As I first started reading through this weeks reading selection I immediately noticed a few concepts that directly correlates to our current project in reference to ethics. The first form of ethics that I though directly influences this project is, personal ethics. The one reason why we are wanting to due this project is because of the censoring of information in respect to how programs are wrote. When big corporate companies, like Microsoft, will write their programs and won't let anyone see the code. We believe this is invading ones personal ethics by preventing them from seeing how something really works. That is why we are doing our white on open source programs. The difference between open source programs and programs made by major programmers is that open source programmers allow people to see what the programming code is. This is beneficial by allowing the person, looking at the code, to learn about what they are working with and if they want to make it better or change it, they can.
This is where we move into social ethics. One part of social ethics brings in legal beliefs and/or thoughts. When someone creates a program they want the code to be private that way nobody can duplicate what they have done and make money from what they created. Even though people may argue that preventing people from seeing how a program is made is bad financially, we are arguing that we don't care about the financial or legal aspect of concealing the code. But rather, let people look at it so they can learn about how the program is being used and let them try to understand what they are working with.
Ethics vs. Money
I like the point you made in your last paragraph about people making decisions based on how much money they can make, rather than what they can do for everyone. It seems to be a common theme in today's society, not just with Microsoft or other computer program companies. Many ethical decisions come down to whether the person would prefer to advance themselves financially or help a large group of people. Unfortunately it seems like most people decide to choose personal gain over helping others. While making choices like this aren't necessarily illegal, everyone would be much better off if these decisions were all made based on the good of all people, and not just a select few.
"If you can't open it, you don't own it."
Not only would I think more openness would be better for software but it would be better for almost anything. It's my [insert household electronic device]. I bought so if I choose to open it and muck about in it's insides then that should be my right (see Make Magazine's Owner's Manifesto) I do see part of the reason why manufacturers make things difficult to modify: see Ms. "I can't believe my hot coffee is hot" and Mr. "I shouldn't iron this shirt while wearing it?". They are doing it out of social ethics, for the benefit of many at the expense of a few. But it seems like a simple sticker that says, "We built this. We're professionals. But hey if you want to open this up and mess around with it go ahead. But if you screw it up don't come crying to us." I think that by doing this as well as designing things that people can repair themselves would greatly help out the environment. Once upon a time products were designed this way but now the currently throwaway consumerist culture has changed this. Now if it breaks you pretty much have to buy a new one (There's a term for this, but it is escaping me at the moment).
Andy
Openness... a lawsuit waiting to happen
I work for an electrical contractor, and the work that our guys do bears the ethical burden of making sure nobody is killed because we didn't close down access to electrical equipment properly. One of the responsibilities of electricians in construction is to provide temporary power service for construction for the other trades present, and it's really common for workers in the other trades to want to change that service and try to do so without the proper tools or training. Now, someone without the proper training could easily get killed or get someone else hurt trying to tinker with high voltage equiptment because they needed it run differently. That's why equipment is locked out and tagged, to prevent that from happening. So should we open up to those who want to tinker, and just put up a sign that says "tinker away, just don't sue us if you get zapped?"
Granted, you probably won't get killed by taking apart your iPod, and you deifnitely won't by messing around with computer code. But you could still destroy or damage the product, or try to misuse it to influence or damage others' property (if I can disect your code, I will have an easier time looking for vulnerabilities to exploit with malware). There are also warantee issues to speak of. Just some food for thought.
Response
I totally agree with you. Would I open up a high voltage box and "tinker" around? No. Would I poke around in my cars engine? With my lack of experience with such a thing, no. There certainly are things that should only be worked on by trained professionals. I also agree that more openness could lead to more misuse. However the people who are going to misuse products are going to find a way to do it either way. While less openness would make it harder, if they want to figure out how to turn an ipod into a bomb they are going to try with or without openness. I do have to disagree with you slightly though. I feel that with more openness would lead to better security. Microsoft did this when they released Vista. They put it out there and wanted people to find holes while it was still in production. Instead of having just people who work on something look for holes, you could possibly open up your project to thousands to look at.
Andy