HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 12:05:00 EST
From:         Larry Martin <LGMartin@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL>
Subject:      Re: computers and kids
Comments: To: ethics-l@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU

     Just as we have begun a grass roots effort in the
elementary schools to change other undesirable aspects of our
society's behavior with "Say No To Drugs" and "No Smoking"
campaigns, we should begin planting the seeds of acceptable
"computer behavior" into the elementary school curriculum to
begin building the foundation for professional ethics.

     An excellent place to start such a campaign is the grocery
store chain promotions that have been successful around the
country.  Most of us are probably collecting grocery store cash
register receipts to help some local schools get new computers
and software.

     I believe that these programs are the perfect vehicle to
carry this message to the schools.  For example, as schools
redeem their grocery store receipts and begin accepting delivery
of their new computers, printers and software, the grocery chain
could invite the schools to voluntarily participate in a
"Commitment to Responsible Computing Program."  By doing so, the
schools would agree to incorporate the teaching of responsible
computer use into their curricula.  In this way, the grocery
chains can play a major role in heightening the awareness of both
the general public and our educational systems of the need for
teaching "ethics in computing."

     The benefit would be invaluable because if a computer vendor
launched such a program, they would only reach their narrow
customer base.  However, the grocery chains reach a real cross-
section of society that includes many parents who are not
computer literate, but who need to be aware of what their
children can do with computers.  The grocery chains, through the
schools and their PTA's, can help to bring the parents and their
children together in understanding responsible computer use.  In
that way, the parents' role in the program does not end after
their sales receipts are turned in.

     Schools could on their own initiative develop and implement
such as program by recognizing the individual students who make
the commitment to responsible computing with a ribbon and a
certificate.  The certificate and ribbon would not only serve to
motivate students to make the commitment, but taken home by a
proud student, would further heighten their parents' awareness to
the problem and their role in the solution.  In addition,
students proudly wearing the ribbon would serve as a sort of
"peer pressure" to encourage other students to also make the
commitment.

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 14:37:39 -0600
From:         guthery@SLCS.SLB.COM
Subject:      Robert Morris
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu
Comments: cc: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu
              4 Nov 1992 13:12:17 PST <9211042031.AA05059@leo.asc.slb.com>

In re RTM, anybody want to discuss the complicity in unethical behavior of the
system managers who even after having been informed of the hole through which
RTM's worm wriggled, left their systems wide open anyway?  If you leave your
car running with the door open in front of the 7-11 and somebody drives off in
it, you'll find that the insurance company won't pay as if it was stolen and
the courts will back them up.  If there were a notion of being an accomplice
in an unethical act, the people whose machines when down certainly would
qualify.  I think we should have seen them in the courtroom along with RTM.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"ETHICS-L@UGA.BITNET"
Original_cc:  RENGLAND
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 10:22:00 EDT
From:         Rich England <RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Teching ethics at elementary levels

As Donn has mentioned, excessive reposting prior to response does tend
to slow down the conversation - however - when you have 3-10 conversations
at once some reference is useful.  Normally, just the senatnce or two
you feel you MUST clarity is enough.  Reposting entire paragraphs or
(UGH) entire postings can become a monster eating your time when you
subscribe to a dozen or so lists!

Rich England
Empire State College
[RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET]
"Online Learning Can Be Electrifying!"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:33:07 -0800
From:         brochman@SFU.CA
Subject: Re: Children and Computers,

VALDEMAR.... PLEASE.... we are having problems here. These may be related
to the time it takes you to compose a message that is to be understood in
English... I don't know... but the sort of banter that's going on now is
not going to get us anywhere.

If you are going to make statements like:
>*any* use of computers
>in elementary education is a *crime* commited against humanity.
... without explaining in terms people who haven't studied Steiner for 31
years can understand, you will either not be taken seriously or you will be
subjected to attacks by people who consider your statements beligerent...
people like me who have devoted a great deal of time and energy to
promoting computers in elementary schools.

I think three things are true:

1. Your approach is your worst enemy. Or *our* worst enemy, if we endorse
the notion that discussions should lead to something positive.

2. You seem not to be fully cognizant of how computers are used in
elementary schools, at least in this country...
>...if a parent does not agree with my arguments and lets his children use his >
computers, puts them in front of a TV set and gives them videogames...
You sound as if you are making some invalid assumptions here.
>I am against its bad use,
>mainly when it turns humans into animals or machines.
Are you implying that others here are in favour of turning humans into
animals? If not, I can assure you that such statements tend to be
misinterpreted.

