CSC385 Professional and Ethical Issues in Computer Science Devon M. Simmonds University of North Carolina, Wilmington Course Introduction

Quick Info Dr. Devon Simmonds CIS 2046 simmondsd@uncw.edu http://people.uncw.edu/simmondsd/ 962-3819

COURSE INTRODUCTION Outline Course overview Motivation for course on professional ethics Getting to know you Overview of Critical Thinking & Arguments

What is CSC 385? Professional and Ethical Issues in Computer Science What is the impact of computers on Society The Individual Government Business and Commerce As computer professionals, what responsibilities do we personally have? Writing & Presenting in the discipline

Student Learning Outcomes 1.      Identify ethical issues as they impact computer science and related disciplines; [WI2] 2.      Differentiate between the main ethical theories and be able to use the ethical theories in evaluating the ethical issues impacting computer science and related disciplines. [WI5] [WI2] 3.      Discuss ethical issues in writing, using appropriate reference to the established Code of Ethics of the professional society relevant to that student's field (ACM, IEEE, etc), and apply professional codes of ethics to analyze and resolve ethical questions. [WI5] [WI2]

Student Learning Outcomes 4.      Demonstrate the ability to write within the computer science discipline including writing one or more research papers that demonstrate the students grasp of ethical issues, display a clear understanding of how the ideas of other persons may be properly cited and used in written documents, and illustrate use of popular formats for presenting published papers in computer science. [WI3] [WI4] 5.      Prepare and present information on a technical topic, in a professional manner. 6.      Identify and locate appropriate sources of information to support decisions and written ideas. [WI1] 7.      Analyze and evaluate arguments using rules of logic and be able to formulate effective arguments based on sound premises. [WI2] [WI4] [WI5]

Class Format Lectures Student-led presentations/discussions Each student will lead 1/2 sessions PowerPoint presentation (~25 slides) Discussion questions. Several small writing assignments A major project Project presentation Resume Writing & Online Interview Exams (midterm + final)

How Do I Get an ‘A’? Come to every class and participate. Read the textbook and participate in class discussions. Prepare you slides in advance and talk with me about them prior to your presentation. Do all the assignments Do a good paper Do well on the exams

Grading Criteria See course page …

The Required Text Ethics and Technology: Controversies, Questions, and Strategies for Ethical Computing. Herman T. Tavani, Wiley, 2010 ISBN-10: 0470509503 ISBN-13: 978-0470509500 Paperback: 406 pages

The Required Text Writing for Computer Science 2nd Ed. Justin Zobel, Springer, 2004 ISBN-10: 9781852338022 ISBN-13: 978-1852338022 Paperback: 280 pages

Course Motivation

Terrorism! What is going on? The President has authorized the NSA to perform wiretaps on people inside of the United States. “Congress gave me the authority to use necessary force to protect the American people, but it didn’t prescribe the tactics,”

Important questions Should the federal government be allowed to use the NSA to perform wire taps on American citizens? Should any branch of government be allowed to “tap now” ask permission later? Which is more important Freedom or Security? How do we know who is a terrorist and who is not? Are NSA wiretaps a violation of the fourth amendment? “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized “

Events that were possibly linked to Internet Terrorism: 9/11 The London Bombings

JUST GOOGLE IT!

Smartphones Are Used To Stalk, Control Domestic Abuse Victims Article with Audio mSpy, PhoneSheriff, MobiStealth, StealthGenie

My Story

My Story

My Story Research interests: software engineering/model-driven development/software architecture/aspect-oriented & component-based development United States University of Technology, Jamaica Ph.D. Colorado State University

Getting to Know You Name Background Where from Work experience The Man without a Face, oil on panel, 11x14, 2005 – Dae-Woong Nam Name Background Where from Work experience

Welcome, Motivation & Academic Expectations Apple vs Google vs Facebook vs Amazon vs Microsoft Ethics in a global village

What Is Cyberethics? Cyberethics is the study of moral, legal, and social issues involving cybertechnology. It examines the impact that cybertechnology has for our social, legal, and moral systems. It also evaluates the social policies and laws that we frame in response to issues generated by the development and use of cybertechnology.

