The Toxic do-gooder

“Honey! Why are these letters you wrote in the news?!” You rush to your spouse’s side and see not only your personal letters, but also your partially completed job application and your social security number! Not too long ago CIA Director John Brennan found himself in this situation. A self-identifying “high school hacker” that didn’t like the USA’s foreign policy decided to hack into Brennan’s personal email account and make the information he stole publicly available. While this hack may have some short-term political weight, I fear that this single act of stupidity may have incalculable negative effects on this country and its citizens. While Brennan is dealing with the “political” fallout of what he said 10 years ago, recently brought to light by this “noble” hacker, Brennan’s not going to be able to pay the same attention to his job as he normally would. This provides the opportunity for a potential threat to the country to be misjudged and slip “under the radar” costing this country economically (or even costing American lives). If left unpunished, I fear that this crime will also encourage other hackers to commit similar crimes in the future- crimes ultimately harming the country rather than contributing to its overall well-being.

See the article that inspired this post here.

Journal Entry 3

Tuesday 6 October 2015

• “Free” doesn’t mean “without cost” in the context of free software. (And if you really think about it, even if it is without cost, it’s possible that it’s still not free- it could contain adware, malware, viruses, etc.)
• Linux was free for software admins to install/use; however, they had to spend a lot of time in upkeep/maintenance because there was no professional support term/service contract. This “support team” business model provides an opportunity for an ethical dilemma- if companies are selling their services as a support team for a product they’ve developed, it’s in their best interests to make a product that is “ok”- functions "properly", but will still require the customer to pay for the company’s support services.
• MIT didn’t use password because the developers didn’t want to develop the locks that sys admins could use to control users. But is that what passwords really are? In a close-to-perfect world would there still be passwords? I contend that there would be. Passwords are not just restrictive in the “bad” sense- they can prevent users that don’t know what they’re doing from making mistakes/errors that could affect others. Also, passwords can help keep honest people honest.

Thursday 8 October 2015

• A program is “free” if users of the program have these freedoms:
• Freedom to run programs as desired for any purpose
• Freedom to study how the program works and change it so it does desired computing (access to source code is precondition)
• Freedom to redistribute copies
• Freedom to distribute copies of modified versions
• In regards to a program being “free” it is said that all other software is “unethical.” I wholeheartedly disagree- in what other industry are people expected to give away their work free of charge? In an ideal society where everything was free yet people still worked as hard as if it wasn’t, perhaps then “non-free” software would be unethical, but until then “non-free” software is ethical.
• Patents: right to exclude, not right to practice. Basically a right to sue. How much time and energy is wasted because of greed? The world would be a lot better place if people could work on things and be rewarded for their honest efforts without needing to go through all the legal hassle that surrounds basically anything worth inventing.
• Copyleft: you can use, copy, redistribute etc.; however, you must include the license and distribute your changes. While copyleft may have the right idea, it probably stops a lot of very talented people from working on copyleft projects because they don’t want to surrender the rights to their enhancements on copyleft products (or even creation of new products using copyleft elements).

Tuesday 13 October 2015

• A problem with IP is that there are patent portfolio holding companies where the focus is on litigation. Such companies hinder the growth and development of the human race. I’m sure I’m not the only one that feels a bit more hesitant to go out and invent/sell something the more I learn about the processes/laws in place to protect inventions (hesitant because someone who has already invented something close to what I’ll invent may be able to sue me for selling something too close to their invention).
• Some IP rights are also unethical- such as a company which forces employees to sign a “we own everything you make while you work for us” agreement before employees are hired. Such agreements may “protect” the company, but they do so at the expense of the human race- stifling creativity and squashing innovation that would likely be present if employees knew they could keep the rights to their inventions.
• Non-compete clauses are generally a good idea; however, they can also be overly restrictive. If a company abuses/under appreciates an employee, his/her job opportunities should not be limited due to the fact that a company he/she would like to work for is involved in “some aspect of business” that the abusive company is involved in.

Thursday 15 October 2015

• A lot of what we know about medical conditions comes from experiments performed in Nazi concentration camps. Is it ethical to use such data? I see both sides of the argument. On one side, the people that were tortured/killed in the camps gave their lives (albeit unwillingly) to provide the medical data. I’d like to think that if I were in such a position and then given the ability to choose whether or not the information on my death could be used to help others in the future, I’d choose that it could be used. On the other side, if this data is used it indirectly encourages such methods of obtaining the data.
• Great advancements often come at a great price. Part of the “cost” of nuclear power was hundreds of thousands of people dying in Japan. Was the cost worth it? I’d recon that the hundreds of thousands that died (and their families) would contend that it isn’t worth it; however, the many people who have benefited from the nuclear energy (and those that didn’t die because the war ended shortly after the nuclear bombs were used) would contend that it is worth it. I wish advancement came without a price, but I'm grateful for the advancement of nuclear power.
• Locks and passwords may not be necessary, but they help keep honest people honest. I agree, even in a perfect world, locks would be nice- if only to ensure that very intelligent pets didn’t run away, or small children (or even grown adults) didn’t wander in to locations of physical or electronic danger.

