HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Mailer: Elm [revision: 66.25]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 08:32:15 CDT
From:         Richard Lee <rlee@UAFHP.UARK.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Digressions
Comments: To: Discussion of Ethics in Computing
              <ETHICS-L%POLYGRAF.BITNET@graf.poly.edu>

Stephen Stafford writes:
>
>How can you spend this amont of time and space in trying to decide the
>nature of ethics!!!  Surely this is digression in its worst form.  Next
>well start discussing how many taxi drivers it takes to change a light
>bulb.  Oh by the way, how on earth did we graduate from digressions
>to Colombuses encounter with the western hemisphere??
>
	I'm not convinced.  If the issue is "Ethics in Computing," it
is important to figure out what ethics is.  That is not a digression.
It is obviously very relevant.  If the list were on "the uses of
sugar," I would expect to see a discussion of just what constitutes
sugar.  This list is on the ethics of computing.  "What is ethics?" is
a question that needs to be answered.  Furthermore some of the
discussion has to do with answering the question "what are the correct
ethical principles to apply to situations?"  THAT is a key question in
any discussion of computing ethics.
--
Dr. Richard Lee                         rlee@uafhp.uark.edu
Department of Philosophy Old Main 318   rlee@uafsysb.BITNET
University of Arkansas                  tel: 501-575-5826
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 12:03:15 EDT
From:         Tim Weaver <tweaver@HOBBES.KZOO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Foundations
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

>
> My goodness.  Seems to me that if I had a target, it was corporate
> and government behavior rather than individuals; and mutual respect
> has been expressed between Jim and myself.  Along comes William Hugh
> Murray, claiming that these posts have consisted of personal attacks.
>
My goodness.  If I remember correctly, he didn't refer specifically to
you Ed.  What William Hugh is saying is true, and we could all benefit
from stepping back and thinking about our replies before we post and
removing stuff such as unsubstantiated generalities and personal attacks.
It also helps the discussion if you can back up your statements with
references.  I am as guilty as anyone of this sort of behaviour.

+-----------------------------+---------------------------+----------------+
|Timothy E. Weaver            | Snail: Kalamazoo College  |                |
|Database Programmer/Analyst  |        1200 Academy       | Phone:         |
|email:  tweaver@kzoo.edu     |        Kalamazoo MI 49006 | (616) 383-5656 |
+-----------------------------+---------------------------+----------------+
|These are my opinions!!      |   Don't be humble, you're not that great   |
|Mine!    Mine!    Mine!      |                  - Golda Meir (1898-1978)  |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 10:52:14 EDT
From:         Tim Weaver <tweaver@HOBBES.KZOO.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Privacy of data
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu
              Northern Territory University" at Apr 16, 92 11:21 pm

>
>Now Mr Bloe had no (official) cause to be monitoring the student (nor did he
>particularly single this student out. Has he brought himself within the general
>scope of the above mentioned policy?
>
Not if he keeps his mouth shut and doesn't act on the info.  :)

+-----------------------------+---------------------------+----------------+
|Timothy E. Weaver            | Snail: Kalamazoo College  |                |
|Database Programmer/Analyst  |        1200 Academy       | Phone:         |
|email:  tweaver@kzoo.edu     |        Kalamazoo MI 49006 | (616) 383-5656 |
+-----------------------------+---------------------------+----------------+
|These are my opinions!!      |   Don't be humble, you're not that great   |
|Mine!    Mine!    Mine!      |                  - Golda Meir (1898-1978)  |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Acknowledge-To:  WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 18:27:00 EDT
From:         WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Subject:      Foundations
Comments: To: ETHICS-L%UGA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

I tend to agree with Jim Downey.  I find it difficult to accept novel
ideas that are presented only as self-evident assertions, particularly
if I do not find them so evident.  When those assertions are presented
in an argumentative rhetorical style that takes all questions as insult
and insults all questioners, I become very suspicious of the assertions.

