HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:02:48 PDT
From:         Woody Weaver <woody@STMARYS-CA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: GEnie case
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

>From: Stacy Veeder <SBVEEDER%SUVM.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu>
>Subject:      Re: GEnie case

>Charles Elliott <CEE@CORNELLC.BITNET> writes:

>>...My view of an ethics discussion is that it is one
>>having to do with principles and values. Of course, circumstances, cases,
>>history, actions all play a part - but the focus, the main attention would
>>be values and principles themselves. I am sure that not everyone agrees
>>with this view...

>Count me as one who disagrees.  I signed onto this list specifically to
>learn about specific cases.  While I am, of course, interested in the
>values and principles--for how else can we evaluate the cases?--the concepts
>serve little purpose when viewed only in a vacuum, away from the realities
>of trying to put them into practice.  Furthermore, it is the *hard* cases
>that often occur in real life that sometimes give rise to ethical questions
>no one has yet raised...

We of course have three moderators, and should things stray too far from
topic surely the moderators will step in.  Let me quote from the list of
lists, which provides our charter (of sorts)


ETHICS-L%MARIST.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

   Discussions of ethics in computing usually generate more heat than light.
   This list could do a lot toward generating more light if we do more than
   trade war stories and opinions of the "I'm right and you're NOT" variety.
   Of course we can't get any work done without some war stories, since they
   furnish food for thought.  But we shouldn't stop there.  Given our
   experiences, we ought to be able to delineate the basic issues and hot
   areas in computer ethics.  Some current ones have to do with:

      - ownership of information (both data and program files)
      - what happens when systems programs fail? Is anyone responsible for
        damage done?  Or is the responsibility only for the necessary fix?
      - responsibility for program failures (Is the company responsible?
        the programmer? the lead programmer? the project manager?) Who's
        responsible for the "fix"?
      - how much privacy is reasonable (there are all kinds of levels here;
        data bases, systems, LANs, networks, etc.)

[subscription info deleted]

   Moderators: Jane Robinett <JROBINET%POLYTECH.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
               Matthew J. Miner <MINER%POLYGRAF.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>
               Harry Williams   <HARRY%MARIST.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU>

I believe that the GEnie case was a "war story", but rather than a call to
action is was merely "food for thought".  Consequently, it is entirely
appropriate.

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, 29 Jul 1992 14:34:28 EDT
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was ETHICS-L@POLYVM
From:         Stacy Veeder <SBVEEDER@SUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: GEnie case

Charles Elliott <CEE@CORNELLC.BITNET> writes:

>...My view of an ethics discussion is that it is one
>having to do with principles and values. Of course, circumstances, cases,
>history, actions all play a part - but the focus, the main attention would
>be values and principles themselves. I am sure that not everyone agrees
>with this view...

Count me as one who disagrees.  I signed onto this list specifically to
learn about specific cases.  While I am, of course, interested in the
values and principles--for how else can we evaluate the cases?--the concepts
serve little purpose when viewed only in a vacuum, away from the realities
of trying to put them into practice.  Furthermore, it is the *hard* cases
that often occur in real life that sometimes give rise to ethical questions
no one has yet raised...

(There is, for example, a fascinating discussion on the comp.admin.policy
newsgroup about a deceased system user whose parents desire access to his
files...  But I digress...)

Keep those specific cases coming!

Stacy B. Veeder
Bitnet:   SBVEEDER@SUVM.BITNET
Internet: sbveeder@suvm.acs.syr.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: springer@nde.unl.edu (steven springer)
Subject: Prisoner's dilemma simulation
Summary: Does anyone know where I can find. . .
Keywords: prisoner's dilemma, ethics
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 19:16:27 GMT

One of our ethics professors has expressed an interest in obtaining 
software to simulate the classic prisoner's dilemma situation. Does anyone 
know of either public domain or (gasp!) purchasable software that would 
provide this simulation.

Thanks for the consideration

Steven S. Springer
Director of Academic Computing
Doane College
Crete, Nebraska
(402) 826-8544 (voice)
(402) 826-8199 (FAX)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: ETHICS-L@UGA.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"ETHICS-L@UGA.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 20:32:00 EST
From:         Gregg Pentecost X6228 IC44 <PENTECOST@BROOK.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Legal Ethics question

I don't have the original message in front of me, but wasn't the
potentially fatal condition detected by an M.D.?  If so, doesn't "he"
have a responsibility to inform the patient?


Can't settlements contain waivers disallowing any further legal action
related to the case?  If so, couldn't the plaintiff be informed after
settlement?


Gregg.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Acknowledge-To:  WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 09:39:00 EDT
From:         WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Comments: To: ETHICS-L%UGA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

>Neither defendent nor defendent's counsel have any ethical obligation to tell
>plaintiff about additional X-ray readings.