Tuesday 20 October 2015

• Many of the laws we have today came about as a result of crimes. So, are we better off with or without the laws? I’d say we’re better off with the laws, though it would be nice if we could come up with them before crimes were committed.
• Many criticize individuals in The Cuckoo’s Egg for not choosing stronger passwords. Criticize as they will- many weak passwords are used today? How secure are the passwords you use? I’d like to say mine are secure, but I know that I have room for improvement and shouldn’t mock those in The Cuckoo’s Egg with weak passwords.
• John Walker received life in prison, but was that harsh enough for the crimes he committed? Are the punishments for crimes in general harsh enough in the USA? I contend that often they are not. Many criminals live in more enjoyable conditions than regular citizens. I contend that punishments should be harsher and believe that if punishments were harsher, individuals would be more hesitant to commit crimes.

Big Brother Is Watching (and big sister, and the guy down the street, and uncle joe, and your ex, and...)

Picture this: you’re a salesperson selling security systems in a small neighborhood. A nearby business that’s had many people inquire about purchasing security systems offers to sell you a list of these people. Is it ethical for you to purchase that list? Is it ethical for the business to sell (or give away) the list? A current belief that is held in the “Open Source” community (and that was held in the infant stages of modern computers) is “everyone shares, everyone wins.” The principle of everyone sharing and everyone winning applies here too, right? I contend that it does NOT. Would you want someone watching you physically and selling information about your interests, habits and day-to-day activities? Many modern companies are actively tracking and recording every “digital move” you make (from simply surfing the Web to 'liking' to purchases you make with your credit card) and then using (or selling) this information. If this collection of digital data is to continue, well-defined standards that provide anyone the ability to “opt out” of being tracked, recorded and otherwise “followed” should be created and enforced. Those collecting data on individuals who have “opted out” should be legally punished. Unless such standards are enacted, I fear data collection will continue to slip towards a “share everything” mentality until nothing we do on the Internet will be safe from the scrutiny of anyone who cares to take a look.

Read the article that inspired this post here.

Journal Entry 2

Tuesday 22 September 2015

• Silicon Valley was successful because everyone shared (someone found a solution to a problem and then they’d share it with everyone). So, by implication not sharing “hurts”. How ethical is it to not share? How many people are hurting right now because of “corporate secrets”? Then again, not sharing promotes competition and innovation. So, “to share or not to share” becomes the question. Personally, if it were a perfect world, I’d go with the “always share” mentality.
• Visicalc just wanted to make the world a better place. They didn’t patent their idea yet because of how they defined success (making the world a better place) they were still successful. What’s the definition of success? Money? Making things better? For me it’s a combination of both.
• “They” had to make something “useful” to reach more than just hobbyists, so they came up with a spreadsheet for business people to calculate costs/profits. To be “successful” you generally have to make something that’s useful to many people, but how far are you willing to go to make something useful? Is stealing or “borrowing” the ideas of others acceptable? Sometimes, yes.

Thursday 24 September 2015

• Microsoft purchased an OS for 50k so they could use it wherever they wanted. Was this an “ethical” thing Microsoft did? Is it ethical to make the best of situations you’re put in or you come across? I say yes, though you’re a better person for not ruthlessly taking advantage of people in such situations.
• Concerning all the “PC Clones” – these were made in part from reverse engineering. Is it ethical to reverse engineer things and then sell the reverse-engineered product? I say yes- generally speaking if there’s enough motivation in a given market to reverse engineer a product there’s a need for competition in that market, so even though the monopolizing company may suffer losses, the competition will be for the greater good.
• Bill wanted to win – the idea at Microsoft was to “put people under.” Is “winning” worth putting people under? I think there are two sides to this figurative “coin”- on the one side you have monopolizing companies putting people under (i.e. squashing the competition). In this case it’s not a good thing/shouldn’t be done. On the other hand, sometimes “bad” people are in power/opposing the greater good. In such cases, these people may need to be “put under” for the greater good.

Tuesday 29 September 2015

• Steve Jobs had a vision and didn’t have the patience for people that didn’t share that vision. When is it acceptable to “lose patience” with people in your company that aren’t on the same page as you? Is it better to have everyone on the “same page”? Does this squash creativity? I think that having everyone in the same general “vein” is a good thing; however, having “outside-the-box thinkers” is also a good thing. Wise people will try to see things from the view of the “outside-the-box thinkers” before they lose patience with them.
• Xerox “higher-ups” didn’t see the greatness in products that their employees had created and as a result things didn’t go as well for Xerox as they could have. Would it have been ethical for Xerox employees to go behind the backs of the stubborn higher-ups to get some movement on the new products (if this were possible)? Was it ethical for some higher-up at Xerox to make the decision to show their new products to Apple? (Remember, as a result of this decision many people at Xerox indirectly suffered because they didn’t participate in the profits that Apple experienced.) I think in this situation the Xerox higher-ups didn’t see the full implications of revealing the new products, so the decision was ethical, but if the higher-ups had known that by revealing these products the company would indirectly suffer, the decision wouldn’t have been an ethical one.
• Steve Jobs didn’t care about being right, just about being successful. In many cases this attitude could lead to unethical actions being taken in order to achieve “success”. What unethical actions are justified to become successful? Are any?