slimick@unix.cis.pitt.edu (John C Slimick) (12/13/90)
I am in charge of writing a proposal to fund a distinguished speaker in the area of technology and ethics. The most probable format would be for a speaker to spend at least two days here, providing an afternoon meeting with students and an evening presentation for the students, faculty, staff, and community. I am, however, open to suggestions on other formats. My main request here is for recommendations for such a speaker (or speakers). Obviously, our speaker must be able to provide interesting talks in this general area, or in subareas. The recommendations I have had so far are: Dr. Judith Perrole Dr. Shosana Zuboff Mr. Mitchell Kapor Mr. Jerry Berman Please send your recommendations via e-mail, with any other suggestions, or reactions to any of the above to slimick@unix.cis.pitt.edu Thanks! John Slimick
reggie@pdn.paradyne.com (George Leach) (12/14/90)
I would suggest Dr Eugene H. Spafford of Purdue University. Dr. Spafford has published a number of papers and spoken a great deal on the Internet Worm incident as well as the ethics of such acts. He may be contacted at spaf@cs.purdue.edu or (317) 494-7825. George W. Leach
kling@ICS.UCI.EDU (Rob Kling) (12/29/90)
Much depends upon what you're looking for in a speaker. If you're looking for a speaker who can stimulate sensitivity in a wide range of ethical issues in computing, and also relate well to CS undergrads, I recommend Judith Perrolle (Northeastern), Charles Dunlop (U of Michigan - Flint), Terry Winograd (Stanford), Deborah Johnson (Renssaleaer) or Dan McCracken (CUNY). -- Judith Perrolle has written and worked on a wide array of professional issues for computer scientists and teaches CS students. -- Charles Dunlop has a similar profile of experience (just edited "Computerization & Controversy: Value Conflicts & Social Choices in Computing" (Academic Press, March 1991) with a broad section on ethical issues in computing). -- Terry Winograd has written about the ethical issues of military funding in Computer Science. He has also been President of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. -- Deborah Johnson is a an ethical philosopher who has written about a wide range of ethical issues in computing. -- Dan McCracken is a previous President of the ACM who has worked actively to raise the ethical consciousness of computer scientists. Mitch Kapor and Jeremy Berman specialize in civil liberties issues and do not have regular contact with CS undergrads. Zuboff specializes in computerization & work from a managerial perspective. Because they are relatively specialized and do not routinely interact with CS undergrads, they would not be among my top set of choices for your needs. They are all good people. Kapor and Zuboff can be very charismatic (as are Perrolle, Winograd and McCracken). Overall, I would recommend people in the order that I've listed them. Rob Kling Dept. of Information & Computer Science University of California, Irvine
gast@CS.UCLA.EDU (David Gast) (12/29/90)
George Leach suggests: > Dr Eugene H. Spafford of Purdue University. Dr. Spafford has published > a number of papers and spoken a great deal on the Internet Worm incident > as well as the ethics of such acts. I have one question for Mr. Spafford. He was quoted in the telecom-digest (unfortunately, I don't have the exact citation handy) as saying something to the effect that anyone who does not think Craig Neidorf is guilty should wait until the trial. Well, the trial came, and the prosecution dropped its case in mid trial. What exactly was he expecting from the trial? I think that he is an excellent authority on the Morris/Internet worm incident, but I wonder how he has become an ethicist? Perhaps what Neidorf did was legal but unethical, but I have not seen any evidence of any claims of unethical behavior. Why were we supposed to think Neidorf was guilty, particularly since the constitution says that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty? What proof did Spafford have that the Feds did not have? David Gast
spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) (01/03/91)
In an earlier posting, Mr. David Gast asks: > I have one question for Mr. Spafford. He was quoted in the telecom-digest > (unfortunately, I don't have the exact citation handy) as saying something > to the effect that anyone who does not think Craig Neidorf is guilty should > wait until the trial. Well, the trial came, and the prosecution dropped > its case in mid trial. What exactly was he expecting from the trial? One question I can handle. :-) I also do not have the posting handy, so I'm not sure how I worded it. The intent of that posting was in response to people proclaiming Mr. Neidorf's innocence without knowing the particulars. I think that is as incorrect as shouting "Guilty" before the particulars are known. I had heard some of the same information from phone company security folks as had the federal authorities, and it did not sound as if Mr. Neidorf was as pure as some were making him out to be. That information turned out to be less than correct, as we now know. The point of my comment was that when someone is charged with a crime, as an observer, you can only state that you KNOW the person has been charged. You may BELIEVE that they are innocent or guilty, but until the evidence has been presented, you can't tell. Sometime, evidence and a verdict may demonstrate something other than what you believe. I don't recall ever publicly stating that Mr. Neidorf was guilty of anything *criminal*. I repeatedly stated that anyone who believed him innocent should wait to see what evidence was presented. On at least one occasion, I remember stating that if the evidence I was led to believe existed was presented, it might show definite guilt. My source to this was in phone company security. :-( I would still counsel the same -- don't go proclaiming innocence OR guilt prior to hearing the evidence presented at trial -- no matter what the charge, whether it is computer-related or not. > I think that he is an excellent authority on the Morris/Internet worm > incident, but I wonder how he has become an ethicist? Perhaps what > Neidorf did was legal but unethical, but I have not seen any evidence > of any claims of unethical behavior. That's more than your stated one question :-) I am not a philosopher by trade. I don't normally deal in metaethics. I have taught courses in applied ethics in computing over the past 5 years. I've