What Is Cybertechnology? Cybertechnology refers to a wide range of computing and communications devices – from standalone computers, to "connected" or networked computing and communications technologies, to the Internet itself. Cybertechnologies include: hand-held devices (such as personal digital assistants); personal computers (desktops and laptops); large mainframe computers.

Why the term cyberethics? Cyberethics is a more accurate label than computer ethics, which can suggest the study of ethical issues limited either to: computing machines, computing professionals. Cyberethics is also more accurate than Internet ethics, which is limited only to ethical issues affecting computer networks.

Motivational Scenario-I Ownership of a Twitter Account PhoneDog Media – Mobile phone co. Noah Kravitz – employee Kravitz created blog – Phonedog-Noah 17,000 followers before he left job PhoneDog sued Kravitz Claiming Twitter followers was a company list. misappropriation of a trade secret and conversion Settlement Kravitz asked court to dismiss case - court held that Twitter accounts could constitute trade secrets and that failure to relinquish account could constitute misuse of a trade secret Parties settled ~ December 19, 2012: it appears Kravitz has been permitted to retain ownership of the twitter account.

Motivational Scenario-II The Washiontonienne – Jessica Cutler. Former staff assistant to Senator Michael DeWine (R-Ohio) Created diary on blogger.com Described sexual relations with “a few older men” Diary was made public and … Was sued Got book contract …

Table 1-1: Summary of Four Phases of Cyberethics Time Period Technological Features Associated Issues 1 1950s-1960s Stand-alone machines (large mainframe computers) Artificial intelligence (AI), database privacy ("Big Brother") 2 1970s-1980s Minicomputers and PCs interconnected via privately owned networks Issues from Phase 1 plus concerns involving intellectual property and software piracy, computer crime, privacy and the exchange of records. 3 1990s-Present Internet and World Wide Web Issues from Phases 1 and 2 plus concerns about free speech, anonymity, legal jurisdiction, virtual communities, etc. 4 Present to Near Future Convergence of information and communication technologies with nanotechnology research and bioinformatics research, etc. Issues from Phases 1-3 plus concerns about artificial electronic agents ("bots") with decision-making capabilities, bionic chip implants, nanocomputing research, etc.

Are Cyberethics Issues Unique? Verizon v. RIAA 2003 RIAA subpoena ISPs (Comcast, Verizon, etc., universities) for names of users who Downloaded? Music. Verizon refused, challenged RIAA in court Claiming violation of constitution – 1st amendment (freedom of speech, religion,…) Federal District Judge John Bates agreed completely with the RIAA. DC Court of Appeals Judge Douglas Ginsburg ruled in favor of Verizon.

Are Cyberethics Issues Unique? Consider the Verizon v. RIAA case in light of the ethical issues it raises. The case raises concerns about privacy, anonymity, surveillance, and intellectual property rights. Are any of these issues new or unique ethical issues?

Are Cyberethics Issues Unique? Amy Boyer Cyberstalking case 10/1999 20y Amy Boyer is murdered by stalker. Stalker – Liam Youens used the Internet/software tools, e.g. search engines. Paid small fee toDocusearch.com for her address, workplace, etc. Created web sites about Boyer On one site he posted personal info, photo, etc. Another site explicit details of the murder plans.

Are Cyberethics Issues Unique (Continued)? Next, consider the Amy Boyer case. Is there anything new or unique about this case from an ethical point of view? Boyer was stalked in ways that were not possible before cybertechnology. But do any new or any unique ethical issues arise in this case?

Uniqueness Issue (Continued) There are two points of view on whether cybertechnology has generated any new or unique ethical issues: (1) Traditionalists argue that nothing is new – crime is crime, and murder is murder. (2) Uniqueness Proponents argue that cybertechnology has introduced (at least some) new and unique ethical issues that could not have existed before computers.

Uniqueness Issue (Continued) Both sides seem correct on some claims, and both seem to be wrong on others. Traditionalists underestimate the role that issues of scale and scope that apply because of the impact of computer technology. For example, cyberstalkers can stalk multiple victims simultaneously (scale) and globally (because of the scope or reach of the Internet). Cyberstalkers can also operate without ever having to leave the comfort of their homes.

