Saq7: Computer Abuses

1. What is spamming? Differentiate it from flaming.

Spamming is the use of any electronic communications medium to send unsolicited messages in bulk. In the popular eye, the most common form of spam is that delivered in e-mail as a form of commercial advertising. Sending bulk messages in this fashion, to recipients who have not solicited them, has come to be known as spamming, and the messages themselves as spam.Traditional advertising methods, such as billboards, TV or newspaper ads are similar to spam in that they are usually unsolicited and sent in bulk. Spamming has been considered by various commercial, government, and independent entities to be one of the foremost social problems facing electronic media today. While Flaming is the performance of posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting in the social context of a discussion board (usually on the Internet). Such messages are called flames, and are often posted in response to flamebait. Also the sending of abusive email or messages to other people or newsgroup.

Types of Spamming

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
E-mail spam is by far the most common form of spamming on the internet. It involves sending identical or nearly identical messages to a large number of recipients. Unlike legitimate commercial e-mail, spam is generally sent without the explicit permission of the recipients, and frequently contains various tricks to bypass e-mail filters.
Addresses of recipients are often harvested from Usenet postings or web pages, obtained from databases, or simply guessed by using common names and domains. By definition, spam is sent without the permission of the recipients.

Messaging spam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Messaging spam, sometimes called spim, is a type of spamming where the target is instant messaging services.Instant messaging (IM) systems are a popular target for spammers. Many IM systems offer a directory of users, including demographic information such as age and sex. Advertisers can gather this information, sign on to the system, and send unsolicited messages.

Newsgroup spam
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Newsgroup spam is a type of spamming where the targets are Usenet newsgroups.
Spamming of Usenet newsgroups actually pre-dates email spam. The first widely recognized Usenet spam (though not the most famous) was posted on January 18, 1994 by Clarence L. Thomas IV, a sysadmin at Andrews University. Entitled "GlobalAlert for All: Jesus is Coming Soon (http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=9401191510.AA18576%40jse.stat.ncsu.edu)", it was a fundamentalist religious tract claiming that "this world's history is coming to a climax." The newsgroup posting bot Serdar Argic also appeared in early 1994, posting tens of thousands of messages to various newsgroups, consisting of identical copies of a political screed relating to the Armenian Genocide.

Internet telephony spam

It has been predicted that voice over IP (VoIP) communications will be vulnerable to being spammed by pre-recorded messages. Although there have been few reported incidents, some companies have already tried to sell defenses against it. [2] (http://www.internetnews.com/security/article.php/3398331)
Spamdexing or search engine spamming is the practice of deliberately and dishonestly modifying HTML pages to increase the chance of them being placed close to the beginning of search engine results, or to influence the category to which the page is assigned in a dishonest manner. Many designers of web pages try to get a good ranking in search engines and design their pages accordingly. Spamdexing refers exclusively to practices that are dishonest and mislead search and indexing programs to give a page a ranking it does not deserve.
People who do this are called search engine spammers. The word is a portmanteau of "spamming" and "indexing".

Link spam (also called blog spam or comment spam) is a form of spamming or spamdexing that recently became publicized most often when targeting weblogs (or blogs), but also affects wikis (where it is often called wikispam), guestbooks, and online discussion boards. Any web application that displays hyperlinks submitted by visitors or the referring URLs of web visitors may be a target.
Adding links that point to the spammer's web site increases the page rankings for the site in the search engine Google. An increased page rank means the spammer's commercial site would be listed ahead of other sites for certain Google searches, increasing the number of potential visitors and paying customers2.
Link spamming originally appeared in internet guestbooks, where spammers repeatedly fill a guestbook with links to their own site and no relevant comment to increase search engine rankings. If an actual comment is given it is often just "cool page", "nice website", or keywords of the spammed link.

Wiki spam
Wikis are also a target of search engine spam, quite similar to blog spam. If you notice spamming/vandalism on this wiki please report it at Vandalism in progress.

Guestbook spam
Though more "old-school" than blogs or wikis, guestbooks are still present on some sites, and are subject to the same sorts of spam.

