue

Is denial of access in computing a social justice issue? Discuss your answer.

First of all, let us use the definition of social justice of Jose P. Laurel. One way of looking at the problem is “if access to computing is a social justice issue.” Computing is one of the factors that contribute to the welfare of the people. And if computing promotes the welfare of the people, it is the responsibility of the state to uphold it. The existence of denial of access to computing entails the fact that there is inequity of access; Equity of access is a concern of social justice according to the module. If this is the case, then we could infer that denial of access to computing is a social justice issue.

An Example of a Social Justice Issue

An Example of a Social Justice Issue

Choose one of the social justice issues in computing discussed above and find out to what extent it is an issue in the Philippines. Then find out what is being done to address it in specific countries. For example, in the case of the digital divide due to language differences, Soriano reports the adoption of the ‘Unicode Standard, “a character coding system designed to support the worldwide interchange, processing, and display of the written texts of the diverse languages of the modern world.” Developed, extended and promoted by a non-profit organization, the Unicode Consortium (www.unicode.org), the Unicode Standard makes international communication easier.’

An example of a social justice issue in computing discussed in the module is “Are women more disadvantaged in the Information Age?” In the Philippines, women are generally more disadvantaged in computing relative to the men not because women are less entitled to computing facilities but because women have more responsibilities (like childcare) that lessens their time to do computing-related activities. Among the factors listed in the module (literacy and education, language, time, geographical location) social and cultural norms are the least likely to be factors applicable to Philippine women. Specific countries like the Philippines and the US have laws addressing the equality of men and women in general. There are also various active women’s rights groups in both countries that specifically fight for gender equality in the field of ICT. In the Philippines, there are two Republic Acts formulated during the term of Corazon Aquino addressing general gender equality issues.

An Example of a Violation of Privacy

An Example of a Violation of Privacy

Think of an act, other than those already discussed in this module, that would constitute a violation of privacy in computing. Explain.

An interesting example of this happened on the part of eTours, its customers and Ask Jeeves. eTours is a direct marketing company that sponsors a privacy policy which it violated when eTours was sold to Ask Jeeves. The privacy was like usual policies; it promises that customer information will not be given out to other parties. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a complaint to the US Federal Trade Commission about the sale of eTours to Ask Jeeves. The eTours customer information that were given out, which they promised previously not to, include a database of 4.5 million registered users and 2.2 million unique newsletter subscribers. The eTours acquisition was intended to expand Ask Jeeves’s targeted advertising products.

An Example of Computer Abuse

An Example of Computer Abuse

Choose one of computer abuse which you think is morally wrong. Explain why you consider it as morally wrong using any of the ethical principles you have learned in the earlier modules.

A computer abuse example that I consider as morally wrong is the trap door. Some developers of electronic systems, usually those concerning financial systems, device holes in the systems that enable them to circumvent security of the system or create functionalities of the systems that are not part of the systems’ intended use. Examples of trap door implementations are systems that exploit rounding errors of financial transactions to transfer the almost negligible values to an unauthorized account. Even if the source code of the system does not contain a trap door, the trap door could be injected to the system through the compiler.

This is just a sophisticated method of stealing. Most of the ethical and legal principles from the previous modules are against stealing and breach of trust, which make trap doors morally wrong. For example, most Divine Natural, and Moral laws with the preliminary theories of ethical altruism, the finalist theories of Mill’s utilitarianism, the Kantian Categorical Imperatives, and the Nichomachean Ethics, condemn stealing and dishonesty so trap doors are not acceptable.

Spamming vs. Flaming

Spamming vs. Flaming

What is Spamming? Differentiate it from flaming.

Spamming is the Internet version of junk mail. Unsolicited commercial mail has been an inexpensive way for companies to promote their goods and services but results in clogging of email inboxes for most people. Flaming on the other hand, is the act of sending abusive or disrespectful messages to other people in the Internet through email, newsgroups, mailing lists, etc.

Computer Worms and Viruses

Computer Worms and Viruses

What are computer worms and viruses? Explain how these operate. Give examples.

Worms and viruses are malicious programs that have mechanisms for spreading themselves throughout many computers.

