pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) (08/17/90)
Subject: New Book in Computer Ethics
Newsgroups: comp.society
I'm pleased to announce the availability (like NOW) of a new book designed
for teaching courses in computer ethics. It is available from MIT Press in
the States and Basil Blackwell in the UK. Contents and Preface follow.
Computer Ethics
Cautionary Tales and Ethical Dilemmas in Computing
by Tom Forester and Perry Morrison
CONTENTS
Preface and Acknowledgments
1. Introduction: Our Computerized Society
Some Problems Created for Society by Computers - Ethical Dilemmas for Computer
Professionals and Users
2. Computer Crime
The Rise of the High-Tech Heist - Is Reported Crime the Tip of an Iceberg? -
Targets of the Computer Criminal - Who Are the Computer Criminals? - Improving
Computer Security - Suggestions for Further Discussion
3. Software Theft
The Growth of Software Piracy - Revenge of the Nerds? Intellectual Property
Rights and the Law - Software Piracy v. Industry Progress - Busting the Pirates
- Suggestions for Further Discussion
4. Hacking and Viruses
What is Hacking? - Why Do Hackers 'Hack'? - Hackers: Criminals or Modern-Day
Robin Hoods? - Some "Great" Hacks - Worms,Trojan Horses and Time-Bombs - The
Virus Invasion - Ethical Issues - Suggestions for Further Discussion
5. Unreliable Computers
Most Information Systems are Failures - Some Great Software Disasters -
Warranties and Disclaimers - Why are Complex Systems So Unreliable? - What are
Computer Scientists Doing About It? - Suggestions for Further Discussion
6. The Invasion of Privacy
Database Disasters - Privacy Legislation - Big Brother is Watching You - The
Surveillance Society - Just When You Thought No One was Listening - Computers
and Elections - Suggestions for Further Discussion
7. AI and Expert Systems
What is AI? - What is Intelligence? - Expert Systems - Legal Problems - Newer
Developments - Ethical Issues: is AI a Proper Goal? - Conclusion: the Limits of
Hype - Suggestions for Further Discussion
8. Computerizing the Workplace
Computers and Employment - Computers and the Quality of Worklife: 'De-skilling'
- Productivity and People: Stress, Monitoring, Depersonalization, Fatigue and
Boredom - Health and Safety Issues: VDTs and the RSI Debate - Suggestions for
Further Discussion
APPENDIX A Autonomous Systems: the Case of "Star Wars"
Index
('Notes and References 'are included at the end of each Chapter)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preface and Acknowledgements
The aim of this book is two-fold:
(1) to describe some of the problems created for society by computers and (2)
to show how these problems present ethical dilemmas for computer professionals
and computer users.
The problems created by computers arise, in turn, from two main sources:
from hardware and software malfunctions and from misuse by human beings. We
argue that computer systems by their very nature are insecure, unreliable and
unpredictable - and that society has yet to come to terms with the
consequences. We also seek to show how society has become newly vulnerable to
human misuse of computers in the form of computer crime, software theft,
hacking, the creation of viruses, invasions of privacy, and so on.
Computer Ethics has evolved from our previous writings and in particular
our experiences teaching two courses on the human and social context of
computing to computer science students at Griffith University. One lesson we
quickly learned was that computer science students cannot be assumed to possess
a social conscience or indeed have much awareness of social trends and global
issues. Accordingly, these courses have been reshaped in order to relate more
closely to students' career goals, by focussing on the ethical dilemmas they
will face in their everyday lives as computer professionals.
Many college and university computer science courses are now including - orwould like to include - an ethics component, but this noble objective has been
hampered by a lack of suitable teaching materials. Computer Ethics has
therefore been designed with teaching purposes in mind in an effort to help
rectify the shortage of texts. That is why we have included numerous up-to-datereferences, as well as scenarios, role-playing exercises and 'hypotheticals' in
the 'Suggestions for Further Discussion' at the end of each chapter. The
creative teacher should be able to build on these.