I concur in this conclusion and in the excellent analysis as far as it
goes.  However, after all legal proceedings are over and I have
fulfilled all of my obligations to my client, and to the extent that I
can do so without compromising the interests of my client, I would
likely suggest to the plaintiff that he seek a further reading of the
x-rays and what he might have the new reader look for.

I have an interest in all life.  While I may have no obligation to the
plaintiff, I have an interest of my own in his life.  It is not superior
to my chosen role or to my contract with my client, but it is an
interest that I am entitled to pursue, at least as long as it does not
conflict with my obligations to others.

William Hugh Murray
New Canaan, Connecticut
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Acknowledge-To:  WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 12:57:00 EDT
From:         WHMurray@DOCKMASTER.NCSC.MIL
Comments: To: ETHICS-L%UGA.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU

>But that seems the force of the case: are we only
>expected to do the right thing when it is easy and there is no cost?

Rather, I submit, the force of the case, and indeed of most ethical
dilemmas, is that KNOWING the right course of action is difficult.
Indeed that is the reason that we have ethical codes such as those
employed by lawyers.  These are intended to prevent reflexive action, to
force us to consider interests that we might overlook in a case that on
its surface seems obvious.

>There seems little doubt that to let the plaintiff die would be wrong.

Here we have a case in point.  "There SEEMS little doubt..."  The code
of ethics exists, in part, to force the actor to consider less obvious
interests, in this case the contribution to an orderly and nurturing
society of a reliable and trustworthy system of law and litigation.  The
code of ethics reflects six millenia of tradition that tells us that
such a system requires that the individual has a need and a right to be
able to trust his hired advocate to put his interests before most, if
not all others.  What might be put at risk if the advocate were to act
on the presumption of the value of the individual life would be that
trust.

Society often permits individuals to die based upon the need to protect
such abstract values.  We have recently lost two hundred thousand lives
in defense of the abstract principle that an orderly and nurturing
society requires that a nation may not extend its sovereignty across
recognized international boundaries by for

Fortunately for us we can consider this case in the abstract, but the
case is intended to force us to consider in the abstract while we still
have the luxury to do so.   The purpose of the code is to force us to
consider the long term interests of society in addition to the more
obvious interests of the individual.

As Lincoln reminded us, "it is knowing right that is difficult."

William Hugh Murray
New Canaan, Connecticut
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: ETHICS-L@vm.gmd.de
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 20:19:50 MET
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was ETHICS-L@POLYVM
From:         "Robert E. Winston" <usr4818a@TSO.UC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: GEnie adopts censorship
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@vm.gmd.de

Unfortunately, the censorship problem on GEnie is much greater than the
situation you discussed.
What seems unusual about the case you report is that it was so public.
From personal experience, I know that GEnie not only censors bulletin
board notes, but then censors any discussion of the matter.
Most users, if they have never had a note censored, don't realized that
censorship is happening at all.
So what did I say to upset the censors?
In the Macintosh roundtable, I offered to upload a demo program to the
library.
Turns out that this program is published by someone who had her GEnie
account closed after daring to disagree with a sysop. The disagreement was
about how best to clean VCR heads. I'm not kidding. The affair escalated
to threats of lawsuits and accusations that GEnie reads private E-Mail and
was the cause celebre for many months.
Apparently GEnie learned a lesson of sorts, they now do their dirty work
mostly out of sight.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: D7AP002
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:45:00 EDT
From:         "Tom Ohlendorf - TSU Admin. DP,
              (410) 830-3642" <D7AP002@TOA.TOWSON.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Legal Ethics question
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

>QUESTIONS:  1.  What obligation do you as a defense attorney
>                have to let plaintiff know plaintiff has a
>                treatable life-threatening condition?
>
>            2.  What obligation do you have as a defense attorney
>                to keep silent regarding plaintiff's life-threatening
>                treatable condition?

There has been much debate on this subject so far and it all has been very
interesting. I would like to hear some comments from any lawyers out there on
the subject.

Many thanks,
Tom

-----
Tom Ohlendorf, Programmer/Analyst  Towson State University
HRS Advisory Committee Secretary   Administration Building, Room 128
INTERNET: D7AP002@TOA.TOWSON.EDU   Towson, MD 21204
VOICE: (410) 830-3642 FAX: (410) 830-3476 CSN: TSUPER01
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 15:12:15 -0400
From:         Mark Hayes <ccmlh@BU-IT.BU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Legal Ethics question
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu

>From:         Scott Guthery <guthery@ASC.SLB.COM>

>First, plaintiff's act of suing moved the situation from the ethical domain to
>the purely legal domain ... Once in the legal domain *ONLY* legal requirements
>hold.

