1. Chapter 15: Making Decisions about Computers, Information, and Society Invitation to Computer Science, C++ Version, Third Edition

2. A Few Terminologies utilitarian adjective (From Encarta) Definition: 1. believing value lies in usefulness: relating to, characteristic of, or advocating the doctrine that value is measured in terms of usefulness 2. practical: designed primarily for practical use rather than beauty

3. Dialectic dialectic (plural di·a·lec·tics) noun (From Encarta ） Definition: 1. tension between conflicting ideas: the tension that exists between two conflicting or interacting forces, elements, or ideas 2. investigation of truth through discussion: the investigation of the truth through discussion, or the art of investigating truths through discussion 3. debate resolving conflict: debate intended to resolve a conflict between two contradictory or apparently contradictory ideas or parts logically, establishing truths on both sides rather than disproving one argument

4. Deontological deontological (From Encarta) adjective Definition: relating to moral theories: relating to philosophical theories that state that the moral content of an action is not wholly dependent on its consequences

5. Analogy analogy (From Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary a comparison between things which have similar features, often used to help explain a principle or idea: He drew an analogy between the brain and a vast computer. It is sometimes easier to illustrate an abstract concept by analogy with (= by comparing it with) something concrete.

6. Objectives In this chapter, you will learn about: Case studies What we covered and what we did not

7. Introduction There are many personal and societal issues related to computing and information Decisions regarding these issues should be well-informed and well-reasoned

8. Case Studies Case 1: The story of MP3 – compression codes, musicians, and money Case 2: PGP: The U.S. Government vs. Phil Zimmermann Case 3: Hackers: Public enemies or gadflies? Case 4: Genetic information and medical research

9. MP3 In 1987, some scientists in Germany started working on an algorithm to compress digital files that store recorded music on CDs. The Fraunhofer Institute in Erlangen, Germany, devised a method with rather ungainly title of “Moving Picture Expert Group. Audio Layer III. This algorithm (or protocol ) quickly got the nickname MP3.

10. Case 1: The Story of MP3 – Compression Codes, Musicians, and Money MP3 protocol  Compresses digital files that store audio information Napster  Enabled peer-to-peer file sharing  Allowed users to share music files with other users and obtain music files from other users

11. Figure 15.1 Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Created by Napster

12. Recording companies filled a suit against Napster on grounds of copyright infringement Napster lost the case and subsequent appeals Case 1: The Story of MP3 – Compression Codes, Musicians, and Money (continued)

13. Ethical question  Is it ethically right to swap copyrighted MP3 files? Ethics  The study of how to decide if something is morally right or wrong Case 1: The Story of MP3 – Compression Codes, Musicians, and Money (continued)

14. A consequentialist focuses on the consequences of an act to determine if the act is good or bad Utilitarians  The most well-known consequentialists  Focus on the consequences of an act on everyone to determine if it is good or bad Case 1: The Story of MP3 – Compression Codes, Musicians, and Money (continued)

15. Utilitarian argument #1: MP3 copying is OK Utilitarian argument #2: MP3 copying is not OK Case 1: The Story of MP3 – Compression Codes, Musicians, and Money (continued)

16. A dialectic  Move back and forth between different viewpoints, criticizing each and trying to learn from each  Goal: both sides move closer to the truth from two different perspectives Case 1: The Story of MP3 – Compression Codes, Musicians, and Money (continued)

17. Case 2: PGP: The U.S. Government vs. Phil Zimmermann Phillip Zimmermann  Concerned about bills introduced in the U.S. Congress to allow the government to restrict the use of encryption  Developed the PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) encryption algorithm  Made PGP freely available to anyone

18. U.S. Government started a criminal investigation against Zimmermann  Claim: Zimmermann had released a technology that would allow criminals and terrorists to avoid detection by law enforcement agencies Case 2: PGP: The U.S. Government vs. Phil Zimmermann (continued)

19. Ethical question  Was it right for Zimmerman to distribute his encryption program, or was the government right to try to prohibit its distribution? Analogies can be used to explore ethical questions In any analogy between two things, there are both similarities and differences Case 2: PGP: The U.S. Government vs. Phil Zimmermann (continued)

20. A dialectic argument that uses analogies  One analogy supports a particular view of the situation  Another analogy supports an opposing view of the situation  The participants in the discussion explore the strengths and weaknesses of each argument Case 2: PGP: The U.S. Government vs. Phil Zimmermann (continued)