Readers will notice that we have not adopted an explicit theoretical
framework and have avoided philosophical discussion of ethical theory. The
reason is that this book is but a first step, with the simple aim of sensitizingundergraduate computer science students to ethical issues. Neither will
readers find a detailed account of the legislative position around the world
on the various topics discussed. This is because in each country the legal
situation is often complex, confused and changing fast - and again this is not
the purpose of the book.
Finally, a note on sources. First, we have to acknowledge an enormous debt to Peter G. Neumann, whose "Risks to the Public in Computer Systems" sections
in Software Engineering Notes, the journal of the Association of Computing
Machinery's Special Interest Group on Software (ACM-SIGSOFT) have provided
inspiration, amusement and a vast amount of valuable information. Long may he
continue. Second, we have to caution that many of these and other sources are
newspaper and media reports, which, like computers, are not 100 per cent
reliable.
Tom Forester, Perry Morrison
School of Computing & Information Technology
Griffith University,
Queensland, Australia
ryan@oxford.hw.stratus.com (Dan Guilderson) (08/17/90)
In article <3217@gara.une.oz.au> pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) writes:
[stuff deleted]
We argue that computer systems by their very nature are insecure,
unreliable and unpredictable - and that society has yet to come to
terms with the consequences.
Only two things reliable in this world:
1) Death
2) The taxman cometh
--
Dan Guilderson ryan@oxford.hw.stratus.com
Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA, USA
#include <stddisclaimer.h>bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (08/18/90)
Sounds awful. It seems this whole "hacker scare" thing has provided quite an opportunity to churn out the potboilers. > Readers will notice that we have not adopted an explicit theoretical >framework and have avoided philosophical discussion of ethical theory. >... >Neither will readers find a detailed account of the legislative >position around the world on the various topics discussed. This is >because in each country the legal situation is often complex, confused >and changing fast - and again this is not the purpose of the book. Read: "We had to whip something together fast while the market was hot and can't really be expected to know anything about the subject." > Finally, a note on sources. First, we have to acknowledge an >enormous debt to Peter G. Neumann, whose "Risks to the Public in >Computer Systems" sections in Software Engineering Notes, the journal >of the Association of Computing Machinery's Special Interest Group on >Software (ACM-SIGSOFT) have provided inspiration, amusement and a vast >amount of valuable information. Long may he continue. Second, we have >to caution that many of these and other sources are newspaper and >media reports, which, like computers, are not 100 per cent reliable. Read: "We did most of our research by flipping through things we found lying about the office." -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
reynolds@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (Chris.Reynolds) (08/20/90)
I would have thought that any book on ethics should include a significant section on professional standards. The subject is almost totally absent, and never taken seriously. I consider the title of this book is so misleading as to be verging on the unethical. Chris Reynolds
pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) (08/20/90)
In article <1990Aug19.230355.22506@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU> reynolds@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (Chris.Reynolds) writes: In relation to notice of publication of my book: Computer Ethics: Cautionary Tales and Ethical Dilemmas in Computing (MIT Press and Basil Blackwell, 1990). >I would have thought that any book on ethics should include a significant >section on professional standards. The subject is almost totally absent, >and never taken seriously. > >I consider the title of this book is so misleading as to be verging on >the unethical. > >Chris Reynolds Gee Chris, why are you so vindictive? Perhaps I should explain to the net that Dr. Reynolds has already refused to review our book for New Scientist, basically because he completely misreads its aims and intentions. Our book is a sourcebook of casestudies and anecdotes to stimulate classroom discussion. From bitter experience we have found that you can cite professional standards and ethical theory until you are blue in the face and CS undergrads simply go comatose. They need practical, real and imagined situations that demonstrate the applicability of ethical thought. Any good instructor should be able to build on that to include current versions of professional standards. We have already written to the editor of New Scientist to voice our concern over Dr. Reynolds decision- especially when the book has received very good reviews and massive publicity to date. All I can say is that I'm perplexed by Dr. Reynold's need to continually sabotage the success of our book. I understand that his prospects at an Australian institution were recently thwarted and I can only surmise that this has something to do with it. Perry Morrison
bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (08/20/90)
Let me remind everyone that INFO-FUTURES is a discussion list and
mentioning a book, product etc can just as easily incite flames as
praise, and that's fine, that's what discussion lists exist for, as
mediums of discussion.
