Should computer technology be used to kill people? 15

[arlems]

Here is an ethical question about the use of our computer technology. Every day, I see it being used to destroy lives in wars. The highest level of technology always seems to serve to kill the most possible people at a time. Do we have some responsibility in the way we create and distribute our computer products to others? Sales is an issue, but what about innocent lives getting trashed at the blink of an eye because some companies developped computer tools to develop the most advanced killing machine? Should the computer industry be more responsible as to how its technology get used?

 

[infinitelo]

maybe this will help: supose you found a piece of code that could actually make a pc kill someone though an email. would it be ethical to turn it over to your government?



if it is to be it's up to me

 

[CajunCenturion]

Interesting hypothetical, but on several levels it's not really applicable not the least of which is the fact that computer is not a weapon with the inherant capability to render harm.

Think about how computer technology and software is used to enhance the weapons systems. What is enhanced? Better positioning, better targetting, dynamic targetting, better trajectories (in flight path the bullet takes from the gun to target), in-flight adjustable retargetting, automated, quicker, and better defense, and so forth. I'm remminded of a commerical which with all due credits I'm paraphrasing, and quite seriously, "The computer system doesn't make the weapon, it makes the weapon better"

Now, if that piece of code were to enhance your computer to target and kill spammers, and only spammers, or just a specific spammer, and help defend your computer from spammer attacks -- when the spammer(s) wants to kill you -- what does that do to the ethics of your hypothetical?

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

 

[CajunCenturion]

<This is a joke, a whole joke, and nothing but a joke>
After reading through this thread, my better half
<joke off>
(much better half)
<joke back on>
said I should post the following: (espcially for sleipnir214)

&quot;Vonce da rockets are up&quot;
</joke>


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

 

[rosieb]

&quot;Who cares where they come down?&quot; (?)

 

[SF18C]

edfair

a bit off topic but your post reminded me of this old joke:

An old Indian chief sat in his hut on the reservation, smoking a ceremonial pipe and eyeing two U.S. government officials sent to interview him.

&quot;Chief Two Eagles,&quot; asked one official, &quot;you have observed the white man for 90 years. You've seen his wars and his material wealth. You've seen his progress, and the damage he's done.&quot; The chief nodded in agreement. The official continued, &quot;Considering all these events, in your opinion, where did the white man go wrong?&quot;

The chief stared at the government officials for over a minute and then calmly replied, &quot;When white man found the land, Indians were running it. No taxes, no debt, plenty buffalo, plenty beaver, women did all the work, medicine man free, Indian man spent all day hunting and fishing, all night having sex.&quot;

Then the chief leaned back and smiled, &quot;White man dumb enough to think he could improve system like that.&quot;

SF18C
CCNP, MCSE, A+, N+ & HPCC

&quot;Tis better to die on your feet than live on your knees!&quot;

 

[jsteph]

<<...Do we have some responsibility....what about innocent lives getting trashed at the blink of an eye because some companies developped computer tools to develop the most advanced killing machine>>

To the original question--No. If you go down, down, down, to the most basic human nature--it boils down to kill or be killed. Fermi and Oppenhiemer knew their nuclear research (which was not low-tech at the time) would be used for killing and they certainly struggled with it. But the bottom line was--If we don't do it to them first (or show that we could do it (Teddy R's 'carry a big stick'), then they will do it to us. Continuation of the species, etc, etc. Basic human nature.

The resulting deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were certainly not 'collateral damage'--they were the target--but the consensus was that those operations prevented 10 times or more deaths--on both sides.

It's a standoff--and it always will be. He who can kill the most the fastest will rule the planet--until the other countries get that technology, detente is achieved, the bar is raised, and the race is on for the next literal 'killer app'.

As much as we want to think we're 'compassionate', no one wants to be at the other end of the proverbial gun. So I argue that if some programmer here 'found a piece of code', or developed one, that would be more efficient at waging war, and he destroyed it, he would be doing his country--not necessarily mankind--a disservice, because someone else will certainly develop similar code and if it isn't your country or one of your allies, then you are most certainly in danger.

