Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!buffalo.CSNET!colonel
From: colonel@buffalo.CSNET ("Col. G. L. Sicherman")
Newsgroups: mod.ai
Subject: Re: Computer Ethics (from Risks Digest)
Message-ID: <8606230715.AA09555@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Mon, 16-Jun-86 16:06:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8606230715.AA09555
Posted: Mon Jun 16 16:06:29 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 23-Jun-86 20:22:24 EDT
References: <8606050428.AA02925@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 49
Approved: ailist@sri-ai.arpa

I have a few comments on _Metaphilosophy,_ as summarized by Bruce Sesnovich:

> The introductory article, James H. Moor's "What is Computer Ethics," is
> an ambitious attempt to define Computer Ethics, and to explain its
> importance.  According to Moor, the development and proliferation of
> computers can rightly be termed "revolutionary":  "The revolutionary
> feature of computers is their logical malleability.  Logical
> malleability assures the enormous application of computer technology."
> Moor goes on to assert that the Computer Revolution, like the
> Industrial Revolution, will transform "many of our human activities and
> social institutions," and will "leave us with policy and conceptual
> vacuums about how to use computer technology."

"Logical malleability" sounds vague to me.  If it's just an abstract
phrase for programmability, then I think Moor neglects the real signi-
ficance of computers: that (unlike machines) they accept differing input,
and produce differing output.

I agree fully that computers will cause revolutions.  But this talk of
"conceptual vacuums" is born of unavoidable myopia.  None of our present-
day prognosticators have shown any serious understanding of the future,
except a few science-fiction writers whom nobody takes seriously.  I
suggest that posterity will regard _us_ as the "vacuum" generation,
of an age "when nobody knew how to use computer technology."

> An important danger inherent in computers is what Moor calls "the
> invisibility factor." In his own words:  "One may be quite
> knowledgeable about the inputs and outputs of a computer and only dimly
> aware of the internal processing." These hidden internal operations can
> be intentionally employed for unethical purposes; what Moor calls
> "Invisible abuse,"  or can contain "Invisible programming values":
> value judgments of the programmer that reside, insidious and unseen, in
> the program.

Here Moor appears to be about 30 years behind McLuhan.  Try this: "One may
be quite knowledgeable about reading and writing and only dimly aware of
the details of book production and distribution." Or this: "One may be
quite knowledgeable about watching TV and only dimly aware of the physics
of broadcasting." Isn't it rather naive to think that the hidden values
of the computer medium lie in if-tests and do-loops?

To quote one of McLuhan's defocussed analogies: "You must talk to the
medium, not to the programmer.  To talk to the programmer is like
complaining to the hot-dog vendor about how badly your team is playing."

Col. G. L. Sicherman
UU: ...{rocksvax|decvax}!sunybcs!colonel
CS: colonel@buffalo-cs
BI: csdsicher@sunyabva