Uniqueness Issue (Continued) So we must distinguish between any: (a) unique technological features; (b) unique ethical issues. Consider two scenarios from the text: (1) computer professionals designing and coding a controversial computer system; (2) software piracy.

Alternative Strategy for Analyzing the Uniqueness Issue James Moor (2000) argues that computer technology generates “new possibilities for human action” because computers are logically malleable. Logical malleability, in turn, introduces policy vacuums. Policy vacuums often arise because of conceptual muddles.

Case Illustration of a Policy Vacuum: Duplicating Software In the early 1980s, there were no clear laws regarding the duplication of software programs, which was made easy because of personal computers. A policy vacuum arose. Before the policy vacuum could be filled, we had to clear up a conceptual muddle: What exactly is software?

Case Illustration of a Policy Vacuum: Duplicating Software In the early 1980s, there were clear laws regarding the theft of property. Intellectual property laws did not cover software. Was software an idea? A form of writing? (protected by copyright laws) A set of machine instructions? (protected by patents). So cybertechnology deserved special recognition as a branch of applied ethics.

Cyberethics as a Branch of Applied Ethics Applied ethics, unlike theoretical ethics, examines "practical" ethical issues. It analyzes moral issues from the vantage-point of one or more ethical theories. Ethicists working in fields of applied ethics are more interested in applying ethical theories to the analysis of specific moral problems than in debating the ethical theories themselves.

Cyberethics as a Branch of Applied Ethics (continued) Three distinct perspectives of applied ethics (as applied to cyberethics): Professional Ethics; Philosophical Ethics; Descriptive Ethics.

Philosophical Ethics Perspective (continued) Moor argues that automobile and airplane technologies did not affect our social policies and norms in the same kinds of fundamental ways that computer technology has. Automobile and airplane technologies have revolutionized transportation, resulting in our ability to travel faster and farther than was possible in previous eras. But they did not have the same impact on our legal and moral systems as cybertechnology.

Philosophical Ethics: Standard Model of Applied Ethics Philip Brey (2004) describes the “standard methodology” used by philosophers in applied ethics research as having three stages: 1) Identify a particular controversial practice as a moral problem. 2) Describe and analyze the problem by clarifying concepts and examining the factual data associated with that problem. 3)Apply moral theories and principles to reach a position about the particular moral issue.

Descriptive Ethics Perspective (continued) Descriptive vs. Normative Claims Consider three assertions: (1) "Bill Gates served as the Chief Executive Officer of Microsoft Corporation for many years.” (2) "Bill Gates should expand Microsoft’s product offerings.“ (3) “Bill Gates should not engage in business practices that are unfair to competitors.” Claims (2) And (3) are normative, (1) is descriptive; (2) is normative but nonmoral, while (3) is both normative and moral.

Figure 1-1: Descriptive vs. Normative Claims Descriptive Normative (Report or describe what is the case) (Prescribe what ought to be the case) Non-moral Moral Prescribe or evaluate in matters having to do with fairness and Obligation (e.g., criteria for just and unjust actions and policies). Prescribe or evaluate in matters involving standards such as art and sports   (e.g., criteria for a good painting or an outstanding athlete).

Some Benefits of Using the Descriptive Approach Huff & Finholt (1994) claim that when we understand the descriptive aspect of social effects of technology, the normative ethical issues become clearer. The descriptive perspective prepare us for our subsequent analysis of ethical issues that affect our system of policies and laws.

Table 1-2: Summary of Cyberethics Perspectives Type of Perspective Associated Disciplines Issues Examined Professional Computer Science Engineering Library/Information Science Professional Responsibility System Reliability/Safety Codes of Conduct Philosophical Philosophy Law Privacy & Anonymity Intellectual Property Free Speech Descriptive Sociology Behavioral Sciences Impact of cybertechnology on governmental/financial/ educational institutions and socio-demographic groups

Is Cyber-technology Neutral? Technology seems neutral, at least initially. Consider the cliché: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Corlann Gee Bush (2006) argues that gun technology, like all technologies, is biased in certain directions. She points out that certain features inherent in gun technology itself cause guns to be biased in a direction towards violence.