got a list of publications, professional service, and history of speaking on topics of ethics and computing I could offer, but those are not necessarily things that qualify someone in a subject. I could also type in several score references on applied ethics I've studied during the development of my course, and which I have debated with my classes and peers. But again, that doesn't necessarily prove anything. In the context of being asked to speak on the topic of computer technology and ethics, I believe I can make a very good presentation on some aspects of it -- my audiences react favorably, report that they think about the issues in a different light, and I get asked back. That may not make me an ethicist, but it does satisfy the original query -- for someone to make an interesting presentation on ethics and computing technology. But what you asked was in the context of Craig Neidorf. There, I don't believe I need to be a trained ethicist to speak on the topic -- nor does anyone else. We all have bases for our opinions, and a right (perhaps an obligation) to speak them. Let me suggest you read the fine article by Michael C. McFarland, in the "Standards" column of IEEE Computer, March 1990, pp 77-81 for a perspective on this. > Why were we supposed to think Neidorf was guilty, particularly since the > constitution says that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty? > What proof did Spafford have that the Feds did not have? Three things: 1) If you thought he was guilty of a crime, please don't try to blame/credit me. 2) Guilty of an action, and legal guilt of a crime are two different things. For example, the following people were never found guilty of crimes under our legal system, yet think of your attitude towards them: Richard Nixon, Saddam Hussein, Jim Jones (Jamestown Massacre). Meanwhile, you can easily summon up the names of many people who have been convicted of crimes of conscience -- like the man whose birthday we celebrate Jan 17 (everywhere but Arizona): Martin Luther King, Jr. "Guilt" means many different things. The Constitution preserves certain rights under the law, and embodies an attitude about the application of the law that is not universally held (viz., the French guilty until proven innocent model). It does not grant some kind of magic stasis or absolution suddenly altered by pronouncement of a sentence. Thus, you could believe Neidorf guilty of something unethical and untoward, yet not guilty of any crime (or vice-versa) without contradiction. 3) I did not have or need evidence as I was not prosecuting. I had third-hand information that was very similar to the information possessed by the Federal authorities, later shown to be flawed; I concluded from that information that pronouncements of innocence were possibly premature. I voiced that opinion. I certainly hope you aren't implying that expression of one's opinion invalidates all else of one's accomplishments and qualifications, especially if it is misinterpreted? All of this is straying from the original topic, that of suggested speakers on topics of ethics & computing. Here are some ideas: GTE and Rose-Hulman just sponsored a 4-speaker seminar series on computers, ethics, and society. Don Gotterbarn spoke on "Ethics and the Computing Professional," Deborah Johnson spoke on "Computers and Privacy," I spoke on "Ethics, Viruses and Computer Vandalware", and Walter Maner spoke on "Ethical Implications of Computer Technology for the Physically Challenged." You can contact Prof. Heinz Luegenbiehl @ Rose-Hulman if you want more details (phone # on request). Don Gotterbarn is organizing a panel on ethics for software engineers at the next ICSE in Texas; I will be on it, as will Keith Miller of William & Mary. You can contact Don for details (i01gbarn@etsu.bitnet). Terry Bynum is the director of the Research Center on Computers and Society, funded in part by the NSF Ethical Values In Science and Technology Program. The Center is organizing a large summer conference on issues of ethics, law, and computer technology; you can contact Terry for more info (bynum@ctstateu.bitnet). Any member of the advisory panel would probably be able to provide an interesting talk: Terrell Ward Bynum (editor "Metaphilosophy", director RCCS), Ronald Anderson (Chair ACM SIGCAS, editor "Social Science Computer Review"), Gary Chapman (exec director of CPSR), Preston Covey (Chair, Am. Phil. Assoc. Comm. on Computer Use in Philosophy, Director Center for Design of Education Computing @ CMU), Gerald Engel (VP Education IEEE-CS, CSAB, editor of Computer Science Education), Deborah Johnson (chair, sub-comm. on Computer Technology & Ethics for Am. Phil. Assoc., author of numerous texts & articles), John Ladd (prof. emeritus from Brown, author of numerous articles on ethics & technology), Marianne LaFrance (director of "Expert Systems: Social Values and Ethical Issues" project at Boston College), Walter Maner (dir. of AI Lab at Bowling Green Univ), Daniel McCracken (former pres. ACM, lots of publication & service in the area), Michael McDonald (dir. Canadian Philosophical Association Study on Applied Ethics Research), James Moor (Am. Phil. Society subcomm. on Computer Technology & Ethics), Peter Neumann (RISKS editor, chair of ACM Comm. on Computers & Public Policy), John Snapper (Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions @ IIT), Richard Wright (exec. dir. of Am. Assoc. of Philosophy Teachers, dir. of Biomedical and healthcare Ethics Program), and me (alleged ethicist :-). Addresses/phone numbers by request. Buck BloomBecker presents some amusing and interesting material on computer crime and some of its ethical considerations. He's been writing and speaking on these topics for over a decade. He's a former asst DA, past chair of the ACM committee on Computing and the Law, and an active ACM National Lecturer. Donn Parker has done some work in this area, but I don't know that he gives talks on the subject. His book with Swope and Baker, "Ethical Conflicts" (QED Press) is a good place to start a discussion, but I'm not keen on its implication that ethics can be "voted" upon to determine correctness. Parts of this were in the latest ACM Self-Assessment on Ethics published in CACM (Nov 90). I can provide other references for interested parties. Flames or abuse can be directed to /dev/null -- I'm too busy to come out and play. I also don't read comp.society on a regular basis, so posted replies may not get seen. Gene Spafford