The Internet Virus--A Commentary

[rohan kelley]

In article <1460 at ucsfcca.ucsf.edu>, rodgers at cca.ucsf.edu (Rick Rodgers) writes:
> 
>                                   Quite aside from the guilt or innocence of
  Mr. Morris, the picture painted by the NYT raises serious ethical issues;
  
>                                The culprit, then, is a bright and technically
  oriented young person who is socially reticent, and who perpetrated this act
  out of boredom, having convinced himself that he intended no great mischief.
> 
  3) If the culprit "quickly recognized that things had gone wrong," why did he
  not IMMEDIATELY call local management authorities and inform them of the
  problem, rather than delegating this to a friend, who then allegedly posted
  instructions in an obscure place?  The first act represents a failure to
  take resonsibility for one's own actions, and the second a severe lapse in
> judgment.
> 
>                 It was here that the culprit may leave his most damaging (and
  lasting) mark.  Communication requires openness, and open systems will always
  be vulnerable in some respect; their integrity will always rely ultimately upon
  the decency and good judgment of the participants.
> 

What rick rogers has done is make a strong case for requiring a course
in ethics for every CS major.  It may not work, but a little more
ethics in all our professions wouldn't hurt.  We put some pretty
powerful stuff in the hands of some pretty young (and sometimes
immature) individuals in the CS courses across the country.  

Perhaps we should also tell them something of the ethics required for
the "open systems" to do what it was intended!

rk