Philosophically we--meaning whichever country to which you swear allegiance--will always think it's OK that we have these powerful weapons, but if they have them, and we think they are irresponsible with them, then that's not OK. And so it goes that it is always in the best interest for the survival of the subjective we, to always have the best killing machines--whether or not we agree with the concept of war--because human nature will always wage war.

Tears For Fears summed it up best: 'Everybody Wants To Rule The World'
--jsteph

 

[skiflyer]

Personal understanding of the collateral damage term....

I've always heard it properly applied to buildings, infastructure and vehicles lost that were not targetted.

The concept of applying it to civilian lives lost, in my experience, came from some books/movies/radio/whatever portraying hard ass military personel responding to the little pipsqueak character running up and saying &quot;But sir, this will cost 100's of lives&quot;, and the big buff guy would chomp a cigar and growl out &quot;Collateral Damage&quot;

In other words, as far as I can tell, it was an insult towards military and politicians when the media started using it... basically saying hey you guys treat life like infastructure... and it was never meant to actually apply to life, but perhaps I'm mistaken, or have just watched too many movies.

-Rob

 

[rosieb]

I wonder if this isn't a semantics issue, those who have served in the military, interpret the words in one way , those of us who haven't, take a different interpretetion.

I do believe that, in the media, such terms are used to to downplay the human cost of conflict. It seems to me that when lives are lost due to &quot;collateral damage&quot; it is portrayed, in the media, as &quot;just one of those things&quot; and that the human cost is lost.

I've read a lot recently about how TV / photo journalists are not allowed to show the real effects of conflict, lest it upset the audience.

My personal view is that the media should show the full horrors, because that is the only antidote to the &quot;gung ho&quot; approach promulated by certain politicians.

 

[rosieb]

<aside>
CajunCenturion
Just for infothe doodlebugs, officially known as V1s.
Got this from my mother (who spent the Blitz in London). Re the doodlebugs (her term), you heard the sound, then the engines would cut out - if you could hear that, you knew it was going to hit nearby. Waiting, in the bomb shelter, for the silence was frightening.

Truly a weapon intended for terror.
</aside>

 

[edfair]

The military uses the term as an easy way to explain away bad things that happen to non-combatents. But even using the term, I hope, doesn't make it any easier for them to accept it.
For my use in the post, I consider anything in excess of what is required to make an enemy combatant a non-combatent as collateral damage.

Ed Fair
Give the wrong symptoms, get the wrong solutions.

 

[rosieb]

edfair
I think I sgree with you, but only &quot;sort of&quot;.

I think the military use words in a way that they understand, but which tend to be misinterpreted by the media (deliberately or otherwise). I don't believe that they (the military) genuinely intend to mislead - I think it's down to interpretation. The media latch onto whatever supports their particular preconception.

However, with all due respect <genuine> to all, it offends me to see the term &quot;collateral damage&quot; applied to people, I do see that as a subvertion of the language. My opinion only.

 

[bbarr]

Another way to look at this ethical question is, What responsibility do leaders have to their people when they (the community) is attacked? Can one have meaningful debate with an enemy that seeks to destroy them?

Is using technology to overthrow a government really worse then allowing that government to remain in power to oppress the people it controls, that keeps those people in perpetural fear of their lives on a daily basis, that cuts the tongues out of those who speak out against those in power, that rapes women for the fun of it, that mains and murders athletes who don't win a sports competition?

At what point does one stop negotiating with an enemy that continually deceives and breaks promises? Surely, it may sound nice and feel nice to see a Secretary of State (Albright) toasting a dictator (Kim) at a banquet . . . especially when one does not see the many imprisoned in labor camps and eating nothing but scraps of bark off of trees.

Is it wrong to use precision guided missile technology to help a missle find a factory wherein people are making bombs to strap on to their bodies and walk into your community, let's say a cafe where families and young children are eating lunch, and blow them up?