Referer spam
A spammer makes repeated web site requests using a fake referer url pointing to a spam-advertised site. Sites that publicize their referer statistics will then also link to the spammer's site. Main article: Referer spam

Mobile phone spam is a form of spamming directed at the text messaging service of a mobile phone. It is described as mobile spamming, sms spam, but is most frequently referred to as m-spam.
In 2002 and 2003, frequent users of cell phone text messages began to see an increase in the number of unsolicited (and generally unwanted) commercial advertisements being sent to their cell phones through text messaging.
In the United States, this use is regulated by the Can Spam Act of 2003.
Often these messages consist of a simple request to call a number. Normal mobile phone etiquette often results in the call being returned by the user. When they then return the call, they are unaware that they have been fraudulently induced to call a premium-rate line. There is frequently an attempt to get them to hold on the line for as long as possible in order to maximise revenue from this fraud.
Another form of mobile phone fraud is the one-ring fraud, where an incoming call to a mobile phone is timed such that it will ring once, and then cut off before the user can answer. This leaves the missed call number on their phone, and the rest of the fraud is as above. In this case, it is the (real or apparent) calling number details which are being spammed to the phone, as these calls are made in their hundreds of thousands by autodialers at little or no cost to the originator, as there is no charge for calls which do not connect.
Both of these frauds can be combined with other frauds such as the advance fee fraud, as they act as a pre-screening stage for fraudsters to capture the telephone numbers of particularly trusting individuals.

Commercial uses
The most common purpose for spamming is advertising. Goods commonly advertised in spam include pornography, computer software, medical products such as Viagra, credit card accounts, and fad products. In part because of the bad reputation (and dubious legal status) which spamming carries, it is chiefly used to carry offers of an ill-reputed or questionably legal nature. Many of the products advertised in spam are fraudulent in nature, such as quack medications and get-rich-quick schemes. Spam is frequently used to advertise scams, such as diploma mills, advance fee fraud, pyramid schemes, stock pump-and-dump schemes and password phishing. It is also often used to advertise pornography indiscriminately, even in jurisdictions where it is illegal to transmit pornographic solicitations to minor children, or even for anyone to view it at all.
The use of spamming in other countries is often different. For example, in Russia spamming is commonly used by many mainstream legitimate businesses, such as travel agencies, printing shops, training centres, real estate agencies, seminar and conference organisers and even self-employed electricians and garbage collection companies. In fact, the most prominent Russian spammer was American English Center, a language school in Moscow. That spamming sparked a powerful anti-spam movement, including enraging the deputy minister of communications Andrey Korotkov and provoked a wave of counter attacks on the spammer through non-internet channels, including a massive telephone DDOS attack.

Comparison to postal "junk" mail
There are a number of differences between spam and junk mail:
• Unlike junk postal mail, the costs of spam paid for by the recipient's mail site commonly approach or even exceed those of the sender, in terms of bandwidth, CPU processing time, and storage space. Spammers frequently use free dial-up accounts, so their costs may be quite minimal indeed. Because of this offloading of costs onto the recipient, many consider spamming to be theft or criminal conversion.
• Junk mail can be said to subsidize the delivery of mail customers want to receive. For example, the United States Postal Service allows bulk mail senders to pay a lower rate than for first-class mail, because they are required to sort their mailings and apply bar codes, which makes their mail much cheaper to process. While some ISPs receive large fees from spammers, most do not — and most pay the costs of carrying or filtering unwanted spam.
• Another distinction is that the costs of sending junk mail provide incentives to be somewhat selective about recipients, whereas the spammer has much lower costs, and therefore much less incentive.
• Finally, bulk mail is by and large used by businesses who are traceable and can be held responsible for what they send. Spammers frequently operate on a fly-by-night basis, using the so-called "anarchy" of the Internet as a cover.