Viruses attach themselves to other executable files as their means of spreading to other systems. When the host executable program is run, the executable code of the virus is also run. Viruses have an infection phase where the virus is reproduced to other systems, and an attack phase where the virus unleashes its damaging mechanisms. Examples of viruses are Melissa and the “I Love You” virus / Love Bug.

Worms’ mechanism for spreading themselves does not rely on mechanisms used by viruses. Examples of worms include the Morris worm, and the Bagle worm.

Legislation Governing Computer Use

Legislation Governing Computer Use

As a computer user, I approve of an ordering principle in the form of legislation being formulated and enforced to govern computer use. Use of computers may brush with people’s rights and privileges. As with conventional rights, they must be defended and upheld. Legislation on computer use will help defend and uphold people’s rights and privileges. As with any legislation, it is not enough that legislations be formulated; they must be enforced without prejudice.

Three Precepts on Computer Use

Three Precepts on Computer Use

“Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people”

From the definitions of ethics, not harming others is in parallel with the following: having moral actions, caring for the soul, pursuing the good life. Most divine laws object to harming others. Some circles regard humans as having the tendency not to harm others by virtue of the natural law. Most moral laws also condemn harming others. In ethical egoism, not harming others may be in parallel with the ego’s desires. It may also be ethically altruistic. Not harming others might also give the most good for the most number of people. Not harming others may also be a duty of everyone by virtue of the Kantian categorical imperatives. Not harming others may also be a mean between extremes with Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics.


“Thou shalt not interfere with other people’s computer work”

From the definitions of ethics, not interfering with other people’s work is in parallel with the following: having moral actions, caring for the soul, pursuing the good life. Most divine laws object to not interfering with other people’s work. Most moral laws also condemn interfering with other people’s work. In ethical egoism, not interfering with other people’s work may be in parallel with the ego’s desires. It may also be ethically altruistic. Not interfering with other people’s work might also give the most good for the most number of people. Not interfering with other people’s work may also be a duty of everyone by virtue of the Kantian categorical imperatives. Not interfering with other people’s work may also be a mean between extremes with Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics.


“Thou shalt not snoop around in other people’s files”

From the definitions of ethics, not snooping around in other people’s files is in parallel with the following: having moral actions, caring for the soul, pursuing the good life. Most divine laws object to snooping around in other people’s files. Most moral laws also condemn snooping around in other people’s files. In ethical egoism, not snooping around in other people’s files may be in parallel with the ego’s desires. It may also be ethically altruistic. Not snooping around in other people’s files might also give the most good for the most number of people. Not snooping around in other people’s files may also be a duty of everyone by virtue of the Kantian categorical imperatives. Not snooping around in other people’s files may also be a mean between extremes with Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics.

Two Ethical Issues

Two Ethical Issues

An ethical issue in computing is privacy. Privacy may apply to computer applications developers that wish that their programs not be reversed engineered. Privacy may also apply to computer users who wish that their identities be protected while using the computer. Since privacy in computing is just an extension of conventional privacy, and conventional privacy is an ethical issue, privacy in computing is also an ethical issue.

Another ethical issue is theft in computing. This issue comes in various forms, like theft of personal identity and theft using backdoors. Just as in conventional and computing privacy, theft with computers is just an extension of conventional theft.

With both issues, they become ethical because they affect people, some in adverse ways, others just in mild ways. Nevertheless, these issues are in the realm of ethics and must not be disregarded.

Case of Daan

Case of Daan

1. Which of the 10 commandments on computer use did Daan violate?

The most evident commandment that Daan violated was “Thou shalt not use other people’s resources without authorization.” Daan also violated another commandment, although less evident, was “Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people.” Since Kael’s motherboard broke, Kael can’t use the computer entirely.


2. If you were Daan, will you tell Kael the truth or not? Explain.

Since Daan has violated the commandments, Daan must do some corrective action. Daan could make up for his fault by secretly replacing the damaged motherboard with a functioning one, without telling Kael. As some might say, “What you don’t know won’t hurt you.” This might solve the problem temporarily but Daan can’t be sure how long this secret will last. This might give Daan worries. But telling the truth to Kael could lead to having peace of mind for Daan and also for Kael in the sense that Kael is confident that Daan will tell the truth when something bad happens and not keep it a secret. Since I don’t want to have too many worries, I will tell Kael the truth if I were in Daan’s place.