My observation is that Jim was careful not to insult or assert but
merely to raise legitimate questions, questions which I share with him.
Rather than an attempt to respond to those questions, we get more
angry assertions, this time questioning the legitimacy of the questions and
the motives and integrity of the questioner.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 08:39:24 EDT
From:         Tim Weaver <tweaver@HOBBES.KZOO.EDU>
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology & Immortality
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

Valdemar W. Setzer writes:
>
>Did everyone notice that we have now 13 Commandments, not 10? The new ones are,
>in order of appearance:
>
>11) You shall not suffer (Aspirin, etc)
>12) You shall not be born (The Pill)
>13) You shall not die (Cryonics)
>
Hardly commandments if stated properly
You need not suffer
You need not be born
You need not die

Actually, you need not be born, should be you need not give birth,
since the choice is not the child's, but the mother's.

+-----------------------------+---------------------------+----------------+
|Timothy E. Weaver            | Snail: Kalamazoo College  |                |
|Database Programmer/Analyst  |        1200 Academy       | Phone:         |
|email:  tweaver@kzoo.edu     |        Kalamazoo MI 49006 | (616) 383-5656 |
+-----------------------------+---------------------------+----------------+
|These are my opinions!!      |   Don't be humble, you're not that great   |
|Mine!    Mine!    Mine!      |                  - Golda Meir (1898-1978)  |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Vmsmail-To: ETHICS
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 23:21:31 GMT
From:         "Mark P. Neely,
              Northern Territory University" <NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Privacy of data
Comments: To: ETHICS-L%POLYGRAF.BITNET@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU

Howdy (again...)

I was just repling to a personal mail message from an ethics-l subscriber when
the follwing scenario croped up:

We were discussing a computer centres' policy for computer abuse. It had a
clause regarding the interference with confidential data. It provided for a
pentaly in relation to the accessing and interference with
personal/confidential data.

My first query was whether it applied equally to staff. Then a few ideas popped
up.

Joe Bloe, SysAdmin extraodinaire, is sitting in his office eating lunch. He has
a program 'Watcher' (or its equivalent) running - its focus on a particular
(randomly chosen) student.

As it turns out, Student X was typing a mail message to a collegue regarding
something which happened the night before (e.g. sordid affair, problems etc).
Joe happend to glance up as this hit the screen....

Now Mr Bloe had no (official) cause to be monitoring the student (nor did he
particularly single this student out. Has he brought himself within the general
scope of the above mentioned policy?

Mark N.

    				Mark Neely,
Articled Clerk + Tutor, Law School, Northern Territory Uni. Darwin NT Australia
    			  neely_mp@darwin.ntu.edu.su
Disclaimer:
The views expressed herein are neither a reflection of the views held by
my employer nor those of the NTU. They are not to be taken (unless otherwise
indicated) as a formal legal opinion or advice given in my professional
capacity.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: hsrender@happy.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Subject: CPSR?
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:02:32 GMT
Organization: University of Colorado, Colorado Springs

Given the subject of ethics and computers, has anybody got any information
on Computing Professionals for Social Responsibility?  I heard about the
group a few years ago, and now I have a student who would like to find out
more.  Thanks for any info.

hal render
render@massive.uccs.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 19:05:07 EDT
From:         Ed Nilges <EGNILGES@PUCC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Digressions
              7 Apr 1992 14:55:28 GMT from <cfrnb@UX1.CTS.EIU.EDU>

On Tue, 7 Apr 1992 14:55:28 GMT Bob Barger said:
>In article <ETHICS-L%92040705520542@DEARN> Discussion of Ethics in Computing
><ETHICS-L@DEARN> writes:
>>
>>How can you spend this amont of time and space in trying to decide the
>>nature of ethics!!!  Surely this is digression in its worst form.  Next
>>well start discussing how many taxi drivers it takes to change a light
>>bulb.  Oh by the way, how on earth did we graduate from digressions
>>to Colombuses encounter with the western hemisphere??
>>
>>
>>Stephen Stafford
>
>Sometimes the point of electronic messages is more difficult to
>determine than messages sent thru other media, but is the above
>message meant to imply that the examined life is not worth bandwidth?