3. You obviously have a lot to offer, and I for one, feel I could learn
many things from you. You have expertise which I do not.
>Re teacher: I am not a "teacher". I am an university professor (52
>years old)
You seem to disassociate yourself from the term "teacher". Why? In what way
do we differ in *essence*? I'm 57, and I have taught in several different
countries (West Indies and Africa as well as Canada) for 31 years;
secondary school Physics, Electronics, General Science, Mathematics and
Computer Science; also Creative Writing on the elementary level. I don't
pretend to know as much as you do about this latter field. My computer
experience is far more limited. It only goes back to 1975. But I do have
considerable direct experience with the age group we are talking about, so
it is conceivable that I have insights gained from experience you might
find interesting if you could validate my expertise.

I would suggest we back off a bit and adopt a less defensive posture. It is
unfortunate that you ....
> ... do not have much time to dedicate to this list.

Regards


From the computer of  Harold Brochmann (604) 926-6716 (h)
Teacher
North Vancouver School District. (British Columbia)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 10:04:55 LCL
From:         Vince DeHart <PB94018@UTKVM1.BITNET>
              6 Nov 1992 06:04:51 -0600 from <guthery@SLCS.SLB.COM>

I am very much in agreement with Irv regarding the obligation of our
government to help foster an informed electorate. Thus the public
school system is established. If there are those who wish not to
utilize this system but establish one of their own, I don't see an
obligation by the government to support it as well. If the public
school system did not exist, then I would be in agreement with tax
dollars assisting a private, not-for-profit system.

The obvious problem is the quality of the existing public system. We
get what we pay for. We don't pay enough to encourage the very talented
to teach. Note my wording. I'm not saying we don't have some very
talented, committed teachers out there. But I do believe they are in the
minority. Not enough of us are willing to take the responsibility of
involvement on a local level to improve the system. The problem with
what Scott advocates, giving the money back to the parents, is that
there are way too many parents out there living a marginal existence
who, given the choice of how to spend incremental income, will make
their children's education, welfare, and such intangibles a low
priority compared to the parents' immediate tangible needs and wants.
You might not agree with me on this, but I see way too much evidence
to be convinced that this isn't true. I generally don't like the idea
of governments trying to protect us from ourselves, but I do favor
protecting the children from the long-term consequences of such
drastic decisions.
--
Vincent DeHart (speaking only for myself)          PB94018@UTKVM1
EDP Auditor
The University of Tennessee
Audit and Management Services
111 Student Services Building                        615-974-6611
Knoxville, TN 37996-0211                        Fax: 615-974-6171
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"ETHICS-L@UGA.BITNET"
Original_cc:  RENGLAND
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 01:20:00 EDT
From:         Rich England <RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: computers and kids

Stacy has thoroughly trounced me and I concur - the activity in Ethics-l
has lent itself to some quick responses.  What I had keyed in on her
post was disconecting modems to the outside to limit potential damage.

As I originally mentioned, nationally this (should we teach computers)
is a done deal.  Rather than to complain about a lack of public school
ethics (or perceived lack) it would be interesting to read WHAT ethics
member would propose for elementary computer users.

Sorry Stacey!  |-(

Rich England
Empire State College
[RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET]
"Ethical Computing Just Feels Good!"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 08:27:22 GMT
From:         Arnaldo MANDEL <mandel@LITP4.IBP.FR>
Subject:      Re: Teching ethics at elementary levels
Comments: To: Discussion of Ethics in Computing <ETHICS-L@UGA.bitnet>

yes.

no.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 13:49:43 EST
From:         Stacy B Veeder <SBVEEDER@SUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: computers and kids

Rich England <RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET> writes:

>Stacy - instead of worrying if 'the little monsters' use school or home
>computers for damage why not attempt to do what was originally proposed
>in the first posting: teach them the ethical use of the machine?

I fear I have been misunderstood!  Rich, did you read the first two and
a half paragraphs of my post??  We are in total agreement--I was arguing
FOR teaching children (and everyone else) the ethical use of computers.
You took my last sentence out of context (ahem-  is that ethical?  ;-)  )
making it appear that _I_ consider them little monsters out to wreak
havoc.  If you look at the sentence IN context, you will see that I am
IN FAVOR of teaching young people (a) how to use computers; and (b) how
to use them responsibly.  My whole point was that computer instruction
in the schools provides the very opportunity to teach them the ethics
they need to learn.

We're on the same side, man.  Yeesh!

