Ethics, Privacy, and Hacking 2

[CajunCenturion]

We've seen over the past several weeks quite a few statements regarding the importance of the "right to privacy" and the "right to anonymity". Understandably, violations of privacy are deemed to be unethical.

We've also seen a few people adopt the position that there is nothing ethically wrong with benignly hacking into another's system.

Can we reconcile these two positions? Can it be okay to ethically hack into someone's system and at the same time, not unethically violate their right to privacy?

Or is there a heirarchy of these ethical conumdrums? and if so, what is the order of precendence and why?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[skiflyer]

manarth, pcline
So you're saying ethics are relative?

Eeep, I don't have the brainpower left to enter that part of the discussion.

-Rob

 

[PCLine]

I am certainly saying that ethics are relative (to society), due to the fact that it is society that legitimates them not the individual. The individual may have an opinion on what ethics are...

Regards.

 

[petermeachem]

"whilst I am in no way contradicting the statement, could I suggest that an act is neither ethical nor unethical, but is perceived as such by an individual."

Agreed because 'ethical' is not a property. Blue is a property, as in 'the car is blue'. You can measure blue, you cannot measure ethical because everyone agrees what blue means, everyone disagrees what ethical means to some extent. Ethics is the definition of right and wrong behaviour which changes mostly slowly, sometimes violently with time and is certainly very different from country to country.
There is no substantive difference between someone breaking into my car or my computer. The fact that neither are locked is completely beside the point. Both are, or certainly should be, illegal. The police would be highly unlikely to take any notice at all (UK). If, however the intruder removed the radio, or observed some private data, I would hope they would.
I would say that, from the nazi perspective, what they did was quite ethical as they considered it correct behaviour, and that the majority of the population agreed at the time for whatever reason. The fact that the ethical situation in Germany is now the exact opposite of what it was then shows how volatile ethics is.

http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk

http://www.robotwisdom.com/

 

[sleipnir214]

manarth hit upon it when he refused to define "society". If an individual rejects the labels of society and has sufficient charisma, he can create his own "micro-society" which will legitimize his ethical system. Jim Jones, David Koresh, and Adolph Hitler all fall into this category.

If an individual rejects the labels of society but lacks the charisma to gather his own, he might become a disaffected recluse -- sort of a "society of one". Ted Kaczynski (the Unabomber) is a useful example of this.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[PCLine]

What you are saying maybe so...but those things don't happen over night, do they?

They each created and legitimated their own "sub-culture" before some were able to attain "social legitimacy". They were all seen as "deviant" at one point or another.

Even sub-cultures are liable to be labelled deviant.

Your examples vindicate the positions held by myself and others.

Thanks.

 

[Stevehewitt]

Reply to PCLine:

I personally think a honey pot is ethical. If I was getting repeated hack attempts but I didn't have enough time to find out who was doing it, then a honey pot past the first layer of security (firewall etc) is fine, as somebody has entered my system without consent. What I have on my servers in my internal network is my business.
Saying that I wouldn't put a honey pot online without a firewall, as you could call that entrapment - but adding a firewall in place is a sign that you are preventing people from getting in.

Steve Hewitt
Systems Manager

 

[PCLine]

A fair point.

All the best.

 

[CajunCenturion]

Ethics comes from the greek word "ethos" which means character. The character of the self. This goes all the way back to Aristotle, who basically stated that ethics is the behavior of the individual.

To judge whether that behavior is ethical or unethical, you must have a standard against which to judge that behavior. The relative nature, or perception of ethicalness, comes in by choosing which standard by which you're going to judge that behavior. An single act can be both ethical and unethical by judging that act against two different standards. Society as a whole has a standard, which is the morality of the socity. But within the society, sub-groups can define their own rules, their own "Code of Ethics", which does not have to agree with each other, or with that of the larger society. And of course, as individuals, we have our own codes which guide our behavior. This is usually referred to as a conscience. But in all cases, ethical judgement is a relationship between the self, and standard by which that behavior is being judged. Everyone contributing is correct is some measure because we're not all using the same standards to judge whether the behavior is ethical. Now as to determine which standard is correct, for starters, lets consider that old phrase, "your right to swing your fist stops where my nose starts"

I can understand that my example (using the verb steal) of self directed behavior as a guide for imposed behavior as being a poor choice and misleading. Perhaps a better example would have been: If I slap myself in the face because I made a mistake, should in no way be construted as permission for you to slap me if I make a mistake. I feel it would be a terrible mistake to judge how you treat another based on how they treat themselves. By extension, people will give friends latitude in acceptable behavior that they would not grant to strangers or fellow office workers. The family also can operate under a different standard. You could easily get into a heap of trouble if you tried to justify your behavior towards someone else just become that person allowed that behavior from a third party. So I reiterate that your basis of behavior should based on what you'd like others to do to you, and not what you perceive others doing (or even allowing) to themselves.

To put into ethical terms, what you perceive another person's ethical standard of self directed behavior to be, is not an acceptable standard on which to judge your ethical behavior towards that person.

Or perhaps the question could be phrased differently. If Person A commits an act against Person B, whose "Code of Ethics" should take precedence in judging the act to be ethical - Person A or Person B?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[PCLine]

Ah Ha!

There you go with the loaded questions again.

Glad to see you retracted your "stealing" argument, lol.

And yet you choose another "odd" example, but I'd rather not pursue it ;-)

Your last paragraph is "recovering" ground that I have addressed in 2 previous posts. So you already know my thoughts on the subject.

Regards.

 

[sleipnir214]

PCLine:
But then how does a society's "legitimizing" an ethical system matter, particularly when an individual can build his own? Why is a rubber stamp necessary?

