3. If you were Kael and Daan told you the truth, what will you do?
At first, it is hard for me to accept the fact that I have a friend that he can do everything for the test of his expertise even unethical way, and the only solution to make my emotions slowdown is to charge all the expenses to Daan. I will tell Daan what I’ve learned about computer ethics and inform him about the existing law regarding computer. In that way, he will be aware with the environment of his field and its limitations.
B. Pick three of the precepts on computer use discussed above and briefly explain each precept in terms of the theory of ethics and the ethical concepts that underpin it.
1. Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people.
In this precept, ethics as the study of morality and human action holds and it also touched the moral and physical law by definition. This precept can be classified as ethical absolutism because there is no such as good actions involved in the word “harm” per se. Since computing is a human action and the said precept in one of the human actions that involved fairness, goodness and justice, the applicable finalist theory is that Aristotle’s Nicomechean ethics.
2. Thou shalt not interfere with other people’s computer work.
In the second precept, ethics basically concerns human action, “Interference” is an action or in other form of collision / obstruction that produces unethical act in field of computing and it is under the study of the morality and human actions, also, it is a violation of moral and physical law.
3. Thou shalt not snoop around in others people’s files.
This precepts deals with the basic principles of right action especially with reference to a particular person and profession because getting an information without permission is an immoral act and unlawful. It pertains with the moral and natural law. Snooping or browsing private information is an ethical absolutism regardless the reason and in the Utilitarianism theory.
C. Cite two ethical issues in computing. Explain how they are ethical in nature.
1. HISTORY - LEXIS-NEXIS P-TRAK SERVICE
Lexis Nexis witnessed one such demand in August 1996 when thousands of consumers called, emailed, and faxed in requests to be removed from the P-Trak service. Services such as P-Trak, which provide "credit header" information, have been available for quite some time, however most consumers are unaware of their existence.
You can choose to opt-out of P-Trak, and other personal locator services, at CDT's Operation Opt-Out web site.
On Friday, September 20, 1996, the Federal Trade Commission recommended that Congress take action to protect the privacy of personal information by amending the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). The FTC's recommendations -- included in a letter to Senator Richard Bryan (D-NV) -- come on the heels of consumer outrage being expressed over the recently-released online database, P-Trak, offered by the information service Lexis-Nexis.
P-Trak provides personal information on millions of people across the country. For a fee, Lexis-Nexis subscribers can obtain personal information about an individual that can include name, current and prior addresses, maiden names, birth month and year, and current telephone number. In June 1996, Lexis-Nexis stopped displaying Social Security numbers in response to complaints from consumers and privacy advocates about the availability of that information. However, P-Trak users can still search the database by Social Security number.
In response to Sen. Bryan's inquiry, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Chairman Robert Pitofsky notes in the Sept. 20, 1996, letter that "... the ready availability of this information through the tracking service may facilitate identity fraud, credit fraud, and other illegal activities." Chairman Pitofsky recommends strengthening the Fair Credit Reporting Act to provide protection to information such as social security number, mother's maiden name, prior addresses, and date of birth.
Before it adjourned the 104th Congressional Term in November 1996, Congress added an amendment to the Omnibus Appropriations Bill which directs the Federal Reserve Board to examine whether the sale of "sensitive consumer identification information" creates "an undue potential for fraud."Although this is a half-hearted response to the FTC's recommendations and the public's cry for action, it is a small tribute to the power and importance of the Internet in turning public opinion into action.
Following passage of the bill, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Sen. Larry Pressler (R-SD), ranking minority member Senator Ernest Hollings (D-SC), and Senator Richard Bryan (D-NV), sent a letter requesting the FTC to conduct a study of online and database privacy issues.
While no legislation was enacted,(pass, ratify, endorse) the outcry (protest) over P-Trak proved useful in two other areas. First, the P-Trak furor (disturbance) may have played a roll in eliminating an industry pushed exemption to the FCRA which would have allowed credit reports to be used to generate target marketing lists -- currently against FTC rules interpreting the FCRA. Second, the recent announcement by "Privacy Assured", a group of Internet companies that include Four11 and I/PRO, to voluntarily comply with a series of privacy protective information practices is clearly tied to a desire to respond to public concerns over individual privacy.