If one wants mere advertising, well, you probably know where to go.
That said, I don't mean to imply that anything improper has been said
in ANY of the messages re: this book. I just hope that everyone
understands this, any topic raised is raised for *discussion*. Even if
someone posts a conference announcement etc someone else might jump in
with "that conf is great" or "that conf has been a waste of time"
(although I'd hope for more reasoned discussion) and it would be fair
enough for this sort of forum.
Of course all that is moderated by trying to keep to the topic of the
list, the speculative discussion of technology developments in the
near future.
"I felt like a lion in a Daniel's den" -- Oscar Wilde
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | bzs@world.std.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLDmark@parc.xerox.com (Mark Weiser) (08/20/90)
In article <3264@gara.une.oz.au> pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) writes: >I understand that his prospects at an >Australian institution were recently thwarted and I can only surmise that >this has something to do with it. >Perry Morrison At least the original comments were about the book, not the people. I don't find the above form of argumentation to be in good taste. -mark -- Spoken: Mark Weiser ARPA: weiser@xerox.com Phone: +1-415-494-4406
reynolds@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (Chris.Reynolds) (08/20/90)
> Chris, why are you so vindictive? > Perhaps I should explain to the net that Dr. Reynolds has already refused > to review our book for New Scientist, basically because he completely > misreads its aims and intentions. Come off it, Perry. The New Scientist reviews about one computer book a month - and there is a special Student issue once a year when about ten computing text books are notified. As a result 99.99% of computer related books never even get to be considered for review. Your book was "lucky enough" to be considered because, among the 100 or so individual and student books I have reviewed for the New Scientist over the last eight years, there were two by your co-author which I liked. Unfortunately for you I didn't like this one, and my prime duty as a reviewer is to be honest with the readers of the New Scientist, not to help the authors or publishers of books which I consider second rate. The New Scientist would not be such an internationally well loved magazine if its contributors did little more than reflect the vendor's publicity material. Even if I had liked the book, a review of a similar collection of hacker's tales, etc, appeared in the New Scientist in May - and there is no way that two such similar books would be reviewed within the same year - however good the second one was. The only reason that you even knew that the book was considered for review, and why I rejected it, was because I was genuinely trying to be helpful. While it is not what I am paid for, I believe that the majority of authors of rejected books benefit from an understanding of the reasons for rejection, and hopefully will learn in time for second editions, etc. If you, or anyone else, wants to seriously discuss how ethical issues should be taught on USENET I will be delighted to make a contribution. Otherwise I suggest the matter ends forthwith. Chris Reynolds
cyoes@wilkins.iaims.bcm.tmc.edu (Cissy Yoes) (08/20/90)
In article <519@roo.UUCP>, mark@parc.xerox.com (Mark Weiser) writes: |> In article <3264@gara.une.oz.au> pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) writes: |> |> >I understand that his prospects at an |> >Australian institution were recently thwarted and I can only surmise that |> >this has something to do with it. |> |> >Perry Morrison |> |> At least the original comments were about the book, not the people. |> I don't find the above form of argumentation to be in good taste. |> -mark |> -- |> Spoken: Mark Weiser ARPA: weiser@xerox.com Phone: +1-415-494-4406 I agree! Personal vendettas should not be carried out at the expense of the users of this news group. Professional standards are important, and each of us must accept responsibility for modeling them in our personal behavior. Cissy Yoes Information Technology program Baylor College of Medicine cyoes@bcm.tmc.edu
pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) (08/21/90)
In article <519@roo.UUCP> mark@parc.xerox.com (Mark Weiser) writes: >In article <3264@gara.une.oz.au> pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) writes: > >>I understand that his prospects at an >>Australian institution were recently thwarted and I can only surmise that >>this has something to do with it. > >>Perry Morrison > >At least the original comments were about the book, not the people. >I don't find the above form of argumentation to be in good taste. >-mark >-- >Spoken: Mark Weiser ARPA: weiser@xerox.com Phone: +1-415-494-4406 My point is that, given a history that your aren't privy to, the comments about the book appear to be driven by feelings about the authors. A genuine comment on content is fine, if it is motivated by analysis of the content. It's not fine in my view if it is driven by some feeling against the authors. I am suggesting that the original criticism was motivated by the latter rather than the former. It's easy to masquerade a comment on the net as impartial, honest and unbiased. I don't mind unbiased criticism, but thousands of people have now been informed by Dr. Reynolds that my book is somehow not even **about** computer ethics. That's too deep an insult to ignore and I believe that those thousands of people deserve a larger context. Perry Morrison
pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry Morrison MATH) (08/21/90)
In article <1664@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> cyoes@wilkins.iaims.bcm.tmc.edu (Cissy Yoes) writes: >In article <519@roo.UUCP>, mark@parc.xerox.com (Mark Weiser) writes: >|> In article <3264@gara.une.oz.au> pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry >Morrison MATH) writes: >|> >|> >I understand that his prospects at an >|> >Australian institution were recently thwarted and I can only surmise that >|> >this has something to do with it. >|> >|> >Perry Morrison >|> >|> At least the original comments were about the book, not the people. >|> I don't find the above form of argumentation to be in good taste. >|> Spoken: Mark Weiser ARPA: weiser@xerox.com >I agree! Personal vendettas should not be carried out at the expense >of the users of this news group. > >Professional standards are important, and each of us must accept responsibility >for modeling them in our personal behavior. > >Cissy Yoes I agree in terms of your comment on personal vendettas. My claim is that the net was **told** by Dr. Reynolds that my book was not even ABOUT computer ethics. That would be fine if it were a comment out of the blue, but Reynold's imvolvement goes deeper than this. It is a very damaging comment that needed a wider context. My ethical judgement tells me that some of the personal background about Reynolds is neither specific enough nor recent enough to be of much consequence. On the other hand, a malicious comment that essentially says that my book is a facade, improperly entitled and therefore not even a contribution to the field, involves a much greater level of harm- to my reputation, that of my publisher's and to the success of the book itself. As i've said before, I don't mind unmotivated attacks. But I'm sure that this one isn't of that kind. I've said my piece. Perry Morrison
reynolds@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (Chris.Reynolds) (08/29/90)
In article <3276@gara.une.oz.au> pmorriso@gara.UUCP (Perry Morrison MATH) writes: >In article <1664@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> cyoes@wilkins.iaims.bcm.tmc.edu (Cissy Yoes) writes: >>In article <519@roo.UUCP>, mark@parc.xerox.com (Mark Weiser) writes: >>|> In article <3264@gara.une.oz.au> pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry >>Morrison MATH) writes: >>|> >>|> >I understand that his prospects at an >>|> >Australian institution were recently thwarted and I can only surmise that >>|> >this has something to do with it. >>|> >>|> >Perry Morrison >>|> >>|> At least the original comments were about the book, not the people. >>|> I don't find the above form of argumentation to be in good taste. >>|> Spoken: Mark Weiser ARPA: weiser@xerox.com >>I agree! Personal vendettas should not be carried out at the expense >>of the users of this news group. >> >>Professional standards are important, and each of us must accept responsibility >>for modeling them in our personal behavior. >> >>Cissy Yoes > >I agree in terms of your comment on personal vendettas. My claim is that the >net was **told** by Dr. Reynolds that my book was not even ABOUT computer >ethics. That would be fine if it were a comment out of the blue, but Reynold's >imvolvement goes deeper than this. > >It is a very damaging comment that needed a wider context. My ethical judgement >tells me that some of the personal background about Reynolds is neither >specific enough nor recent enough to be of much consequence. > >On the other hand, a malicious comment that essentially says that my book is a >facade, improperly entitled and therefore not even a contribution to the field, >involves a much greater level of harm- to my reputation, that of my publisher's >and to the success of the book itself. > >As i've said before, I don't mind unmotivated attacks. But I'm sure that >this one isn't of that kind. > >I've said my piece. >Perry Morrison Oh dear. As Perry has now twice repeated his inaccurate personal attack, I am afraid I must beg your tolerance in taking up net time to make the facts clear. (1) Perry says, commenting on Mark Weisner's criticism of his remarks about me, "My point is that, given a history that you aren't privy to, the comments about the book appear to be driven by feelings about the authors". Let me make this prior history clear so that everyone knows how utterly trivial it is. Until this altercation on usenet, Perry