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[PCLine]

Hi sleipnir214,

The second paragraph of CajunCenturion's last post speaks to that question in a very eloquent manner.

But I would underline it by saying, "if you believe your ethics are right and I believe my ethics are right and those ethics are different ~ we'll end up scrapping".

If you want to live in anarchy, that's your choice. But the rest of us will put you away.

All the best.

 

[sleipnir214]

PCLine:
Reread CajunCenturion's first paragraph. Your use of a word like "anarchy" indicates to me that you have confused "ethics" with "mores" or "law".

You also missed the names I deliberately left from my earlier list. Names like Martin Luther King, Jr., Harriet Beacher Stowe, and Mohandes K. Ghandi. These are all people who were labelled as "deviant" by "society" at one time or another.



Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[Tarwn]

This constant repitition of the word society is starting to bug me. There is no entity named society, and it certainly doesn't have ethics...

We are society, society is a group of individuals, each of which (as many have pointed out) have their own code of ethics. When you speak of ethics on a a societal level you are speaking of the ethics of the majority, or the common ethics that the majority of the people in a society hold. What this "societal code of ethics" does is tell us how ethical an action will be viewed by the majority of a certain group (our society).
Ethics is still relative to the viewpoint, and as CajunCenturian pointed out in a more well written response above, ethics belongs to the individuals viewpoint. So we have a group of like-minded people that agree certain actions are ethical or unethical, but that agreement is based upon the fact that the majority of the individuals in that group have similar code's of ethics.
"Society" influences how an individuals code of ethics evolves, but at no point does it fully define the individuals code of ethics (though in the past many groups have tried). It is possible to change the opinions of the majority or the majority itself, and therefore gain a new group code of ethics, but the method of changing the group's ethical standpoints is to convince a majority of the members of the group to agree to an addition/subtraction fro the current code of ethics they each hold.

Also, deviancy from the group's code of ethics does not necessarally mean disagreeing with them from the offset, it could just as easily mean not changing one's code of ethics while another majority appears with a new code of ethics that are an addition or subtraction from the original code.

-Tarwn

[sub]01010100 01101001 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101111 01101011 00101110 01100011 01101111 01101101 [/sub]
[sup]29 3K 10 3D 3L 3J 3K 10 32 35 10 3E 39 33 35 10 3K 3F 10 38 31 3M 35 10 36 3I 35 35 10 3K 39 3D 35 10 1Q 19[/sup]
Get better results for your questions: faq333-2924
Frequently Asked ASP Questions: faq333-3048

 

[PCLine]

Hi sleipnir214,

This is the last time I will be replying to you in this thread.

The names you mentioned before and the names you mention now still deserve the response I gave earlier;

"What you are saying maybe so...but those things don't happen over night, do they?

They each created and legitimated their own "sub-culture" before some were able to attain "social legitimacy". They were all seen as "deviant" at one point or another.

Even sub-cultures are liable to be labelled deviant.

Your examples vindicate the positions held by myself and others.

Thanks."

So I fail to understand the point you make by now bringing more names to the debate.

Have I confused "ethics" with "mores" or "law". No, I haven't. You just don't (want to?) see the inter-connections between them. But perhaps if you expounded on your "theory" I might be inclined to understand your subject position. As it is, all I can say "unconstructively" is that you are wrong.

All the best.

FYI: "sleipnir was the fastest horse in any race". It's not that it was a better horse that it won those races, it just had 8-legs.

 

[sleipnir214]

PCLine:
"ethics", "mores" and "law" are interconnected, true. They are not, as your arguments seem to require, interchangeable.

And there is nothing wrong with being "deviant", which is just another word for "different". Unless, of course, you are an ant or a termite.

And I would love to know what your FYI has to do with anything.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[lionelhill]

Hm, Honey pots. The real reason why honey pots are illegal in most sensible societies is that the traditional honey pot (i.e. car with door open in carpark and nice new video on back seat, police hiding in bushes) can cause a person who wouldn't otherwise have committed a crime to do so. That's because anyone wandering past can't help but see the honey pot and be tempted.

So although I don't feel comfortable about honey pots, I can see that leaving a security hole in a computer isn't quite the same thing. You almost have to be trying to be a hacker in order to notice that there is a security hole...

Could be hard to define the point where the trap is actually likely to incite crime that wouldn't otherwise have existed, though.

 

[TheVampire]

Uh, no. Honeypots do not have a magical power to corrupt an innocent soul ( if there are any out there! ( above the age of 1-1/2 years old )) The person has to make a conscious decision to be a thief, and in my book, it makes them just as guilty.

Otherwise, how could shoplifting be a crime? It's very tempting, the stuff is just laying right out on the shelf in the store, the door to the store isn't locked, and you don't see the security people or their hidden cameras do you? Just becaue the stuff is inside a retail store and not on the back seat of a car doesn't make a darn bit of difference.

They take something out of a car, even if it *is* unlocked or the door is open / window rolled down or whatever, *they* know they are stealing, *they* know its against the law, and *they* should be punished for it!

Robert

 

[sleipnir214]

I agree the TheVampire. (Except that 1-1/2 years is a little generous, if my yardapes are anything to go by.)

In those places where a honeypot is illegal, I think it would be because it is possible for a police agency to cross the line from enticement to entrapment.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[PCLine]

TheVampire,
"The person has to make a conscious decision to be a thief..."

"Rational chioce" theory? What about "positivism", they couldn't help themselves, lol.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I am just pointing out that there are a lot of peeps who would disagree with that assessment.

All the best.

 

[TheVampire]

PCLine,

Oh, I agree, there are a lot of people out there who would disagree with my statement.

Which is why the idea of "personal responsibility" has gone to hell in a handbasket, and we have a bunch of nanny types running the government.

Robert