Is Technology Neutral (continued)? Bush uses an analogy from physics to illustrate the bias inherent in technology. An atom that either loses or gains electrons through the ionization process becomes charged or valenced in a certain direction. Bush notes that all technologies, including guns, are similarly valenced in that they tend to "favor" certain directions rather than others. Thus technology is biased and is not neutral.

A "Disclosive" Method for Cyberethics Brey (2004) believes that because of embedded biases in cybertechnology, the standard applied-ethics methodology is not adequate for identifying cyberethics issues. We might fail to notice certain features embedded in the design of cybertechnology. Using the standard model, we might also fail to recognize that certain practices involving cybertechnology can have moral implications.

Disclosive Method (Continued) Brey notes that one weakness of the “standard method of applied ethics” is that it tends to focus on known moral controversies So that model fails to identify practices involving cybertechnology which have moral implications but that are not yet known. Brey refers to these practices as having morally opaque (or morally non-transparent) features, which he contrasts with "morally transparent” features.

Figure 1-2: Embedded Technological Features Having Moral Implications Transparent Features Morally Opaque Features Known Features Unknown Features Users are aware of these features but do not realize they have moral implications. Examples can include:Web Forms and search- engine tools. Users are not even aware of the technological features that have moral implications   Examples might include data-mining technology and Internet cookies.

A Multi-Disciplinary and Multi-Level Method for Cyberethics Brey’s disclosive method is multidisciplinary because it requires the collaboration of: computer scientists, philosophers, social scientists.

A Multi-Disciplinary & Multi-Level Method for Cyberethics (Continued) Brey’s scheme is also multi-level because the method for conducting computer ethics research requires three levels of analysis, i.e., a: disclosure level, theoretical level, application level.

Table 1-3: Three Levels in Brey’s Model of Computer Ethics Level Disciplines Involved Task/Function Disclosive Computer Science Social Science (optional) Disclose embedded features in computer technology that have moral import Theoretical Philosophy Test newly disclosed features against standard ethical theories Application Social Science Apply standard or newly revised/ formulated ethical theories to the issues

Critical Analysis of Issues: How? 55

A Three-step Strategy for Approaching Cyberethics Issues Step 1. Identify a practice involving cyber-technology, or a feature in that technology, that is controversial from a moral perspective. 1a. Disclose any hidden (or opaque) features or issues that have moral implications 1b. If the ethical issue is descriptive, assess the sociological implications for relevant social institutions and socio-demographic and populations. 1c. If the ethical issue is also normative, determine whether there are any specific guidelines, that is, professional codes that can help you resolve the issue (see Appendixes A-E). 1d. If the normative ethical issues remain, go to Step 2. Step 2. Analyze the ethical issue by clarifying concepts and situating it in a context. 2a. If a policy vacuums exists, go to Step 2b; otherwise go to Step 3. 2b. Clear up any conceptual muddles involving the policy vacuum and go to Step 3. Step 3. Deliberate on the ethical issue. The deliberation process requires two stages: 3a. Apply one or more ethical theories (see Chapter 2) to the analysis of the moral issue, and t hen go to step 3b. 3b. Justify the position you reached by evaluating it against the rules for logic/critical thinking (see Chapter 3).

Logical Arguments

Critical Thinking and Logical Arguments Brook Moore and Richard Parker (2007) define critical thinking as: the careful deliberate determination of whether we should accept, reject, or suspend judgment about a claim. Claims, or statements, can be used in a form of reasoning called a logical argument or argument.

Logical Arguments An argument can be defined as a: form of reasoning that attempts to establish the truth of one claim (called a conclusion) based on the assumed truth of the evidence in other claims (called premises) provided to support the conclusion.    

Arguments (Continued) An argument has three important characteristics or features in that it: (i) is a form of reasoning; (ii) is comprised of claims (sometimes also called statements or assertions); (iii) aims at establishing a conclusion (i.e., one claim) based on evidence (provided by other claims called premises).

