Many people believe that all accounts of hacking and/or theft of e-property should be reported and stored in a publicly available government database, in an attempt to track malicious activity and ultimately reduce cyber crime. Having property stolen or assaulted only benefits the thief, at least until they are caught. The complement of this verity, though, is what Joseph M. Kizza, the author of three computing impact books, would like to address.
Kizza: “Many of those who would have liked to report such crimes do not do so because of both economic and a psychological impact such news would have on both the shareholders’ confidence and the overall name of the company. Some companies are reluctant to report any form of computer attacks on their systems in fear that others, including shareholders, will perceive company management as weak with poor security policies” (Computer Network Security and Cyber Ethics, 57). Not only would reporting to a public database show harm that has already been inflicted upon a company, but further harm to that company, as well as the minds of those stakeholders involved, would ensue as a result.
James Riley, a reporter for The Australian, insists that a cyber-crime tracking database “would give authorities the best chance of collecting suitable evidence to present to a court” (http://the-other.wiretapped.net/). So it appears that a government database would be useful, for it would help in nabbing the criminals who assault e-property, and who many times end up stealing it. The number of stakeholders a company has is usually much larger than the number of employees a company has. So, by not reporting cyber intrusions or the theft of company documents as a result of such intrusions, thousands of people are spared the fear and hassle of evaluating the damage done to their company. This is contrary to the few people who would truly appreciate the value of knowing what has happened. Regardless of how many extra Internet criminals would be caught as a result of instituting a database system of this kind, overall criminal activity would, in all likelihood, still increase and still be rampant and uncontrolled. The happiness factor in this argument gives the win to Joseph Kizza, for his take on the topic creates by far the most social utility, for the most people.
It looks as though we are out of time for tonight. It’s clear that utilitarianism yields all kinds of different results, given the context in which it is applied. Many things that might be considered immoral, such as widespread file sharing involving copyrighted materials, are justified with utilitarianism, while things like spam and Windows source code remain taboo and protected. The bottom line is, file sharing creates a massive amount of social utility, while spam and a crash and burn of Windows can, and most likely would, take that utility right back. The focus of utilitarianism lies on what makes the most people happy, most of the time. Theoretically, all humans should act this way, thereby creating the most social utility, and everyone is then supposed to be happy. The message to be taken from the contexts in which we have placed utilitarianism tonight, is that the majority usually wins. It’s an elementary concept that if something makes more people satisfied than it does upset them, then the larger group gets what it wants. Millions of people engage in file sharing, and the thrill it provides all of them is far greater than what the RIAA and its affiliates would feel if file sharing were to cease. However, utilitarianism expands on the intangible feeling of happiness by leveraging it with ignorance. This is where the occasional minority, educationally superior on the topic at hand, conquers over the ignorant majority, as in the debate over whether or not to make available Windows source code. Despite what most people may want, what they do not know could end up hurting them dearly, hence making them very upset with the consequences that allowing this action would result in. Limitations to utilitarianism, primarily due to legislation, exist as well. An instance, creating and distributing spam e-mail creates social utility for those who choose to exercise their right to free speech, yet many times this seemingly wasteful act leads to legal action. Utilitarianism maintains a reputation for being a flexible theory in terms of characterizing morally correct actions, and tonight, this verity has once again proved to be true. Thanks for watching, and have a great night.
Other posts on Utilitarianism and online activites:
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: Should Spamming be Allowed?
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: Introduction
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: The Ethical Implications of File Sharing
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: The Openness of Windows Source Code
Utilitarianism Applied to E-Property: Reporting Assault and Theft of E-Property in Government Databases
Works Cited
Baase, Sara. A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues for Computers and the Internet. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall/Pearson Education, 2003.
Banic, Mike. "Resolving The P2P Dilemma." Business Communications Review Jan 2007: 63-65. ProQuest Computing. ProQuest. American U Lib. 11 Feb 2007 http://proquest.umi.com.proxyau.wrlc.org/pqdweb?did=1200701421&sid=3&Fmt=3&clientId=31806&RQT=309&VName=PQD.
