Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!apple!limbo!taylor
From: spaf@cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford)
Newsgroups: comp.society
Subject: Re: Technology and Ethics Speakers
Message-ID: <1575@limbo.Intuitive.Com>
Date: 3 Jan 91 08:20:56 GMT
Sender: taylor@limbo.Intuitive.Com
Lines: 169
Approved: taylor@Limbo.Intuitive.Com

In an earlier posting, Mr. David Gast asks:

> I have one question for Mr. Spafford.  He was quoted in the telecom-digest
> (unfortunately, I don't have the exact citation handy) as saying something
> to the effect that anyone who does not think Craig Neidorf is guilty should
> wait until the trial.  Well, the trial came, and the prosecution dropped
> its case in mid trial.  What exactly was he expecting from the trial?

One question I can handle. :-)

I also do not have the posting handy, so I'm not sure how I worded it.
The intent of that posting was in response to people proclaiming Mr.
Neidorf's innocence without knowing the particulars.  I think that is
as incorrect as shouting "Guilty" before the particulars are known.  I
had heard some of the same information from phone company security
folks as had the federal authorities, and it did not sound as if Mr.
Neidorf was as pure as some were making him out to be.  That
information turned out to be less than correct, as we now know.

The point of my comment was that when someone is charged with a crime,
as an observer, you can only state that you KNOW the person has been
charged.   You may BELIEVE that they are innocent or guilty, but until
the evidence has been presented, you can't tell.  Sometime, evidence
and a verdict may demonstrate something other than what you believe.

I don't recall ever publicly stating that Mr. Neidorf was guilty of
anything *criminal*.  I repeatedly stated that anyone who believed him
innocent should wait to see what evidence was presented.  On at least
one occasion, I remember stating that if the evidence I was led to
believe existed was presented, it might show definite guilt.  My
source to this was in phone company security. :-( I would still
counsel the same -- don't go proclaiming innocence OR guilt prior to
hearing the evidence presented at trial -- no matter what the charge,
whether it is computer-related or not.

> I think that he is an excellent authority on the Morris/Internet worm
> incident, but I wonder how he has become an ethicist?  Perhaps what
> Neidorf did was legal but unethical, but I have not seen any evidence
> of any claims of unethical behavior.

That's more than your stated one question :-)

I am not a philosopher by trade.  I don't normally deal in metaethics.
I have taught courses in applied ethics in computing over the past 5
years.  I've got a list of publications, professional service, and
history of speaking on topics of ethics and computing I could offer,
but those are not necessarily things that qualify someone in a
subject.  I could also type in several score references on applied
ethics I've studied during the development of my course, and which I
have debated with my classes and peers.  But again, that doesn't
necessarily prove anything.

In the context of being asked to speak on the topic of computer
technology and ethics, I believe I can make a very good presentation
on some aspects of it -- my audiences react favorably, report that
they think about the issues in a different light, and I get asked
back.  That may not make me an ethicist, but it does satisfy the
original query -- for someone to make an interesting presentation on
ethics and computing technology.

But what you asked was in the context of Craig Neidorf.  There, I
don't believe I need to be a trained ethicist to speak on the topic --
nor does anyone else.  We all have bases for our opinions, and a right
(perhaps an obligation) to speak them.  Let me suggest you read the
fine article by Michael C. McFarland, in the "Standards" column of
IEEE Computer, March 1990, pp 77-81 for a perspective on this.

> Why were we supposed to think Neidorf was guilty, particularly since the
> constitution says that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty?
> What proof did Spafford have that the Feds did not have?

Three things:

  1) If you thought he was guilty of a crime, please don't try to
     blame/credit me.

  2) Guilty of an action, and legal guilt of a crime are two different things.
     For example, the following people were never found guilty of crimes under
     our legal system, yet think of your attitude towards them: Richard
     Nixon, Saddam Hussein, Jim Jones (Jamestown Massacre).
     Meanwhile, you can easily summon up the names of many people who
     have been convicted of crimes of conscience -- like the man whose
     birthday we celebrate Jan 17 (everywhere but Arizona): Martin
     Luther King, Jr.  