was no more to me than an author of a book which I had read (in June this year). As far as I can recollect I have never met him, or corresponded directly with him. Over the last few years I have had some friendly correspondence with Tom Forester and I felt it was only fair that Tom should know why I thought his latest book (which is co-authored by Perry) was not as good as earlier ones I had seen. Tom, and I presume Perry, have seen a copy of my letter to the New Scientist, which briefly explains why I did not consider the book suitable for review. In this I point out that I considered the book very amateur compared with Blay Whitby's "Artificial Intelligence, a handbook of professionalism" and conclude that "While the book is quite a good read, it is not distinctive enough to demand a review". (2) Perry says: "I understand that his prospects at an Australian institution were recently thwarted and I can only surmise that this has something to do with it." During 25 years in the computer profession I have sent out a fair number of copies of my C.V. in the spirit of "I could be available, you might be interested, is it worth talking about it?" In this context it is true that I sent my C.V., IN CONFIDENCE, to the Australian institution where Perry worked. Because I am not "in office" there Perry incorrectly assumed that I was "thwarted", and therefore must be showing personal animosity towards a member of staff of whose existence I was blissfully unaware. What Perry did not know is that I failed to progress my application and have made very satisfactory arrangements elsewhere. (3) In his latest outburst Perry says: "My ethical judgement tells me that some of the personal background about Reynolds is neither specific enough nor recent enough to be of much consequence" I don't know how any judgement can be "ethical" when it totally ignores the facts. Relevant activities in the last six months include the paper "Computer conferencing and data protection", published in The Computer Law and Security Report in March of this year; the popular version of this, "Letter of the Law", in the May issue of the Personal Computer World (UK) which has only just appeared on the Australian newsagents shelves; my admittedly light-hearted piece on the confidentiality of electronic mail, published in the New Scientist of July 21st; a variety of other relevant academic papers and popular articles in press; and a submission to the Australian Copyright Law Review Committee. (4) When I pointed out, in email, that his statements were libellous, he did not dispute the correctness of the facts. Instead he justified his actions by saying: "given the current state of usenet I hardly think my comments would stand out in any way." He totally ignores the fact that two readers of this newsgroup (who are totally unknown to me) have publicly commented that his remarks were over the top. All I can say is that I would have expected a more ethical approach to the use of computers from someone who teaches, and has written a book entitled, computer ethics. (5) As to my remark about his book on usenet I should explain my position. Until May I was the editor of the Books reviews on HICOM, an on-line conferencing system for human-computer interaction professionals. My activities included stimulating members to discuss books they had read - and I occasionally injected an appropriately pithy remark to get the debate rolling. All I had intended to do was to stimulate a similar debate on usenet. As I considered that the approach and contents of Perry's "Computer Ethics" was similar to another book I have recently read, viz Geoff Simons' "Viruses, bugs and star wars" I though a good debating point to start a discussion ABOUT THE BOOK would be its title. (It might help to defuse the situation if everyone who has read the book - and who has no personal connections with either Perry or me - said what they thought of it - and I, for one, will guarantee not to make any further comments about it,) In retrospect, I would agree that the words I used were rather more robust that I had intended. For this reason I have emailed Perry, ending with the text: "Let me repeat, I apologise fully for causing the degree of distress that you are clearly suffering, because it was neither intended, or expected. However it is my professional opinion that the book is unsuitable for review in the New Scientist, and that it falls very far short of what organizations such as the British Computer Society would expect to be covered in a ethics module for an honours degree. On these matters I have nothing to apologise for." "I hope you will accept that I have no ill feelings against you, or Tom Forester, and have never had any. Even if you are unable to forgive and forget, don't worry, I still would not dream of holding any kind of grudge against you." Finally, to members of usenet. I hope you will accept that the unfortunate wording of my initial remark were not intended to cause offence, and that you do not need to take them too seriously. Chris Reynolds