*ONLY* if you let lawyers make the rules, defining this artifical "pure"
environment. From a philosophical perspective, I am unaware of any ethical
principle according to which there are situations in which all ethical
principles cease to obtain. Certainly there are situations in which normal
ethical constraints don't apply -- one can kill in self-defense --
but these are cases in which one ethical principle takes precedence over
another. The idea that once you're in court you have "left the ethical domain"
strikes me as a self-serving invention of the legal profession.

>This was the plaintiff's free choice.  He gained something (legal hold
>on defendant including access to police powers of the state to force testimony
>etc.) but should be expected to pay something for what he gained ... in this
>case, to recourse to ethical or even human imperatives.

This is a remarkable statement. If I understand correctly, it says that once I
take legal action against another party, I have relieved them absolutely of any
moral obligations whatsoever concerning me. According to this reasoning, a
corporation that contaminates a town's water supply with toxic waste is
morally justified in murdering anyone who attempts to sue them.

>In fact, one could
>argue that since the plaintiff didn't ask his own advisors for a full X-ray
>interpretation he didn't want one and it is not the defendant's place to force
>one upon him.

Indeed, one could say that. But could one believe it? Or doesn't that matter?
The fact that one can construct an absurd hypothesis that is merely logically
consistent doesn't mean one is justified in acting as if it were true.
If I find a  wallet on a bus, could I argue, "well, presumably the owner
didn't want it any more, and it isn't my place to force it on him,
so I'd better keep it"? Perhaps. But what kind of person would I be?

>I can't see that simple possession of information carries with it any
>obligation to act on it at all let alone in any particular fashion.

If you see a blind person about to step over the edge of a subway platform,
I'd say you have an obligation to warn them.

If a manufacturer that discovers a potentially hazardous defect in a product
that is already on the market, I'd say they have an obligation to warn the
public and recall the product, if necessary.

If I learn that someone is being charged with a crime, and I possess proof
positive that they did not commit it, I'd say I have an obligation to report
that proof to the authorities.

And so on...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 14:06:52 -0400
Reply-To:     ae415@yfn.ysu.edu
From:         Kevin Unrue <ae415@YFN.YSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Legal Ethics question

set ethics-l nomail

--

   Kevin Unrue    -     Columbiana, Ohio     -  ae415@yfn.ysu.edu
 X.400: /PN=KEVIN.UNRUE/DD.ID=CLIPCVA.EPEKLU0/ADMD=TELEMAIL
        /C=US/PRMD=DIAMONDNET/@SPRINT.COM
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 08:23:22 EST
From:         Jim Porter <jporter@MACE.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject:      GEnie case
Comments: To: ethics-l@uga.cc.uga.edu

>>Did this list somehow become a political action list rather than
>>an ethics list ? The GEnie matter is interesting, but I am a bit put off
>>by finding it here...Charles Elliott

I want to thank Mike Lepore for providing us with the details of his
episode with GEnie, which strikes me as a case quite relevant to the
interests of this list.  What I don't understand is Charles Elliott's
notion of what an ethics list should be.  Are ethics and "political
action" separate realms?  Since when?  I would say that ethics is
_about_ political (and personal and social and other sorts of) action.


--------------------
Jim Porter
Purdue University
jporter@mace.cc.purdue.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 09:41:59 EDT
From:         Charles Elliott <CEE@CORNELLC.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: GEnie case
              29 Jul 1992 08:23:22 EST from <jporter@MACE.CC.PURDUE.EDU>

Porter makes the interesting suggestion that ethics is 'about' political
(and other) action. My view of an ethics discussion is that it is one
having to do with principles and values. Of course, circumstances, cases,
history, actions all play a part - but the focus, the main attention would
be values and principles themselves. I am sure that not everyone agrees
with this view...but then, luckily (for all of us) not everyone has to !
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 08:12:17 EDT
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was ETHICS-L@POLYVM
From:         JFCOVALE@SUVM.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Ethics of Computer Use in Medicine

Thanks to Mary Williams for her most insightful analysis of the diagnostic
computer program.

From the little I've read about such efforts, the best ones are as good as the
average diagnostician, but not as good as the best; it is the human ability
to make intuitive leaps that the programmers cannot duplicate.

And as luddism is indeed tempting, Mary is right; technology will not be
univented, and the cost of technology becomes motive for its use.  Education
and thoughtfulness are our only defenses against misuse.