Just some thoughts . . .

 

[jsteph]

...that goes back to what I had said--we, a person's respective country, feel that what we decide is right for us should be protected by any means available to us. Which means that if we feel threatened by a bomb making factory, then we should use any means possible, via any technology possible, to destroy it.

But of course the bomb-making and bomb-strapping-on-and-walking-into-cafes people feel they are doing the bombing to protect themselves. Each side may argue over who's right, and they are both right, which is why there will always be war. This may sound like a 'half-empty' type of comment, but the reality is that the world will never see a time when every nation sees eye-to-eye and nobody is under any threat of attack. Sing all the folk-peace songs you want at all the candlelight-vigils you want, it ain't going to stop. All we can hope for is to live where we agree with the country's philosophy and are willing to fight for it.

While it may be my opinion that incinerating hundreds of thousands in Hiroshima was just and right to protect my country, those folks probably saw that as worse than how Americans view the 9/11 incinerations--regardless of the technicality of currently being 'at war'. What we see as Defense, others see as Offense, and vice-versa.

So each country has a right to use all technology available to 'defend' (whether or not that defense requires a good offense) itself.
--jsteph

 

[Grenage]

What we see as Defense, others see as Offense.

Not to mention the fact that there really is no such thing as right and wrong, merely our perception of it.

 

[CajunCenturion]

Let's not stray too far into politics. Remember, this is IT ethics in the workplace.

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

 

[GwydionM]

Can anyone think of a useful modern technplogy that hasn't killed people?

It's not the technology that's at fault, it is the way that people use it. And as CajunCenturion said, that's politics. There are plenty of suitable forums outside of Tek Tips where you can argue the point.

One thing we can say as Computer professionals. Automated systems can look utterly brilliant if you just show the successes. But I don't think anyone here would trust a computerised device to cut their nails, or even trim their hair. So in principle there should always be a responsible human able to prevent machine errors.

 

[kiddpete]

I don't think there is any doubt that technology won the cold war, and saved many thousands if not millions of lives in the process. Refraining from using that technology would mean that the USSR would still be in business, and that many nations would still be subjegated. It would probably mean that an undiminished nuclear force would still be in place. It is a good thing to convince the other guy that he really doesn't want to get into a fight.

 

[strongm]

>I don't think there is any doubt that technology won the cold war

Erm...there are some that might disagree with this...interesting...analysis. But, as others have said, the discussion of this would stray outside the parameters of a) this forum and b) tek-tips

 

[MakeItSo]

Hhhmm - really interesting thread with lots of different views. So I think I'll add mine:
Cajun: After having learnt that you're a veteran, I can understand (as far as anyone who never went to war and never will can understand) that you prefer today's and future's weapon technology because of its precision and efficiency.
No need to kill &quot;unnecessarily many&quot; (what an ugly term I found here) people - hit the main targets and get your ass back out.

But: my view is, that violence always causes new violence. No one who has lost a relative in war will give a damn about who was right or wrong. He will be angry and his anger will be directed against the one who pulled the trigger.
And he will strike back.
And then the former attacker is the one that moarns and wants &quot;justice&quot; - and so on...
Get my point?
I don't say: hold your other cheek, but I say: you don't need to break jaws...

MakeItSo

 

[CajunCenturion]

Yes, of course I get your MakeItSo, as I'm sure does everyone else as the violence begets violence arguement has been discussed for a few thousand years. But that is not the point.

The question is do the collective we, as IT and Computer Scientists, have any ethical responsibility with respect to how our technology is used to enhance weapons systems. As has been stated by others, no one should be held accountable if that technology is mis-used or mis-applied. I further postulate that the enhancement in weapons systems has improved effectiveness and thus has reduced collateral damage, and by that I do mean reducing harm to non-combatants and non-military facilities. Additionally, if the technological superiority of available weapon systems actually deters conflict, then such enhancements are a good thing.

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