     "Guilt" means many different things.  The Constitution preserves
     certain rights under the law, and embodies an attitude about the
     application of the law that is not universally held (viz., the
     French guilty until proven innocent model).  It does not grant
     some kind of magic stasis or absolution suddenly altered by
     pronouncement of a sentence.  Thus, you could believe Neidorf
     guilty of something unethical and untoward, yet not guilty of any
     crime (or vice-versa) without contradiction.

  3) I did not have or need evidence as I was not prosecuting.  I had
     third-hand information that was very similar to the information
     possessed by the Federal authorities, later shown to be flawed;
     I concluded from that information that pronouncements of
     innocence were possibly premature.  I voiced that opinion.  I
     certainly hope you aren't implying that expression of one's opinion
     invalidates all else of one's accomplishments and qualifications,
     especially if it is misinterpreted?

All of this is straying from the original topic, that of suggested
speakers on topics of ethics & computing.  Here are some ideas:

GTE and Rose-Hulman just sponsored a 4-speaker seminar series on
computers, ethics, and society. Don Gotterbarn spoke on "Ethics and
the Computing Professional," Deborah Johnson spoke on "Computers and
Privacy," I spoke on "Ethics, Viruses and Computer Vandalware", and
Walter Maner spoke on "Ethical Implications of Computer Technology for
the Physically Challenged."  You can contact Prof. Heinz Luegenbiehl @
Rose-Hulman if you want more details (phone # on request).

Don Gotterbarn is organizing a panel on ethics for software engineers
at the next ICSE in Texas; I will be on it, as will Keith Miller of
William & Mary.  You can contact Don for
details (i01gbarn@etsu.bitnet).

Terry Bynum is the director of the Research Center on Computers and
Society, funded in part by the NSF Ethical Values In Science and
Technology Program.  The Center is organizing a large summer
conference on issues of ethics, law, and computer technology; you can
contact Terry for more info (bynum@ctstateu.bitnet).  Any member of
the advisory panel would probably be able to provide an interesting
talk: 
   Terrell Ward Bynum (editor "Metaphilosophy", director RCCS), Ronald
   Anderson (Chair ACM SIGCAS, editor "Social Science Computer
   Review"), Gary Chapman (exec director of CPSR), Preston Covey
   (Chair, Am. Phil.  Assoc. Comm. on Computer Use in Philosophy,
   Director Center for Design of Education Computing @ CMU), Gerald
   Engel (VP Education IEEE-CS, CSAB, editor of Computer Science
   Education), Deborah Johnson (chair, sub-comm. on Computer
   Technology & Ethics for Am. Phil. Assoc., author of numerous texts
   & articles), John Ladd (prof. emeritus from Brown, author of
   numerous articles on ethics & technology), Marianne LaFrance
   (director of "Expert Systems: Social Values and Ethical Issues"
   project at Boston College), Walter Maner (dir. of AI Lab at Bowling
   Green Univ), Daniel McCracken (former pres. ACM, lots of
   publication & service in the area), Michael McDonald (dir. Canadian
   Philosophical Association Study on Applied Ethics Research), James
   Moor (Am. Phil.  Society subcomm. on Computer Technology & Ethics),
   Peter Neumann (RISKS editor, chair of ACM Comm. on Computers &
   Public Policy), John Snapper (Center for the Study of Ethics in the
   Professions @ IIT), Richard Wright (exec. dir. of Am. Assoc. of
   Philosophy Teachers, dir.  of Biomedical and healthcare Ethics
   Program), and me (alleged ethicist :-).

Addresses/phone numbers by request.

Buck BloomBecker presents some amusing and interesting material on
computer crime and some of its ethical considerations.  He's been
writing and speaking on these topics for over a decade.  He's a former
asst DA, past chair of the ACM committee on Computing and the Law, and
an active ACM National Lecturer.

Donn Parker has done some work in this area, but I don't know that he
gives talks on the subject.  His book with Swope and Baker, "Ethical
Conflicts" (QED Press) is a good place to start a discussion, but I'm
not keen on its implication that ethics can be "voted" upon to
determine correctness.  Parts of this were in the latest ACM
Self-Assessment on Ethics published in CACM (Nov 90).

I can provide other references for interested parties.  Flames or
abuse can be directed to /dev/null -- I'm too busy to come out and
play.  I also don't read comp.society on a regular basis, so posted
replies may not get seen.

Gene Spafford