Stacy B. Veeder
Bitnet:   SBVEEDER@SUVM.BITNET
Internet: sbveeder@suvm.acs.syr.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 14:28:04 EST
From:         TYLERI@RHQVM03.VNET.IBM.COM
Comments: To: ethics-l@uga.cc.uga.edu

Newsgroup: ethics-l
X-Post-Me: Yes
Subject: TEST
From: tyleri@rhqvm03.vnet.ibm.com  (Irv Tyler)
Organization: ISSC (An IBM Company)
Disclaimer: This posting reflects only my personal views.
TEST1
From: MCHIASSO@BENTLEY.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Subject: LIST OF CENTERS
Date: 12 Nov 92 19:34:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: ETHICS-L@UGA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"ETHICS-L@UGA.BITNET"
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was MCHIASSON@BENTLEY

HELLO,

WE RECEIVED A COPY OF ERNIE KALLMAN'S E-MAIL MESSAGE THAT YOU SENT HIM
RECENTLY.  ACTUALLY, ERNIE SENT THIS TO US.  WE FOUND IT VERY INTERESTING
AND WE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN YOUR REFERRAL BANK AT THE CENTER FOR THE
STUDY OF ETHICS IN THE PROFESSIONS.

HOW MUCH DOES THIS COST?  HERE AT OUR CENTER FOR BUSINESS ETHICS WE HAVE A
LIST OF DOMESTIC CENTERS AND A LIST OF INTERNATIONAL CENTERS.  MAYBE WE
COULD DO A SWAP INSTEAD?

I HOPE I HAVE SENT THIS TO THE RIGHT PLACE.

THANK-YOU,
MARY CHIASSON
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
CENTER FOR BUSINESS ETHICS
BENTLEY COLLEGE
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Thu, 5 Nov 1992 15:50:12 EST
From:         Stacy B Veeder <SBVEEDER@SUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Robert Morris

John Covaleskie <JFCOVALE@SUVM.BITNET> writes:

>Was Morris the Cornell grad student who was hacking out of curiosity,
>but whose worm turned virus and infeceted a whole bunch of neyworked
>systems, including (if I am not mistaken) some BIG financial databases
>and even a DOD computer?

Yes.

For detailed information, I strongly recommend Peter J. Denning (editor),
_Computers Under Attack: Intruders, Worms, and Viruses_ (New York:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1990).  There's a whole collection
of essays related to the Morris worm in that book.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 17:26:57 EST
From:         JFCOVALE@SUVM.BITNET
Subject:      ethics and morals

Rich-

Clearly, Bill might complain, which does not make my actions unethical.
Suppose that I am a police officer with a valid warrant.  Now my action
is, I assume, unproblematically ethical and moral (assuming the warrant
was validly obtained, that I had good reason fro requesting it, etc).  The
action may still be described as entering Bill's office without his permission,
he may still be offfended, but the circumstances that surrfound the action
turn what is normally wrong as made right by the circumstances.  What I
am trying to say is that there are very few actions which can NEVER be
morally justified, and that if they are morally justified, they are ethical,
even if only in a very particular set of circumstances.  Sure, there are some
actions which may never be morally justified, but they are very few, and
very bfew of us face them.  For most of life, living ethically means making
the best choice of the options open to us in the real world.  And in the
real world, ethical principles often conflict.  Do I value honesty or kindness?
Yes.  But sometimes I must choose one or the other.  This is where ethical
questions are tough, not when we choose between good and evil, but when we
must choose between good and good, needing to forego one in order to realize
the other.

All this was in response to someone's (sorry, I delete files once they're read)
suggestion that it would always be unethical to perform the actions of a
cracker, with which I discagreed; sometimes there are circumstances which
justify such actions, and in those circumstances (whatever they might be in
the case) make actions which are presumptively unethical specifically
ethical.  But note: this in now way brings the general principle under which
the action is presumptively unethical into question.  The burden of proof
in such cases lies in showing that the action which is presumed to be unethical
is not _in this case_.


****************************************************************
*                                                              *
*                    John F. Covaleskie                        *
*      Cultural Foundations of Education and Curriculum        *
*  259 Huntington Hall                                         *
*  Syracuse University                 Maloff Towers, #2       *
*  Syracuse, NY  13244                 Chittenango, NY  13037  *
*  315/443-3343                        315/687-5595            *
*                   JFCOVALE@SUVM.BITNET                       *
*                                                              *
****************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 19:59:29 EST
From:         Stacy B Veeder <SBVEEDER@SUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Reposting for Context (was Re: Teching ethics at elementary
              levels)

I think Arnaldo Mandel said it best.  Ditto.  (Too bad, anyone who
has discarded his post and read a zillion others since then...)

(Get it, Donn?)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 14:32:34 PST
From:         "(Woody Weaver)" <woody@STMARYS-CA.EDU>
Subject: Re: Robert Morris
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

guthery@SLCS.SLB.COM notes
>In re RTM, anybody want to discuss the complicity in unethical behavior of the
>system managers who even after having been informed of the hole through which
>RTM's worm wriggled, left their systems wide open anyway?  If you leave your
>car running with the door open in front of the 7-11 and somebody drives off in
>it, you'll find that the insurance company won't pay as if it was stolen and
>the courts will back them up.

