The Internet Virus--A Commentary (curricula)

[Dave Brower]

In article <5390 at medusa.cs.purdue.edu> spaf at cs.purdue.edu (Gene Spafford) writes:
>In article <542 at dutrun.UUCP> hans at duttnph.UUCP (Hans Buurman) writes:
>>Come on, Mr. Spafford. You cannot believe that a course in ethics
>>will get each and every undergraduate to live by the rules. And remember,
>>it's the individual that we're afraid of, not the group.
>
>I never claimed a course in ethics (or anything else) will help each
>and every undergraduate live by the rules.  However, it will help a
>significant number of students understand the rules bit better than the
>current system does, and that is important...

As a data point, I observe that the curriculum required by most Bar
Associations for acceditation of law schools includes courses in
"Professional Responsibility."  My dim recollection is that this was
added in the '70s after Watergate in response to the belief that the
legal training had failed to instill proper ethics.

I don't know if this is seen as a successful innovation.  It would be
hard to say that lawyers are generally more ethical now than they were
generally in 1972.  Certainly the public confidence in that profession
has not been increased in the aftermath.

This is a very difficult issue.  To add something to a curriculum means
dropping something else.  Should we trade "Formal Testing methods" for
"Professional Responsibility?"

The central issue is public confidence in computer systems and their
related formal and informal instutions.  It is why Universities take
such a hard line on plagarism and why lawyers do get disbarred.

This case points questions at the professional/academic computer science
community.  Is this an isolated case to be dismissed, or an indication
of the same general ethical laxity widely believed to exist in the legal
profession?

It is therefore *most* troubling that the worm-master of the Internet is
believed to be a fairly typical hacker/scientist within the
academic/professional community.  It would be much easier to dismiss if
this were the proverbial 14 year old with an Apple-II and a modem.  Then
the finger wouldn't be pointed at us.

And yet, as one previous poster noted, most personal ethical systems are
in place before one gets to college.  The kid who was a cracker at 14
seems unlikely to be changed by a one semester course at 21.

I was tempted to restrict followups to comp.edu, but chose not to. This
may very well be the most important discussion that has ever taken place
on the network, and it seems unwise to limit it or wish that it would
just go away.

-dB