Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!natmlab.dap.csiro.au!ditsydh.syd.dit.CSIRO.AU!reynolds From: reynolds@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU (Chris.Reynolds) Newsgroups: comp.society.futures Subject: Re: New Book in Computer Ethics Summary: The facts Keywords: Ethics, Professional Standards: Message-ID: <1990Aug29.065236.5603@syd.dit.CSIRO.AU> Date: 29 Aug 90 06:52:36 GMT References: <519@roo.UUCP> <1664@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> <3276@gara.une.oz.au> Sender: reynolds@syd.dit.csiro.au (Chris Reybolds) Organization: CSIRO Division of Info Tech, Sydney, Australia Lines: 147 In article <3276@gara.une.oz.au> pmorriso@gara.UUCP (Perry Morrison MATH) writes: >In article <1664@gazette.bcm.tmc.edu> cyoes@wilkins.iaims.bcm.tmc.edu (Cissy Yoes) writes: >>In article <519@roo.UUCP>, mark@parc.xerox.com (Mark Weiser) writes: >>|> In article <3264@gara.une.oz.au> pmorriso@gara.une.oz.au (Perry >>Morrison MATH) writes: >>|> >>|> >I understand that his prospects at an >>|> >Australian institution were recently thwarted and I can only surmise that >>|> >this has something to do with it. >>|> >>|> >Perry Morrison >>|> >>|> At least the original comments were about the book, not the people. >>|> I don't find the above form of argumentation to be in good taste. >>|> Spoken: Mark Weiser ARPA: weiser@xerox.com >>I agree! Personal vendettas should not be carried out at the expense >>of the users of this news group. >> >>Professional standards are important, and each of us must accept responsibility >>for modeling them in our personal behavior. >> >>Cissy Yoes > >I agree in terms of your comment on personal vendettas. My claim is that the >net was **told** by Dr. Reynolds that my book was not even ABOUT computer >ethics. That would be fine if it were a comment out of the blue, but Reynold's >imvolvement goes deeper than this. > >It is a very damaging comment that needed a wider context. My ethical judgement >tells me that some of the personal background about Reynolds is neither >specific enough nor recent enough to be of much consequence. > >On the other hand, a malicious comment that essentially says that my book is a >facade, improperly entitled and therefore not even a contribution to the field, >involves a much greater level of harm- to my reputation, that of my publisher's >and to the success of the book itself. > >As i've said before, I don't mind unmotivated attacks. But I'm sure that >this one isn't of that kind. > >I've said my piece. >Perry Morrison Oh dear. As Perry has now twice repeated his inaccurate personal attack, I am afraid I must beg your tolerance in taking up net time to make the facts clear. (1) Perry says, commenting on Mark Weisner's criticism of his remarks about me, "My point is that, given a history that you aren't privy to, the comments about the book appear to be driven by feelings about the authors". Let me make this prior history clear so that everyone knows how utterly trivial it is. Until this altercation on usenet, Perry was no more to me than an author of a book which I had read (in June this year). As far as I can recollect I have never met him, or corresponded directly with him. Over the last few years I have had some friendly correspondence with Tom Forester and I felt it was only fair that Tom should know why I thought his latest book (which is co-authored by Perry) was not as good as earlier ones I had seen. Tom, and I presume Perry, have seen a copy of my letter to the New Scientist, which briefly explains why I did not consider the book suitable for review. In this I point out that I considered the book very amateur compared with Blay Whitby's "Artificial Intelligence, a handbook of professionalism" and conclude that "While the book is quite a good read, it is not distinctive enough to demand a review". (2) Perry says: "I understand that his prospects at an Australian institution were recently thwarted and I can only surmise that this has something to do with it." During 25 years in the computer profession I have sent out a fair number of copies of my C.V. in the spirit of "I could be available, you might be interested, is it worth talking about it?" In this context it is true that I sent my C.V., IN CONFIDENCE, to the Australian institution where Perry worked. Because I am not "in office" there Perry incorrectly assumed that I was "thwarted", and therefore must be showing personal animosity towards a member of staff of whose existence I was blissfully unaware. What Perry did not know is that I failed to progress my application and have made very satisfactory arrangements elsewhere. (3) In his latest outburst Perry says: "My ethical judgement tells me that some of the personal background about Reynolds is neither specific enough nor recent enough to be of much consequence" I don't know how any judgement can be "ethical" when it totally ignores the facts. Relevant activities in the last six months include the paper "Computer conferencing and data protection", published in The Computer Law and Security Report in March of this year; the popular version of this, "Letter of the Law", in the May issue of the Personal Computer World (UK) which has only just appeared on the Australian newsagents shelves; my admittedly light-hearted piece on the confidentiality of electronic mail, published in the New Scientist of July 21st; a variety of other relevant academic papers and popular articles in press; and a submission to the Australian Copyright Law Review Committee. (4) When I pointed out, in email, that his statements were libellous, he did not dispute the correctness of the facts. Instead he justified his actions by saying: "given the current state of usenet I hardly think my comments would stand out in any way." He totally ignores the fact that two readers of this newsgroup (who are totally unknown to me) have publicly commented that his remarks were over the top. All I can say is that I would have expected a more ethical approach to the use of computers from someone who teaches, and has written a book entitled, computer ethics. (5) As to my remark about his book on usenet I should explain my position. Until May I was the editor of the Books reviews on HICOM, an on-line conferencing system for human-computer interaction professionals. My activities included stimulating members to discuss books they had read - and I occasionally injected an appropriately pithy remark to get the debate rolling. All I had intended to do was to stimulate a similar debate on usenet. As I considered that the approach and contents of Perry's "Computer Ethics" was similar to another book I have recently read, viz Geoff Simons' "Viruses, bugs and star wars" I though a good debating point to start a discussion ABOUT THE BOOK would be its title. (It might help to defuse the situation if everyone who has read the book - and who has no personal connections with either Perry or me - said what they thought of it - and I, for one, will guarantee not to make any further comments about it,) In retrospect, I would agree that the words I used were rather more robust that I had intended. For this reason I have emailed Perry, ending with the text: "Let me repeat, I apologise fully for causing the degree of distress that you are clearly suffering, because it was neither intended, or expected. However it is my professional opinion that the book is unsuitable for review in the New Scientist, and that it falls very far short of what organizations such as the British Computer Society would expect to be covered in a ethics module for an honours degree. On these matters I have nothing to apologise for." "I hope you will accept that I have no ill feelings against you, or Tom Forester, and have never had any. Even if you are unable to forgive and forget, don't worry, I still would not dream of holding any kind of grudge against you." Finally, to members of usenet. I hope you will accept that the unfortunate wording of my initial remark were not intended to cause offence, and that you do not need to take them too seriously. Chris Reynolds