Dyer-Witheford, Nick. "E-Capital and the Many-Headed Hydra." Critical Perspectives on the Internet. Ed. Greg Elmer. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002.
Gates, Bill. "Why I Hate Spam." Microsoft.com. 23 Jun 2003. Microsoft Corp. 11 Feb 2007 http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/ofnote/06-23wsjspam.mspx.
Graham, Gordon. The Internet: A Philosophical Inquiry. New York: Routledge, 1999.
Kizza, Joseph Migga. Computer Network Security and Cyber Ethics. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2002.
Lettice, John. "MS Windows Source Code Escapes Onto Internet." The Register 13 Feb 2004. 11 Feb 2007 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/02/13/ms_windows_ source_code_escapes/.
Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty and Utilitarianism. New York: Bantam Books, 1993.
Riley, James. "Users told: Report all hacks." Wiretapped. 19 Nov 2000. 11 Feb 2007 http://the-other.wiretapped.net/security/info/papers/law-enforcement/australian-federal-police/afp-1998-mar-report-all-hacks.txt.
Zunk, Amy R.. "Morpheus Found Guilty In File-Sharing Case." Geek.com. 9 Oct 2006. 11 Feb 2007 http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/2006Oct/gee2006100903 9058.htm.
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Showing posts with label government. Show all posts
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Where’s the Money?
I will be sharing my reaction to the following Washington Post article by Theola Labbe and Dan T. Keating, entitled “Modest Gains In D.C. Schools,” found here: <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/17/AR2007081701363.html>.
Traditionally, illiteracy and poor performance in school has been related to a lack of money. The deficit can be either personal or organizational. With the former, a family is too impoverished to live in a school district where good teachers (and subsequently good academic performance) can be expected. The latter, as its title implies, is the direct impact that a school district or government which lacks funding has on its students. In the United States, inner city schools and the students whom attend those schools, are hurt because of a lack of funding from either of the above to sources. Both are just as common in this country, but abroad, poor governmental infrastructure, and, therefore, an inefficient means of tax collection, leaves many students without even the availability of a school, nevertheless without pencils, books, and teachers.
The article I read began, “Most of the District’s public school children still have poor reading and math skills.” Now, right away I find myself quite befuddled. Having lived in the District for over a year now, I very well know that there are bad parts of town. However, this is the nation’s capital. I would assume that school children in the District would be the smartest in the country. My reasons are simple: We live in the most productive, and most powerful nation in the world, which has the means to do anything it wishes. Why is it that in the nation’s capital, school children receive such a poor quality of education as compared to much of the rest of the country, when just down the road our president is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a war that doesn’t even have a finite enemy? Education is finite. Actions can be taken which would affect finite matters, like teachers, facilities, and resources, and would produce finite results.
Our “low-performing urban school district,” as District Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee herself labels it, only saw 38 percent of elementary students attain the level of “proficiency” in reading on standardized testing this past year. Math is even worse: Only 30.5% of this same demographic of students was able to call themselves “proficient” in mathematics. Given that Washington, D.C. is the center of the country that gives backing to the most powerful currency in the world, I do not understand why D.C. schools are so deprived. This deprivation, as the article I read, suggests, may be due largely to under-funding of the education system in D.C.
Personally, I believe that impoverished families in general fail to place a particular emphasis on studies and schoolwork. I think that this may be due mostly or in part to the fact that parents of lower-income families must work many more hours per week than a standard middle income family. As a result, they are not always around to provide the nurturing and responsible environment that their children need in order succeed in school. Likewise, most low income families are low income because the primary bread winners of those families do not have much education themselves, and as a result cannot or do not want to necessarily help their children with school work. Children need a nurturing and encouraging environment if they are to succeed in school. One thing that can help in this regard, which is a direct result of funding, is the availability of after-school programs for grade school students. Extracurricular activities generally provide students the extra help and focus they need to do their work, while simultaneously keeping them off the streets, and out of unattended homes. The Washington Post article makes mention to this notion, and in fact, officials of the D.C. school system have conceded that more after school programs are needed. These programs, however, require funding that D.C. schools right now just don’t have.