3. If you were Kael and Daan told you the truth, what will you do?

If I were Kael, I must keep my cool and not just get angry with Daan. If I need the computer badly, I will require Daan to get the computer fixed as soon as possible. I should not be too lax with forgiving Daan because Daan might not learn the lesson from using other people’s resources without authorization.

Most Pervasive Moral Problem

Most Pervasive Moral Problem

In my opinion, the Problem of Freedom is very general enough that it encompasses the other Problems of Morality. If human beings are free and there is no morality then the other three are irrelevant. If this type of Problem of Morality encompasses the other three then this would be the most pervasive.

Moral Problems

Moral Problems

The pattern of having a problem between what an individual wants and what morals of the society dictates can be extracted from the problem statement if the following were established: a) the police father has chosen between arresting his son or not, and b) the morals of the society dictates what a police father should do in such a situation. The problem did not state what the police father wants to do between the options and what the morals of the society dictates. If there are conflicts between what the police father wants and the morals of the society dictate, then there is an illustration of a problem of moral obligation.

The problem statement is insufficient for us to categorize it as a problem of moral principle since the problem did not state a set of moral principles that the police father should choose from.

Should the police father make some moral choices, the problem could be categorized as that of the Scope of Morality if the choices have to be identified as moral or not.

The situation could illustrate a problem of freedom if the actions of the people involved in the problem are investigated in the light of infringing on the rights of other people or not.

Most Predominant Theory

Most Predominant Theory

Some concepts from all of the three finalist theories can be applicable to issues in computing. The norms of computing might have been formulated with the greatest happiness of the most number of people in mind. Or these computing norms may have been the universalized maxims and Imperative of Morality of rational people collectively. Kant's "good will" is parallel to modern laws concerning intent; Aristotle's inclusion of thoughts to people's actions (as opposed to actions only) is also in parallel with these.

The Nicomachean ethics can be seen as evident in computing because the ethics of computing are grounded on specific ends and in general, "the good life." Almost all of the Ten Commandments for Computer Ethics are grounded on pursuance of virtue and elimination of vices (stealing, destruction, etc.). The concepts of moderation or temperance are very applicable to computing related activities such as in the case of hacking. Hacking (ethical hacking) is a computing activity that incorporates various moral and intellectual virtues but going beyond the limits of ethical hacking that is cracking could be considered as example of Aristotelian excesses.

Most Appealing Finalist Theory

Most Appealing Finalist Theory

Although the three finalist theories are not very much appealing to me, I will choose Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics if I have to make a single choice. It seems that finalist theories of substantial value have been formulated since the very ancient times and the more recent theories are not too brilliant compared to the old theories. I did not choose Mill's and Kant's theories because I find them degrading of people.


Mill's Utilitarianism Brings People Down to the Level of Animals

Mill in this case has joined the league of somewhat annoying theorists like Darwin and Freud. Mill's use of happiness as argument, which he shares with Aristotle, is just fine but Mill's association of happiness with pleasure is meager as compared with Aristotle's definition of happiness. Also, Mill's criteria for happiness restricts it to the most number possible. The determination of the greatest good for the hedonistic utilitarianism is not too concrete.


Kant's Bases for the Categorical Imperatives are not Concrete

Kant did not specify the universalizable maxims, I think maybe it is because there are no maxims that are universally accepted. For every maxim that is a candidate for universality, there would be arguments to counter it. Since the bases for the duties that people should adhere to do not have sound foundations, they are not authoritative. I personally would not like to be bound to a duty imposed on me that has no sound basis. That would be blindly following orders. Much like degrading people as done by the league of annoying theorists. This is not the most appealing but rather the most appalling theory among the three.


Aristotle's Virtue as the Mean Between Excesses is not too Concrete

There are also some excesses that are inherently bad so that may be the reason Aristotle did not categorize all excesses as having a negative version, and the mean be determined between them. Aristotle's reliance on virtue as means to happiness is not also universal; also the use of rationality as opposed to irrationality, people sometimes does not accept all rationality as universal. Aristotle's ethics also stated not only keeping virtue in people's hearts but make them into actions. This could lead to people being burnt out which could be candidate for unhappiness.