Non-commercial spam
E-mail and other forms of spamming have been used for purposes other than advertisements. Many early Usenet spams were religious or political in nature. Serdar Argic, for instance, spammed Usenet with historical revisionist screeds. A number of evangelists have spammed Usenet and e-mail media with preaching messages.
Spamming has also been used as a denial of service tactic, particularly on Usenet. By overwhelming the readers of a newsgroup with an inordinate number of nonsense messages, legitimate messages can be lost and computing resources are consumed. Since these messages are usually forged (that is, sent falsely under regular posters' names) this tactic has come to be known as sporgery (from spam + forgery). This tactic has for instance been used by partisans of the Church of Scientology against the alt.religion.scientology newsgroup (see Scientology vs. the Internet) and by spammers against news.admin.net-abuse.e-mail, a forum for mail administrators to discuss spam problems. Applied to e-mail, this is termed mailbombing.
In a handful of cases, forged e-mail spam has been used as a tool of harassment. The spammer collects a list of addresses as usual, then sends a spam to them signed with the name of the person he wishes to harass. Some recipients, angry that they received spam and seeing an obvious "source", will respond angrily or pursue various sorts of revenge against the apparent spammer, the forgery victim. A widely known victim of this sort of harassment was Joe's CyberPost (http://joes.com/), which has lent its name to the offense: it is known as a joe job. Such joe jobs have been most often used against anti-spammers: in more recent examples, Steve Linford of Spamhaus Project and Timothy Walton, a California attorney, have been targeted.
Spammers have also abused resources set up for purposes of anonymous speech online, such as anonymous remailers. As a result, many of these resources have been shut down, denying their utility to legitimate users.
E-mail worms or viruses may be spammed to set up an initial pool of infected machines, which then re-send the virus to other machines in a spam-like manner. The infected machines can often be used as remote-controlled zombie computers, for more conventional spamming or DDoS attacks. Sometimes trojans are spammed to phish for bank account details, or to set up a pool of zombies without using a virus.

Etymology
The term spam is derived from the Monty Python SPAM sketch, set in a cafe where everything on the menu includes SPAM luncheon meat. While a customer plaintively asks for some kind of food without SPAM in it, the server reiterates the SPAM-filled menu. Soon, a chorus of Vikings join in with a song, repeating "SPAM, SPAM, SPAM, SPAM" and singing "lovely SPAM, wonderful SPAM" over and over again, drowning out all conversation.
Although the first known instance of unsolicited commercial e-mail (http://www.templetons.com/brad/spamreact.html) occurred in 1978 (unsolicited electronic messaging had already taken place over other media, with the first recorded instance being on September 13th 1904 via telegram), the term "spam" for this practice had not yet been applied. In the 1980s the term was adopted to describe certain abusive users who frequented BBSs and MUDs, who would repeat "SPAM" a huge number of times to scroll other users' text off the screen. This act, previously termed flooding or trashing, came to be called spamming as well. [4] (http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=MAT.90Sep25210959%40zeus.organpipe.cs.arizona.edu) By analogy, the term was soon applied to any large amount of text broadcast by one user, or sometimes by many users.
It later came to be used on Usenet to mean excessive multiple posting — the repeated posting of the same message. The first evident usage of this sense was by Joel Furr in the aftermath of the ARMM incident of March 31, 1993, in which a piece of experimental software released dozens of recursive messages onto the news.admin.policy newsgroup. Soon, this use had also become established — to spam Usenet was to flood newsgroups with junk messages.
Commercial spamming started in force on March 5, 1994 when a pair of lawyers, Laurence Canter and Martha Siegel, began using bulk Usenet posting to advertise immigration law services. The incident was commonly termed the "Green Card spam", after the subject line of the postings. The two went on to widely promote spamming of both Usenet and e-mail as a new means of advertisement — over the objections of Internet users they labeled "anti-commerce radicals." Within a few years, the focus of spamming (and anti-spam efforts) moved chiefly to e-mail, where it remains today. [5] (http://www.templetons.com/brad/spamterm.html)

