Ethics are a tough thing to define. The reading puts it in terms of “doing the right thing”. I would say ethics are simply embellishments to law in the governance of mankind. Rightfully so, we must take it upon ourselves to implement these supplemental laws throughout our everyday lives. It is imperative to understand the idea of ethics in the workplace in order to maintain an appropriate level of professionalism and integrity. The reading outlined ethics in three categories; these being personal, social and conversation. Each having different contexts they affect us all throughout our daily lives. However, most of my experiences in the realm of this class have dealt with social ethics.
My instructions set could raise a lot of questions dealing with social ethics. These instructions dealt with how to “crack” a specific type of wireless security used for most home routers. Now, initially most would think to themselves this is definitely illegal. Well, not quite. As long as you are accessing a network that you have direct authorization to use, there is nothing illegal with cracking a wireless network. So as you can see this definitely dealt with values derived from “constitutional, legal, utilitarian and caring sources” (TCT). Using this guide could definitely get you unauthorized access to vital information of companies and individuals. I had to explicitly make these warning statements clear in a disclaimer I constructed in my instructions set. It’s important to remember, as the text explains, “Legal issues of copyright law, patent law, liability, privacy, and fraud are crucial concerns that affect how individuals and companies conduct themselves” (TCT).
The rest of the reading dealt with copyright issues and more legal issues, personal ethics and conversational ethics. Be conscious of your actions consequences and have some genuine integrity and ethics should be easy as cake.
Cracking
The ethical problem that you faced in your instructions project is an interesting one. On one hand, the information you are presenting is legal. On the other hand, the same information can be used to perform illegal activities. It was definitely a good idea to include a warning statement, but as TCT explained, sometimes warnings aren't enough. Some companies can still be held liable for accidents even when they include warning statements with their products. It would be interesting to see how a case like this would be handled where someone tried to take legal action against someone for producing instructions that were later used for illegal purposes. I am sure this falls in the same category as most other current ethical problems and has very vague regulations in place so far, until it becomes a problem.
Shared responsibility?
Matt brings up a good point in the dilemma he faced with his instruction set. Was it unethical to produce an instruction set that could, potentially, be used to break the law? Most laws defend moral and ethical behavior, and such an instruction set is entirely legal. Where would the burden of responsibility lie if someone were to use his instructions to illegally hack into a company’s network and steal information? It could be argued that the author of the instructions is at fault, and he is as responsible for the crime as the individual who committed it. I personally think we are each responsible for our own actions. Showing someone the door is completely different than leading them through it. It would be interesting to see how a situation like this would play out in the legal system.
Proof of concept
Ethics as supplementary laws is a good explanation. While some laws are based on ethics (it is wrong to steal, kill, etc.) there are definitely situations not covered by laws where these supplemental laws must take over. Your situation is one that many, especially in the technology field, face when writing how-to's. Which is more unethical: giving people the instructions on how to do something illegal or showing people how things work so that they better understand something? In my opinion it is always more ethical to show people how to defend themselves so to speak so that they are better prepared. The information is out there and those might use such information for wrong doing would probably end up doing so with or without a set of instructions such as yours. However it is because the people that would otherwise be unaware of how to protect themselves from such an attack that instructions such as yours are written.
Andy
Oh ethics...
Matt, you are encountering an ethic dilemma that will most likely continue to plague us throughout our careers. Being involved in the security side of information technology often puts us very close to our ethical boundaries. Especially when it comes to publishes vulnerabilities in current security systems such as those implemented in wireless networks. Ultimately I think that it is always going to be more beneficial to post vulnerabilities. This is because there are so many people out there with bad intentions that it is only a matter of time before they figure out the same vulnerability and when they do they might keep it secret. So it really comes down to, would you rather know that your system is vulnerable or would you rather be hacked in secret?
Your Situation
I read an article earlier this semester about a writer for a popular tech magazine/blog. He wrote an article that discussed ways to jail-break Apple's Iphone. Apple promptly sent a take down notice to the publisher, and the writer was in serious trouble. This could easily have lost the writer his job.
In your case, there happens to be 1 legal use for breaking wireless security: your own wireless network. Since you took the time and effort to issue warning and disclaimer statements, you've clearly taken the time to consider the ethical grounds. But the important question is, will your readers?
hack attack!
Matt, in your case I think you are walking on the fine line between certain ethical classes. It’s not exactly illegal in its application but it can be preserved in a difference perspective. I think the way your stated your discliamer in your instructions was a great idea for all purposes. Zephyrus makes a good point in will your readers take time to consider the ethical grounds of the situation. The good thing about your instructions is that it goes through the process of how to hack the wireless network, but in reverse you could used that to help prevent your wireless from being hacked.
The application of the actual hack
The application of the actual hack is what decides if this process is legal or not. If this hack is applied to a network that you aren’t authorized to use, then it’s illegal. Otherwise if you have permission to access that network, there is nothing wrong with trying to hack it. Beachside32, I like how you also look at this from the reverse prospective. A user could definitely use this as a way to secure their system better. So it really does depend on the audience you’re considering and the context of the situation. This should definitely be taken into consideration when analyzing audiences.