Thanks to Stephen for highlighting the absurdity of appeals to
"relevance" when they substitute for thought.  Stephen asks how
dare we (in a forum named ETHICS-L) talk about the nature of
ethics.  Pray, Mr. Stafford, why is this not germane to the list
topic?  Or does it disturb you that foundational studies exist?

Stephen's attitude is unfortunately common.  Truly "radical"
approaches (in the sense of getting to the root of problems) are
dismissed out of hand by those content with the status quo, not
as WRONG (for that would take thought) but as not relevant to
some agenda which seems as pervasive as it is unspoken and
undiscussed.  I am reminded of the reaction to Jerry Brown and
Larry Agran (and, in spite of my lack of sympathy with their
policies, to the reaction to Perot and Buchanan.)  I am
also reminded of the reaction to innovative technology (a programmer
once told me that linked lists were "not relevant" to programming.)

As a truly egregious example of irrevelance, I would present
Mr. Murray's arguments in favor of television.  I predict that
the chaps who protested the introduction of foundational, social
and political topics into ETHICS-L will not protest Mr. Murray's
post which was, of course, completely irrevelant to ETHICS-L.
I get a disturbing sense that there IS a preset agenda in ETHICS-L
as, indeed, I get from the national political scene.


     "There's something happening here
      That ain't quite exactly clear."

                          - Buffalo Springfield
Via:      UK.AC.LON.GOLD;  6 APR 92 14:10:51 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 92 14:10:00 GMT
Reply-To:     Discussion of Ethics in Computing <ETHICS-L@DEARN>
From:         "THE ANSWER IS 42,
              NOW WHATS THE QUESTION??" <MAU01SMS@GOLD.LON.AC.UK>
Subject:      RE: Ed Craig's Definition

I dont agree that most computers are not toys.  I think youll find that
most of what the majority of people would call computers are used with
at least some leisure activity in mind, and again a great many are used
by kids, try a working-middle class area anywhere in Britain. and its a
that half the households ( at least ) who have kids have a computer of
some kind which is used almost solely as a toy.
	Whilst you and I agree that a Gameboy, or a Nintendo, or even
a commodore ( with a keyboard and everyfink ) are not really computers
in the sense of the power of the machines we work on, but they work on
excactly ( or near enough ) the same principles.


Yours totallly irellevently and boringly ( as this particular dicussion
topic seems to be heading in the same general direction )

Stephen Stafford
mau01sms@gold.lon.ac.uk
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 17:13:31 EDT
From:         Cal <PRYLUCK@TEMPLEVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: TV & computers again
              16 Apr 1992 10:49:13 -0400 from <vwsetzer@IME.USP.BR>

In a recent message Vlademar Setzer wrote: "Computer text editing induces
undiscipline in writing."

He is entitled to his feelings about tv without extraneous challenge since, as
he pointed out they are  h i s  feelings.  But, his observation about the
consequences of computer text editing are  n o t  his feelings; it is an
empirical question.  Does anyone know of evidence supporting/refuting the
point?

M y  f e e l i n g  is contrary to Vlademar's assertion.  I have composed at
the keyboard for many decades, long before computers; I find computer text
editing to be liberating.  If his assertion is valid, then we really do have
a problem: computers and text editors are here.  If their use results in
weakening the already weak grasp that young people have on written communica-
tion we should object to their use on the ethical grounds that "teaching should
do no harm" (paraphrasing the oath that physicians take in many countries).

Cal Pryluck                               <PRYLUCK@TEMPLEVM>
Dept of Radio-Television-Film             <PRYLUCK@VM.TEMPLE.EDU>
Temple University
Philadelphia, PA 19122
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 15:41:27 EDT
From:         "Mary B. Williams" <CGT18362@UDELVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: CPSR?
              10 Apr 1992 12:02:32 MDT from <hsrender@HAPPY.COLORADO.EDU>

Computer Professional for Social responsibility  can be reached at
cpsr@csli.stanford.edu, at 415 322 3778, or at CPSR, P.O. Box 717,
Palo Alto, CA 94302-0717.
                         Mary
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 18:34:50 PDT
From:         Woody Weaver <woody@STMARYS-CA.EDU>
Subject: Re: TV & computers again
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

In a recent message Vlademar Setzer wrote: "Computer text editing induces
undiscipline in writing."  Cal Pryluck (pryluck@vm.temple.edu) then asks
"Does anyone know of evidence supporting/refuting the point?"