Alternate meanings
The term "spamming" is also used in the older sense of something repetitious and disruptive by players of first-person shooter computer games. In this sense it refers to "area denial" tactics—repeatedly firing rockets or other explosive shells into an area. Or to any tactic whereby a large volume of ammunition is expended in the hope of scoring a single hit.
Neither of these senses of the word imply that the "spamming" is abusive.
Costs of spam
Spam's direct effects include the consumption of computer and network resources, and the cost in human time and attention of dismissing unwanted messages. In addition, spam has costs stemming from the kinds of spam messages sent, from the ways spammers send them, and from the arms race between spammers and those who try to stop or control spam.
The methods of spammers are likewise costly. Because spamming contravenes the vast majority of ISPs' acceptable-use policies, most spammers have for many years gone to some trouble to conceal the origins of their spam. E-mail, Usenet, and instant-message spam are often sent through insecure proxy servers belonging to unwilling third parties. Spammers frequently use false names, addresses, phone numbers, and other contact information to set up "disposable" accounts at various Internet service providers. In some cases, they have used falsified or stolen credit card numbers to pay for these accounts. This allows them to quickly move from one account to the next as each one is discovered and shut down by the host ISPs.
The costs of spam also can be taken to include the collateral costs of the struggle between spammers and the administrators and users of the media threatened by spamming. [9] (http://linxnet.com/misc/spam/thank_spammers.html)
Many users are bothered by spam because it impinges upon the amount of time they spend reading their e-mail. Many also find the content of spam frequently offensive, in that pornography is one of the most frequently advertised products. Spammers send their spam largely indiscriminately, so pornographic ads may show up in a work place e-mail inbox — or a child's, the latter of which is illegal in many jurisdictions. Recently, there has been a noticable increase in spam advertising websites that contain child pornography.
Some spammers argue that most of these costs could potentially be alleviated by having spammers reimburse ISPs and individuals for their material. There are two problems with this logic: first, the rate of reimbursement they could credibly budget is unlikely to be nearly high enough to pay the cost; and second, the human cost (lost mail, lost time, and lost opportunities) is basically unrecoverable.
E-mail spam exemplifies a tragedy of the commons: spammers use resources (both physical and human), without bearing the entire cost of those resources. In fact, spammers commonly do not bear the cost at all. This raises the costs for everyone. In some ways spam is even a potential threat to the entire email system, as operated in the past.
Since E-mail is so cheap to send, a tiny number of spammers can saturate the Internet with junk mail. Although only a tiny percentage of their targets are motivated to purchase their products (or fall victim to their scams), the low cost sometimes provides a sufficient conversion rate to keep spamming alive. Furthermore, even though spam appears not to be economically viable as a way for a reputable company to do business, it suffices for professional spammers to convince a tiny proportion of gullible advertisers that it is viable for those spammers to stay in business. Finally, new spammers go into business every day, and the low costs allow a single spammer to do a lot of harm before finally realizing that the business is not profitable.

Political issues
Spamming remains a hot discussion topic. In fact, many online users have even suggested (presumably jokingly) that cruel forms of capital punishment would be appropriate for spammers. In 2004, the seized Porsche of an indicted spammer was advertised on the internet, which revealed the extent of the financial rewards available to those who are willing to waste everybody's time and was a popular item because the car had been confiscated, which was seen as tough justice, but also sweet vengeance. However, some of the possible ways to stop spamming may lead to other side effects, such as increased government control over the Net, loss of privacy, barriers to free expression or commercialisation of e-mail.
One of the chief values favored by many long-time Internet users and experts, as well as by many members of the public, is the free exchange of ideas. Many have valued the relative anarchy of the Internet, and bridle at the idea of restrictions placed upon it. A common refrain from spam-fighters is that spamming itself abridges the historical freedom of the Internet, by attempting to force users to carry the costs of material which they would not choose.
An ongoing concern expressed by parties such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the ACLU has to do with so-called "stealth blocking", a term for ISPs employing aggressive spam blocking without their users' knowledge. These groups' concern is that ISPs or technicians seeking to reduce spam-related costs may select tools which (either through error or design) also block non-spam e-mail from sites seen as "spam-friendly". SPEWS is a common target of these criticisms. Few object to the existence of these tools; it is their use in filtering the mail of users who are not informed of their use which draws fire.
Some see spam-blocking tools as a threat to free expression — and laws against spamming as an untoward precedent for regulation or taxation of e-mail and the Internet at large. Even though it is to possible in some jurisdictions to treat some spam as unlawful merely by applying existing laws against trespass and conversion, some laws specifically targeting spam have been proposed. In 2004 United States passed the Can Spam Act of 2003 which provided ISPs and users with tools to combat spam. This act allowed Yahoo! to successfully sue Eric Head, reportedly one of the biggest spammers in the world, who settled the lawsuit for several thousand US dollars in June 2004. But the law is criticised by many for not being effective enough, and was even supported by some spammers and organizations which support spamming.