SOURCE:
http://www.cdt.org/privacy/issues/pii/
EXPLANATION:
This can be consider as an ethical issue in computing because this will be helpful to those who are with internet transaction and especialy users without deep knowledge in computer.
Consumers are often unaware of the reuse and disclosure of personal information they provide to others during daily transactions. While the Internet and other interactive media are shedding new light on the large market for personal information, consumers are still shocked to learn that information about their activities ranging from online browsing to grocery shopping is used for a variety of purposes and made available to other companies without their permission. When individuals become aware of the availability of personal information, many take steps to protect it.
2. CHAIN LETTERS
A chain letter is a "get rich quick" scheme that promises that your mail box will soon be stuffed full of cash if you decide to participate. You're told you can make thousands of dollars every month if you follow the detailed instructions in the letter.
A typical chain letter includes names and addresses of several individuals whom you may or may not know. You are instructed to send a certain amount of money--usually $5--to the person at the top of the list, and then eliminate that name and add yours to the bottom. You are then instructed to mail copies of the letter to a few more individuals who will hopefully repeat the entire process. The letter promises that if they follow the same procedure, your name will gradually move to the top of the list and you'll receive money -- lots of it.
There's at least one problem with chain letters. They're illegal if they request money or other items of value and promise a substantial return to the participants. Chain letters are a form of gambling, and sending them through the mail (or delivering them in person or by computer, but mailing money to participate) violates Title 18, United States Code, Section 1302, the Postal Lottery Statute. (Chain letters that ask for items of minor value, like picture postcards or recipes, may be mailed, since such items are not things of value within the meaning of the law.)
Recently, high-tech chain letters have begun surfacing. They may be disseminated over the Internet, or may require the copying and mailing of computer disks rather than paper. Regardless of what technology is used to advance the scheme, if the mail is used at any step along the way, it is still illegal.
The main thing to remember is that a chain letter is simply a bad investment. You certainly won't get rich. You will receive little or no money. The few dollars you may get will probably not be as much as you spend making and mailing copies of the chain letter.
Chain letters don't work because the promise that all participants in a chain letter will be winners is mathematically impossible. Also, many people participate, but do not send money to the person at the top of the list. Some others create a chain letter that lists their name numerous times--in various forms with different addressee. So, in reality, all the money in a chain is going to one person.
Do not be fooled if the chain letter is used to sell inexpensive reports on credit, mail order sales, mailing lists, or other topics. The primary purpose is to take your money, not to sell information. "Selling" a product does not ensure legality. Be doubly suspicious if there's a claim that the U.S. Postal Service or U.S. Postal Inspection Service has declared the letter legal. This is said only to mislead you. Neither the Postal Service nor Postal Inspectors give prior approval to any chain letter.
Participating in a chain letter is a losing proposition. Turn over any chain letter you receive that asks for money or other items of value to your local postmaster or nearest Postal Inspector. Write on the mailing envelope of the letter or in a separate transmittal letter, "I received this in the mail and believe it may be illegal."
SOURCE:
http://www.usps.com/websites/depart/inspect/chainlet.htm
EXPLANATION:
Another ethical computing issue that inform us in our email contents. This issue will serve as a guide and awareness what we should do if we encounter such chain letter, giving idea the reason behind why they spending time of getting or making this kind of letter, the outcome if you participate in this kind of internet hoaxes.
D. As a computer user, do you approve of an ordering principle, in the form of legislation, being formulated and enforced to govern computer use? Why? Why not? Defend your answer.
Yes, I am agree of the ordering principle from the legislator, since our country is running for the widespread information technology, there should be a complete policies or laws that govern in computer use. All the courses that are Information Technology related should have a subject included in their curriculum. In that way, before they will focus on their field they are already aware in the limitations and the scope of their job. This ordering principle should be imposed to all the computer users even though they are not IT course related as long as they use computer.