Structure of an Argument Premise 1 . optional Premise N optional Conclusion

Argument structure continued Premise 1. When I recently visited the Computer Science Department at the University of Hiroshima I noticed that graduate students and professors there were field testing a new computer chip, whose code name is Chip X. Premise 2. I have a copy of the design specifications for Chip X, which shows that it will be several times faster than any chip currently available in the US. Premise 3. Lee Smith, a mutual colleague of ours who was recently an exchange student in the computer science program at the University of Hiroshima and who participated in the field testing of Chip X, will corroborate my account. ________________________________________ Conclusion. Chip X is currently being developed in Japan.

Argument Structure vs. Argument Strength Not all arguments are strong - i.e., not all arguments succeed in establishing their conclusions. Any form of reasoning will qualify as an argument if it satisfies the three conditions we specified. See the next example.

Argument Structure vs. Argument Strength (Continued) Premise 1. An author's freedom to write a book on how to build a bomb is one that is protected by the First Amendment. Premise 2. Authoring a book is similar to constructing a Web Site. ___________________________________________ Conclusion. Constructing a Web site on how to build a bomb ought to be protected by the First Amendment.

Figure 3-1: Valid and Invalid Arguments The assumed truth of the premises is sufficient to guarantee the conclusion. Premises (even when true) do not guarantee the conclusion.

The Form of a Valid Argument A valid argument is valid in virtue of its logical form, not its content. An example of a valid logical form is: PREMISE 1. All A are B. PREMISE 2. C is A. _____________________________________ CONCLUSION. C is B.

Sound and Unsound Arguments For an argument to be sound, it must be: (a) valid (i.e., the assumed truth of the premises would guarantee the truth of the argument’s conclusion); (b) the (valid) argument’s premises must also be true in the actual world.

Arguments That Are Valid but not Sound An argument can be valid but still not succeed. For example, the argument’s premises might not be true in the actual world. In this case the argument would still be valid but it would not be sound.

Arguments that are Valid and Unsound The following argument is valid, but unsound: PREMISE 1. People who own iMac computers are smarter than those who own PCs. PREMISE 2. My roommate owns an iMac computer. PREMISE 3. I own a PC. _____________________________________ CONCLUSION. My roommate is smarter than me.

Sound Arguments Sound arguments are very rare. The following argument is sound: PREMISE 1. CEOs of major computer corporations are high-school graduates. PREMISE 2. Bill Gates was the CEO of a major computer corporation. _______________________________ CONCLUSION. Bill Gates is a high-school graduate.

Sound and Unsound Arguments Valid Arguments Sound Unsound All the premises are true. At least one premise is false.

Invalid Arguments An argument is invalid if you can give one counterexample to the argument. A counterexample is: a possible case where the premises can be assumed to be true while, at the same time, the conclusion could be false. Invalid arguments will be either: inductive, or fallacious.

Invalid Arguments (Continued) The following argument is invalid because a counter example is possible: PREMISE 1. All CEOs of major United States computer corporations have been United States citizens. PREMISE 2. Bill Gates is a United States citizen. _____________________________________ CONCLUSION. Bill Gates has been a CEO of a major computer corporation in the United States.

Inductive Arguments Not all invalid arguments are weak. Some invalid arguments are inductive. An argument is inductive when: the conclusion would likely be true when the premises of the argument are assumed to be true. Even though a counterexample to an inductive argument is possible, in the majority of cases where the premises are assumed true, the conclusion would also likely be true. Invalid arguments that are not inductive are fallacious.

Inductive Arguments (Continued) The following is an example of an inductive argument: PREMISE 1. Seventy-five percent of people who own iPods also own iMacs. PREMISE 2. My roommate owns an iPod. _______________________________ CONCLUSION. My roommate owns an iMac.

Inductive Arguments (cont’d) Some inductive arguments, although invalid can be stronger than some valid arguments. If premises of inductive arguments are true  they are stronger than Valid but unsound arguments (at least one premise is false)

Inductive vs Sound Arguments PREMISE 1. Seventy-five percent of people who own iPods also own iMacs. PREMISE 2. My roommate owns an iPod. _______________________________ CONCLUSION. My roommate owns an iMac. Stronger  PREMISE 1. All CEOs of major United States computer corporations have been United States citizens. PREMISE 2. Bill Gates is a United States citizen. _____________________________________ CONCLUSION. Bill Gates has been a CEO of a major computer corporation in the United States.

Fallacious Arguments Invalid arguments that are not inductive are fallacious. An argument is fallacious when: the conclusion would NOT likely be true when the premises of the argument are assumed to be true. (see 2nd example on previous page).

Summary I Arguments Valid Invalid The assumed truth of the premises is sufficient to guarantee the conclusion. Premises (even when true) do not guarantee the conclusion.

Sound and Unsound Arguments Valid Arguments Sound Unsound All the premises are true. At least one premise is false.

Inductive and Fallacious Arguments Invalid Arguments Inductive Fallacious Conclusion likely follows from assuming the truth of the premises. Conclusion does not likely follow from assuming the truth of the premises.

A Comprehensive Scheme for Viewing Arguments Valid Invalid Unsound Sound Inductive Fallacious Weak Arguments Strong Arguments Weak Arguments

Seven-step Strategy for Evaluating Arguments: I (Part 1: Steps 1-4) Step 1. Convert the argument into standard form. (List the premises first, followed by the conclusion.) Step 2. Test the argument for its reasoning strength to see whether it is valid or invalid. (Assume the premises to be true, and ask yourself whether the conclusion must also be true when those premises are assumed true. Is a counterexample to the argument possible?) Step 3. Is the argument valid? If yes, go to Step 4. If no, go to Step 5. Step 4. Is the (valid) argument also sound? That is, are the premises true in the actual world? 4a. If the argument is valid and if all of the premises are true in the actual world, then the argument is also sound. (To determine truth-values for statements, see Appendix E.) 4b. If the argument is valid, but one or more premises can be shown to be either false or not capable of being verified in the actual world, then argument is unsound.

Seven-Step Strategy For Evaluating Arguments: II (Part II: Steps 5-7) Step 5. Is the (invalid) argument inductive or fallacious? (How likely will the conclusion be true when the premises are assumed true?) 5a. If the conclusion would likely be true because the premises are assumed true, the argument is inductive. 5b. If the conclusion would not likely be true even when the premises are assumed true, the argument is fallacious. (Keep in mind that a fallacious argument can be made up of Individual claims that are themselves true in the actual world.) Step 6. Determine whether the premises in your argument are either true or false. Step 7: Make an overall assessment of the argument. That is, describe the argument's strength of reasoning in conjunction with the truth conditions of the argument's premises. For example, is the argument inductive with all true premises? Is it inductive with some false premises? Is it fallacious with a mixture of true and false premises, and so forth? Remember that an inductive argument with premises that are all true is stronger than a valid argument with one or more false premises.)

Logical Fallacies in Everyday Reasoning The term "fallacy" does not mean false statement. It means faulty reasoning. It is possible for an argument to contain all true statements and still be fallacious.

Informal Logical Fallacies Many informal logical fallacies appear in everyday reasoning. Logicians have categorized them in ways that are convenient for us to recognize. We refer to these kinds of fallacious arguments as informal logical fallacies.

Class Activity I: define & give an example of each of these Fallacies Ad Hominem Argument Slippery Slope Argument Fallacy of Appeal to Authority False Cause Fallacy Begging the Question Fallacy of Composition/Fallacy of Division Fallacy of Ambiguity Appeal to the People (Argumentum ad Populum) The Many/Any Fallacy The Virtuality Fallacy

Class Activity II: Discussion question 1: Construct an argument to support or refute the view that all undergraduate students should be required to take a course in cyberethics. Next evaluate your argument to see if it is valid or invalid. If valid, is it sound? If invalid, is it inductive or fallacious?

Explore Our Web Site

SU MM AR Y This course is about ethical issues surrounding the use of cybertechnologies. Cybertechnologies are here to stay! Next class ?????