****************************************************************
*                                                              *
*                    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
Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:04:19 EDT
From:         Bert Bruner <OSAKB@EMUVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Legal Ethics question
              20 Jul 1992 20:16:16 GMT from <NEELY_MP@DARWIN.NTU.EDU.AU>

On Mon, 20 Jul 1992 20:16:16 GMT Mark P. Neely said:
>QUESTIONS:  1.  What obligation do you as a defense attorney
>                have to let plaintiff know plaintiff has a
>                treatable life-threatening condition?
>
>            2.  What obligation do you have as a defense attorney
>                to keep silent regarding plaintiff's life-threatening
>                treatable condition?
>

An entity must be  a person before it can become  a defense attorney. The
definition of a defense attorney has  been created by and is occasionally
modified  by those  participating the  legal and  legislative process.  I
believe that being  a "defense attorney" is SUBORDINATE to  being a human
being  and that  when requirements  of the  two come  into conflict,  the
"human" attributes, generally, should take precedence.

I  do not  know if  there are  specific legal  requirements of  a defense
attorney that  may come into play  in this situation. If  there are, then
the  real  question,  for me,  would  be  whether  or  not I  thought  my
continuing  to be  a defense  attorney would  better serve  my role  as a
person than my  possibly saving someone's life at the risk of not being a
defense attorney any more.

I suspect that  one of the main  reasons that lawyers are  looked upon by
the general public with so little respect is that they seem to see things
from only  one perspective. In fact,  one of the problems  with our legal
system (It's not  a justice system any more.) is  that it amplifies small
errors in judgement.

For example,  a decision  in one case  can be used  to justify  a similar
decision in  another case. When  the original  decision was an  error, it
should not be  used to justify other errors, but  the present system does
not allow for any "external influence" to correct the original error.

I  offer this  as  an observation.  At  this  point, I  do  not have  any
suggestions for improvement.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
:: Bert Bruner                     BITNET: OSAKB@EMUVM1                ::
:: VM Specialist/Postmaster        Internet: osakb@emuvm1.cc.emory.edu ::
:: System Support                  FAX: 404-727-2599                   ::
:: Emory University                Snail:  1712 Uppergate Dr.          ::
:: Phone: 404-727-4781                     Atlanta, Ga  30322 USA      ::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
::   CON: The opposite of PRO; CONGRESS: The opposite of PROGRESS.     ::
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"ethics-l@uga.bitnet"
Original_cc:  DAVE
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 08:31:00 MDT
From:         "David D. Grisham" <DAVE@UNMB.BITNET>
Subject:      Data access policies.

As you read my enclosed request, please think about:
the ethical ramifications of a computing center telling
Financial, Student, and other data owners 'how to distribute
security'.  I'd like to hear thoughts on this, as well as
find any policies.
grish
----Posted to CUMREC-L -----------------------------
Does your university use distributed administrative security?
If so, do you have a set of guidelines or a policy?
   I'm looking for policies that assist your distributed security
   officers make decisions on who to give access to in an
   administrative environment.
Please contact me at the numbers or e-mail addresses below.

CAUSE had only a couple of good publications.  As always, I will
post a summary of responses.

As many of you know, I house a collection of Ethics documents
at ariel.unm.edu.  If I receive reprintable policies on this topic,
I will create a new directory for your ftp access.
----
grish
  Dave Grisham, Security Admin., CIRT     BITNET DAVE@UNMB.UNM.EDU
  Univ. of New Mexico, Albq, NM  87131    Internet dave@ariel.unm.edu
  Phone #'s w (505) 277-8032   FAX (505) 277-8101
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 07:35:38 EST
From:         Jim Porter <jporter@MACE.CC.PURDUE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: GEnie adopts censorship
Comments: To: ETHICS-L@uga.cc.uga.edu
              at Jul 29, 92 8:13 am

>Did this list somehow become a political action list rather than
>an ethics list ? The GEnie matter is interesting, but I am a bit put off
>by finding it here...Charles Elliott

I want to thank Mike Lepore for providing us with the details of his
episode with GEnie, which strikes me as a case quite relevant to the
interests of this list.  What I don't understand is Charles Elliott's
notion of what an ethics list should be.  Are ethics and "political
action" separate realms?  Since when?  I would say that ethics is
_about_ political (and personal and social and other sorts of) action.


--------------------
Jim Porter
Purdue University
jporter@mace.cc.purdue.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"ETHICS-L@UGA.BITNET"
Original_cc:  RENGLAND
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:08:00 EDT
From:         Rich England <RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Ethics of Computer Use in Medicine

Like Bert, I too am concerned with over reliance on what the machine says
about a particular symptom.  Agreed - the machine can be a great source of
information just like a text.  What I wonder about though, is could there be
a unique danger here that some doctors may come to rely on machine diagnosis
and replace their common sense and skills with output?

I could never support some sort of ban, but AMA or other organizational
guidelines might be useful here.

Rich England
Empire State College
[RENGLAND@SNYESCVA.BITNET]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)