There are two points here.  First of all, its quite possible that the
sysadmins having been told of the security hole and then not closing it
failed to do so because of lack of comprehension of the problem or lack of
skill at closing the hole.  The former may result from either lack of
communication or disinterest in the problem, and is not terribly important.
The latter does bespeak of a problem that I have mentioned before: well run
systems are still a scarce resource.  I find these things a pity, but not
problematic.

Guthery is quite correct in that the insurance companies consider leaving
your car running outside the 7-11 an act of negligence, in which case you
are responsible for a portion of the loss.  I don't see any real correlation
between this and system administration.  In particular, leaving a system
"open" is an act of trust and good will that actually benefits us on the net.

It may be that the net is becoming a hostile and unfriendly place (such as
7-11s are today) in which case such actions become acts of negligence.  I
would hate to see all anonymous ftp sites closed because they are security
risks, but such may well be the case.

> If there were a notion of being an accomplice in an unethical act, the
>people whose machines when down certainly would qualify.  I think we should
>have seen them in the courtroom along with RTM.

There is the notion of public nuisance: if you have a swimming pool, fail to
erect fences, and a child wanders in and is injured, you are culpable.  I
fail to see that having an outside connection to a network constitutes a
public nuisance.  Guthery, if you would elaborate your position I would be
grateful.

In any case, the courtroom was a place where the legal issues were decided,
not ethical ones.  The system administrators may have been stupid,
negligent, or even acting below the standards expected of the profession
(unethical) but they were not criminal.  Morris was.


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:         Wed, 4 Nov 1992 12:48:40 PST
From:         "(Woody Weaver)" <woody@STMARYS-CA.EDU>
Subject:      RE: The erroneous perspective on hackers
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

John F. Covaleskie (JFCOVALE@SUVM.BITNET) writes
> The point I was trying to make is that the context of the a situation
>(stopping harmful actions) could make a presumptively unethical act
>(breaking into someone's computer system) ethical.

Ah.  We do authorize police to burst in upon people, draw weapons, seize
property, even beat up people; these are ethical actions (i.e. within the
expected proper behaviour for their profession) in certain contexts.  Indeed
quite true.  For the rest of us, this is repugnant behaviour.  I suspect
this is part of the reason police have such high alcoholism rates.

> Much depends on the description under which we place the act: am I telling
>a lie or saving a life?.  Basically, contrary to the old saw, the ends do
>justify the means, as long as we understand that relationship properly: by
>"the ends" we do not just mean "what I want to happen" but "what results
>will predictably follow."

I would pedantically offer that the saw remains correct: what is different
in the two situations in terms of "the means" is that the agent is
authorized by societal custom and professional expectation to perform in
such a fashion.

I am a romantic.  By reasoning in this fashion, a fireman who rushes into a
burning building to save a child has performed heroically, even if he can
predictably expect the act to be futile.  Under your perspective, his action
is unethical, because he is risking himself (ignoring the personal cost, at
great cost to society for his training) for no expected gain.

I occasionally buy California lottery tickets, too...

>The moral principal (Do not intrude on others' privacy, e.g.)  remains
>unchanged, but ethical questions have always to do with what should I do in
>specific cases, where other principals also apply, such as "prevent harm".
>Ethical behavior requires choosing correctly (or at least reasonably)
>between conflicting moral principals, and then acting accordingly.  It is a
>combination of wisdom, good judgement, will, and skill.  I must be able to
>figure out what the right thing to do is, want to do it, and have the ability
>to do so.

I think this is well stated, particularly if we extend from moral issues to
professional expectations and principles.  I especially like the last line
-- ethical action requires knowledge and insight, heart, and power.
Delightful.

--woody
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Acknowledge-To:  WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:36:00 EST
From:         WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Comments: To: ETHICS-L%UGA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

>But spending more than a History semester on teaching archaic numerical
>methods is likely to turn a potential math wizard to other disciplines.

It always has.  Still, we seem to be very reluctant to learn the lesson.


Among the many heresies for which Ted Nathan was systematically drummed out
of the education establishment was his assertion that everything in the
universe is inherently interesting; there are no boring subjects.  There
are only boring models and boring teachers.  (You can imagine that that
position did not sit well with his former colleagues.)

He went on to say that schooling systematically turns us off to one subject
after another.  One good teacher determines our careers.

Though I was fortunate enough to attend very good schools and have some
memorable teachers, my education did not begin until my schooling ended.  I
try never to confuse the two.

WHM
From: TYLERI@RHQVM03.VNET.IBM.COM
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Subject: (no subject given)
Date: 5 Nov 92 19:28:28 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments: To: ethics-l%UGA.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu

Newsgroup: ethics-l
X-Post-Me: Yes
Subject: TEST
From: tyleri@rhqvm03.vnet.ibm.com  (Irv Tyler)
Organization: ISSC (An IBM Company)
Disclaimer: This posting reflects only my personal views.
TEST2
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU