ethicsincompsci | HWcase5 Q1

Q1. For this unit, find a case concerning a law, or use the law itself as your case, for a law related to security, privacy, etc. Suggestions: HIPAA, FERPA, Computer Security Act, Sarbanes-Oxley, Gramm-Leach-Bliley, COPPA, Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), US Patriot Act, Section 508 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or some other law. If you just type the name into a search engine you should be able to find plenty of information. This should include

a link or other citation to the case you are using. If it is from personal experience, point that out.
A list of 8 or more important facts about the case, in your own words. You can refer to these as reminders when you tell your group members about the case.
A list of questions (3 or more) you could ask your group members in order to get an interesting and enlightening discussion going (for in-class students), or that you could consider yourself or ask someone else about (for online students); see the “Questions to ask during discussion” tab on the course web page for some suggestions in developing your discussion questions.
A 4th discussion question about how computer security relates to or could relate to the case. The computer security question could be about hacking, viruses or worms, theft of information, piracy, abuse of privileges, destruction of assets, information privacy, disruption of operations, unauthorized access, corporate abuse of information or computing, government abuse of information, physical harm, or any other issue in the general area of computer security.

Answer:

The source of my case is https://www.aclu.org/other/surveillance-under-usapatriot-act.

Eight important facts are:

Due to the attacks on 9/11, Congress panicked and passed the US Patriot Act.
This expanded the government's authority to spy on its own citizens, while simultaneously reducing checks and balances on those powers like judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government searches in court overnight.
Many Senators and Congressmen claimed they were not given enough time to read it, let alone analyze it, before having to vote on it.
The Bush Administration implied that anyone who voted against it would be blamed for future attacks.
The Patriot Act increases the governments surveillance powers in four areas: records searches, secret searches, intelligence searches, and "trap and trace" searches.
Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows the FBI to force anyone at all - including doctors, libraries, bookstores, universities, and internet service providers - to turn over records on their clients or customers.
The government no longer has to show evidence that the subjects of search orders are an "agent of a foreign power," a requirement that previously protected Americans against abuse of this authority.
A person or organization forced to turn over records is prohibited from disclosing the search to anyone. As a result of this gag order, the subjects of surveillance never even find out that their personal records have been examined by the government. That undercuts an important check and balance on this power: the ability of individuals to challenge illegitimate searches.

Questions to ask about the case are:

We all make jokes about "my FBI agent" when we look things up online or make a call, but do you think its ethical for the government to have this kind of power?
If you think the government is in the clear on this one, do you think its ethical for that power to go unchecked to the point a judge can't refuse an application for search?
In what ways would it be ethical/unethical for the gag order to be in place so that third parties aren't allowed to notify the client/customer that their records have been searched or seized?
Do you find it ethically right/wrong that the government is allowed to hack an individuals computer or records, but hacking as an individual comes at a price of $10k and up to 10 years in prison?

Three additional standard questions:

What does virtue ethics say about this case?

What does utilitarianism say about this case?

What does deontology say about this case?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Q1: Ethically no, they should not be able to have that level of power. It would be the hope that if they had this power, they would use it for the better. It then becomes difficult to draw the line where their oversight would end.

Ah big brother. Personally, I believe that the government has a lot of things to worry about, and in the age of computers security is a convoluted and almost impossible task. I could see both sides of this. Yes it is incredibly intrusive for the government to be able to see everything we do with basically no real system in place to stop them, however, most people voluntarily give all of their information to mega corporations that only want to make a better AI to get their money and sell their information. If you are willing to part with your info so readily for the sake of posting pictures or messages online, then I think it is difficult to condemn the government for using it for the sake of national security.

I think that this is a very good example of utilitarianism ethics. The outcome is what is most important. The government doing all this spying can ultimately save lives. It's a small price to pay for salvation. Even the Bush administration agrees, whoever voted against it would be responsible for an attack.

I think that under virtue ethics it is unethical. Is it virtuous for an entity to be so untrusting that it must monitor everything everyone does? I think most people would say no.

1.) It isn't an ethical thing for the government to be spying on citizens, but it is something that is for the greater good. There have been a lot of times when this has helped save lives but at the cost of going through others' personal space.

4.) I think it’s extremely ethically wrong to say the government is allowed to hack individuals' computers without consequences. I mean it’s ethically wrong to hack anyone’s computers in general tonight gives consequences for doing it as a government but as an individual, you get $10,000 and after 10 years in prison is sort of ridiculous compared to honestly. There are certain circumstances, when even though this is ethically wrong, it is for the greater good to hack individual records and computers of a government a lot of times the government isn’t seen as someone who follows the own rules that they’ve created. This can cause a lot of ethical problems that happen between the government and the people. I think they really should be more consequences for the government to do this just because there needs to be a real reason to have to hack someone’s stuff.

Do you find it ethically right/wrong that the government is allowed to hack an individuals computer or records, but hacking as an individual comes at a price of $10k and up to 10 years in prison? I find it ethically right that the government is allowed to hack an individuals computer or records, yet sentences an individual with $10k and up to 10 years in prison. Even though the government and those individuals are doing similar things, hacking into a persons computer and personal records, the government does it to protect the citizens and make sure that future attacks won't happen. If the government is hacking a persons computer and records, it's mostly for a valid reason or the person set off an alarm or keyword that would lead to more dangerous stuff/things.

I think that it is tricky to say yes or no. It may further protect the citizens from threats. However, it is an invasion of privacy. I guess it depends on what individuals are willing to sacrifice for their safety.

1. We all make jokes about "my FBI agent" when we look things up online or make a call, but do you think its ethical for the government to have this kind of power?

I don't think it's ethical. Being able to watch people who are considered dangerous I think is okay but being able to monitor the entire civilian population with no oversight seems like too much power

I believe nothing in the world is black and white especially when we think of a regular citizen versus a criminal/terrorist. Hacking is a skill that could be used for good or to easily harm someone else. I think the government believes in utilitarian ethics where the results are what matter more than what you are doing. With that being said, I believe it is ethical.

HWcase5 Q1

Reply to Question

Big brother

Utilitarianism

Reply to Question 1

Homework Case5 Q2:

Reply to Question

Response to Question 1

Answer to Question 1

Question 4