I have read of one study that purportedly compared two composition courses
from a university.  (I can not recall the details, for I believe the study
to have been seriously flawed.)  The sections used respectively Word Perfect
on a DOS platform and MacWrite running under the mac's Finder.

The conclusion of the study was that the topics chosen by the mac group were
more frivolous, and the writing not as well prepared nor as well thought out.
One hypothesis was that the students spent more time thinking about *how it
looked* rather than what it said.

This is of course a real concern: students will produce lasertrash, and have
to be told to think of content.  IMHO a student studying composition should
focus on a narrow band medium -- perhaps simple ascii -- and not even deal
with impact until a later point; i.e. use text editors and not word
processors.  I can see how other perspectives would provide different
results.  I am also peripherally aware of a study in which developmentally
disabled students were provided with word processors; the ease of
composition as compared with equivalent longhand work, and the
attractiveness of the output provided an effective incentive for them to
work.

Here at St. Mary's, the Better Writing people use Word Perfect and
discourage textual flourishes.

--woody

Robert Weaver                         office: 510-631-4416
Department of Mathematical Sciences     home: 510-680-1986
St. Mary's College of California         fax: 510-376-4027
Moraga, CA 94575                        data: 510-376-1554
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 20:11:37 -0500
From:         Falkner <falknemj@CSUNIX.CS.UWEC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology & Immortality
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

Tim Weaver states that it is the mother's choice in giving birth.  This was
in response to the earlier "additions" to the 10 Commandments.

Tim, what about a woman who has been impregnated by a rapist??
Especially in this day and age where many women feel that there is a right
to life for all fetuses, there isn't much of a choice there, is there??

<I realize this may open a can of worms about the abortion issue, but my
 main point is that not everything is our choice.  I never chose to have
 depression or associated other problems; I just have to deal with it.
 So in fact, those other three "additions" are not always correct.  >

Just remember ...  we are "given" certain things.  What we do with them is
what separates us from the other people given the same things.

Yours in friendship...

							Mike Falkner

These are not the opinions of the Computer Science Department at UW-Eau Claire
or its Computing and Networking Systems.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 09:48:34 LCL
From:         Vincent DeHart <PB94018@UTKVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Digressions

The current discussions have been at times entertaining, enlightening,
irritating, and tedious. I've enjoyed following them. I've had no
particular insights worth adding. Nonetheless, at this point I must
disagree with the recent barbs directed by one of our colleagues at
WHMurray. Longtime subscribers to this list will no that Mr. Murray
does not need for me to defend him; his ability to distill, summarize,
and articulate ideas is evident in his several posts. I look forward to
Mr. Murray's comments, because I know that in the midst of flames,
digressions, and arguments often formulated only as they are being
typed, WHM's insights are often responsible for bringing the discussions
back on track. I find his approach rational, his ideas obviously the
result of experience, and his ability to convey those ideas shows him
to be among the most articulate of our contributors. The comments
characterizing WHM's posts as having "low informational content" and as
"a truly egregious example of irrevelance (sic)" are, I believe,
incorrect, and I could not let them go unchallenged.
--
Vincent DeHart                                     PB94018@UTKVM1
The University of Tennessee
(Of course, opinions expressed here are purely personal.)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 16:54:25 EST
From:         Art Scott <JWG9@MARISTB.BITNET>
Subject:      Good consequences of TV

I wonder if the person who does all that lecturing ever stopped long
enough to watch PBS.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
From: cfrnb@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Bob Barger)
Subject: Re: Digressions
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 1992 14:55:28 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