21. Simplification for exploring the PGP controversy using analogies  The discussion is limited to the use of the PGP algorithm for email security Analogy #1: Email is like a private conversation Analogy #2: Email is like phone conversations Case 2: PGP: The U.S. Government vs. Phil Zimmermann (continued)

22. In both analogies, there are similarities and differences between the two things being compared Only the similarities and differences that are ethically relevant should be considered Case 2: PGP: The U.S. Government vs. Phil Zimmermann (continued)

23. Analogies give a better understanding of the ethical issues behind the PGP debate  A decision about PGP affects security and privacy Catching criminals and stopping terrorists are two good things Having personal privacy is a good thing Case 2: PGP: The U.S. Government vs. Phil Zimmermann (continued)

24. The utilitarian perspective:  What would be the consequences of enforcing a ban on PGP?  What would be the consequences of allowing people to use PGP? Case 2: PGP: The U.S. Government vs. Phil Zimmermann (continued)

25. Using analogies and a utilitarian analysis:  The increased security of a PGP ban would be bought at a very high price Case 2: PGP: The U.S. Government vs. Phil Zimmermann (continued)

26. Case 3: Hackers: Public Enemies or Gadflies? Definition of “hacking” for this discussion  Gaining unauthorized access to someone else’s computer system Ethical question  Is there an ethical case to be made in support of computer hackers?

27. Case 3: Hackers: Public Enemies or Gadflies? (continued) Analogy  Breaking into a computer is like breaking into someone’s house The similarities and differences between burglars and hackers should be analyzed Utilitarian analysis  What is gained/lost when a computer is hacked

28. Two challenges when using a utilitarian argument  It is sometimes hard to predict consequences with any accuracy  There seems to be a distinction between “good hackers” and “bad hackers” Case 3: Hackers: Public Enemies or Gadflies? (continued)

29. A deontological argument can be used to try to meet these challenges Deontological arguments focus on  Intent of an act  How that act is/is not defensible Case 3: Hackers: Public Enemies or Gadflies? (continued)

30. Deontological perspective on hacking  Is the act of hacking into another person’s computer system inherently unethical? At the end of the analysis, questions are raised about the claims of the hacker ethic Case 3: Hackers: Public Enemies or Gadflies? (continued)

31. Thinking Straight about Technology and Ethics A “paramedic method” for computer ethics  Goal is not to become a research ethicist, but to gain skills in: Recognizing ethical questions regarding computing Reasoning carefully about answers to those questions

32. Thinking Straight about Technology and Ethics (continued) Questions to ask in dealing with an ethical problem  Who are the stakeholders in this situation?  What does each stakeholder have to gain or lose?  What duties and responsibilities in this situation are important to the stakeholders?

33. Questions to ask in dealing with an ethical problem (continued)  Can you think of an analogous situation that does not involve computing? If so, does that analogous situation clarify the situation that does involve computing?  Either make a decision or revisit the steps Thinking Straight about Technology and Ethics (continued)

34. Case 4: Genetic Information and Medical Research Fictional case  You are at your doctor’s office for a routine checkup  The doctor asks you to participate in a study of genetic diversity and disease by donating some skin cells for the study  The doctor informs you that your skin cells will be identified only by a randomly assigned number and your zip code  Should you donate your cells?

35. Case 4: Genetic Information and Medical Research (continued) The paramedic method:  Step 1: Identify stakeholders  Step 2: What is at stake?  Step 3: Identify duties and responsibilities  Step 4: Think of analogies  Step 5: Make a decision or loop through the method again

36. What We Covered and What We Did Not Introduced a few of the issues involving technology and society Discussed how to apply the following to computer ethics  Utilitarian ideas  Deontological ideas  Analogies

37. What We Covered and What We Did Not (continued) Topics not mentioned  Rawlsian negotiation  Virtue ethics  Other ethical techniques

38. Summary of Level 6 Level 6: Social Issues  Looked at several case studies involving computer technology  Showed how even straightforward situations have many different ethical implications  Provided some tools for coping with ethical decision-making

39. Summary Ethics: how to decide if something is morally right or wrong Utilitarian: focus on the consequences of an act on everyone to determine good/bad Dialectic: move back and forth between different viewpoints, criticizing each and trying to learn from each

40. Summary Analogies can help explore ethical questions Deontological arguments focus on the intent of an act and how that act either is or is not a defensible, responsible act