I volunteered at a Southeast D.C. elementary/middle school a year ago, and not only were the facilities dilapidated, but there was a major lack of furniture, including very few books in the library, as compared to what I would expect to find in an elementary school. It was a sad find, but I was glad to be there helping move some new (donated) furniture in. Essentially, the feeling I got from performing this type of help is the reason for my taking KSB-252. I feel that I, like most students at AU, am very lucky to have been born into the life I now lead, and it only feels right to give some of that back to those less fortunate.
Works Cited
Labbe, Theola and Dan T. Keating. "Modest Gains in D.C. Schools." The Washington Post 18 Aug 2007 1-2. 16 Sep 2007.
Traditionally, illiteracy and poor performance in school has been related to a lack of money. The deficit can be either personal or organizational. With the former, a family is too impoverished to live in a school district where good teachers (and subsequently good academic performance) can be expected. The latter, as its title implies, is the direct impact that a school district or government which lacks funding has on its students. In the United States, inner city schools and the students whom attend those schools, are hurt because of a lack of funding from either of the above to sources. Both are just as common in this country, but abroad, poor governmental infrastructure, and, therefore, an inefficient means of tax collection, leaves many students without even the availability of a school, nevertheless without pencils, books, and teachers.
The article I read began, “Most of the District’s public school children still have poor reading and math skills.” Now, right away I find myself quite befuddled. Having lived in the District for over a year now, I very well know that there are bad parts of town. However, this is the nation’s capital. I would assume that school children in the District would be the smartest in the country. My reasons are simple: We live in the most productive, and most powerful nation in the world, which has the means to do anything it wishes. Why is it that in the nation’s capital, school children receive such a poor quality of education as compared to much of the rest of the country, when just down the road our president is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a war that doesn’t even have a finite enemy? Education is finite. Actions can be taken which would affect finite matters, like teachers, facilities, and resources, and would produce finite results.
Our “low-performing urban school district,” as District Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee herself labels it, only saw 38 percent of elementary students attain the level of “proficiency” in reading on standardized testing this past year. Math is even worse: Only 30.5% of this same demographic of students was able to call themselves “proficient” in mathematics. Given that Washington, D.C. is the center of the country that gives backing to the most powerful currency in the world, I do not understand why D.C. schools are so deprived. This deprivation, as the article I read, suggests, may be due largely to under-funding of the education system in D.C.
Personally, I believe that impoverished families in general fail to place a particular emphasis on studies and schoolwork. I think that this may be due mostly or in part to the fact that parents of lower-income families must work many more hours per week than a standard middle income family. As a result, they are not always around to provide the nurturing and responsible environment that their children need in order succeed in school. Likewise, most low income families are low income because the primary bread winners of those families do not have much education themselves, and as a result cannot or do not want to necessarily help their children with school work. Children need a nurturing and encouraging environment if they are to succeed in school. One thing that can help in this regard, which is a direct result of funding, is the availability of after-school programs for grade school students. Extracurricular activities generally provide students the extra help and focus they need to do their work, while simultaneously keeping them off the streets, and out of unattended homes. The Washington Post article makes mention to this notion, and in fact, officials of the D.C. school system have conceded that more after school programs are needed. These programs, however, require funding that D.C. schools right now just don’t have.
I volunteered at a Southeast D.C. elementary/middle school a year ago, and not only were the facilities dilapidated, but there was a major lack of furniture, including very few books in the library, as compared to what I would expect to find in an elementary school. It was a sad find, but I was glad to be there helping move some new (donated) furniture in. Essentially, the feeling I got from performing this type of help is the reason for my taking KSB-252. I feel that I, like most students at AU, am very lucky to have been born into the life I now lead, and it only feels right to give some of that back to those less fortunate.
Works Cited
Labbe, Theola and Dan T. Keating. "Modest Gains in D.C. Schools." The Washington Post 18 Aug 2007 1-2. 16 Sep 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)