In article <ETHICS-L%92040705520542@DEARN> Discussion of Ethics in Computing <ETHICS-L@DEARN> writes:
>
>How can you spend this amont of time and space in trying to decide the
>nature of ethics!!!  Surely this is digression in its worst form.  Next
>well start discussing how many taxi drivers it takes to change a light
>bulb.  Oh by the way, how on earth did we graduate from digressions
>to Colombuses encounter with the western hemisphere??
>
>
>Stephen Stafford

Sometimes the point of electronic messages is more difficult to
determine than messages sent thru other media, but is the above
message meant to imply that the examined life is not worth bandwidth?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Acknowledge-To:  WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 14:46:00 EDT
From:         WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Subject:      Technologial Apparatus (TV, Radio, or Print)
Comments: To: ETHICS-L%UGA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

It is interesting that V. Setzer reserves his antipathy for the most
wide-band medium but likes radio and print.

I think that we begin to diverge over individualism.  VS dislikes TV
because his "working hypothesis" is that it stupifies the individual.
(Perhaps he would change his view if he could see me help Bernstein
conduct Beethoven's Ninth in celebration of the re-unification of
Berlin.)  I like TV because my "working hypothesis" is that it helps the
individual identify with his peers, his history, his community, and our
shared music, images, and stories.  I suspect that these views are
irreconcilable in the short time of half a life time.  Perhaps all of
the evidence will not be in within my lifetime.  (Except that I live to
be older than anyone since biblical times, I have less than half a
lifetime left.)

VS also seems to see TV in terms of the watcher.  I tend to see it also
in terms of the story tellers and the movie makers who create the
messages, i.e., the artists.  Modern TV may already give employment to
more artists than ever lived before TV.  Movie making is a unique art,
in that most movies are made by teams.  Since my "working hypothesis" is
that man is at his best in teams (Not even Mozart did anything
significant without help), I like that.

Since VS puts such emphasis on the individual, I doubt that our world
views are reconcilable.  My working hypothesis is that the creation is
the creator made manifest and that life, not man and certainly not the
individual, is the highest manifestation of the creator.  Therefore, I
value life, the species, the community, and the individual in that order.
While I work from the assumption that I serve life in general by
contending for my own, I also work from the assumption that my life and
welfare are subordinate to the welfare of my community, mankind, and
life in general.

In short, while I suspect that VS would describe himself as an
individualist (as opposed to simply an ideosyncratic individual), I
would describe myself as a communitarian, both a product and a molder of
my culture (in the broadest sense, not simply in the sense of the
collected body of works).  While VS judges technology from its impact on
the individual, and finds it destructive, I judge it from its impact on
community.  I am willing to defer to him in the short run; in the long
run, I will await more evidence.  However, I suspect that time will
show that passive TV was but a short and hardly noticeable blip (bleep?)
on the screen of history and hardly worthy of our interest.

William Hugh Murray
New Canaan, CT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 20:03:41 -0500
From:         Falkner <falknemj@CSUNIX.CS.UWEC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Good consequences of TV
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

Art Scott asks whether anyone who has done all the "lecturning" about the
evils of television "ever stopped long enough to watch PBS."

I know I have, and I understand your point.  Many of the people that do
condemn television usually take issue with the vast majority of the
programming and just accept what is considered "good" as a fortunate side
effect.

I also agree with what another writer said about the suspension of reality.
Being a "fan" of "professional wrestling" forces you to suspend reality to a
great degree.  For some of the things that we refuse to suspend our reality
for, we must remember that others more than willingly suspend theirs for it.
{If I have a dollar for every mention of "Beverly Hills, 90210" in those teen
magazines...}

But we digress...  As in computers, if we decide to take an intelligent look
at everything, it is OUR choice what we do {whether watching TV or computing}
and we have to understand that. {See my previous (and short) note.}

Regards ...

						Mike Falkner

{Of course, this is again not the views of Computing and Networking Services
 at the University of Wisconsin -- Eau Claire, but only my own.}
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l