Flaming
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.Flaming is the performance of posting messages that are deliberately hostile and insulting in the social context of a discussion board (usually on the Internet). Such messages are called flames, and are often posted in response to flamebait.
Although face to face flaming is as old as time itself, flaming on the Internet started in the Usenet hierarchies. A flame may have elements of a normal message, but is distinguished by its intent. A flame is never intended to be constructive, to further clarify a discussion, or to persuade other people. The motive for flaming is never dialectic, but rather social or psychological. Flamers are attempting to assert their authority, or establish a position of superiority. Occasionally, flamers merely wish to upset and offend other members of the forum, in which case they are trolls.
Similarly, a normal, non-flame message may have elements of a flame – it may be hostile, for example – but it is not a flame if it is seriously intended to advance the discussion.
Flame wars
A flame war is a series of flaming messages in an electronic discussion group or message board system such as usenet, mailing lists or forums. There are a number of characteristics of electronic communication which have been cited as being conducive to flame wars. Electronic communications do not easily transmit facial expressions or voice intonations which may serve to moderate the tone of a message. Also, there is typically a lag time between the time a message is transmitted and the time a reply is read. These two characteristics can cause a "positive feedback loop" in which the emotional intensity of an electronic exchange increases to extremely high levels.
Alternatively, flame wars may be instigated deliberately by Internet trolls. Not all trolls are successful, though.
Jay W. Forrester described a phenomenon that often happens in flamewars whereby participants talk past each other. Each participant employs a different mental model (i.e. due to fundamental differences in their assumptions about what a particular word or concept means, they are actually discussing two different things).
Extended use of the term "flame war"
Sometimes, serious academic or technical disagreements online are described casually as "flame wars" even when the major participants are making useful and informative points and, largely, not flaming. This may have to do with the degree to which observers identify emotionally with the sides of the debate, or see esteemed leaders or role-models representing their own points of view powerfully.
For example, the Usenet discussion between Andrew S. Tanenbaum and Linus Torvalds on microkernel versus monolithic kernel operating system design has been described as a famous "flame war". Despite being designated a "flame war", the debate is quite informative: it has been studied by serious computer scientists and researchers, and continues to remain recommended and even required reading in courses on OS design and implementation.
Partly, terming such a discussion a "flame war" seems to be due to faulty or distorted memory of the discussion itself: it is easier to remember the (relatively few) insulting asides made -- such as Tanenbaum's comment that he would give Torvalds a poor grade for Linux's design -- than it is to remember the technical points. To continue the above example, Torvalds and Tanenbaum have both made it clear that they consider their famous discussion to have been mischaracterized.
Technical "advocacy" discussions, concerning the merits or flaws of a technology -- or especially of rival technologies -- can often seem "flamy" simply from the emotional intensity of hobbyists or professionals involved. Some have called the debates about the relative merits of Intel Pentium versus PowerPC, or Pentium 4 versus Athlon XP, or Microsoft Windows versus Mac OS X, or Apple's decision to go with NeXT over BeOS as "flame wars", even though the discussions are often highly technical and non-inflammatory.
Also, the debates on certain topics in theoretical physics, such as loop quantum gravity versus string theory between Lubos Motl and John Baez and Steve Carlip has been described by string theorist and Harvard professor of physics Lubos Molt as a "flame war" -- despite the fact that they were a source of fruitful articles on quasinormal modes of black hole physics.
Both professionals and hobbyists can be very passionate about certain topics in science, technology, and science fiction, but despite the debates being called "flame wars" the debates themselves are often very constructive. As a result, the older term holy war is also used in place of "flame war," depending on the user's preference.
It is also possible that the use of the term "flame war" for heated debates is used in anticipation of the debate becoming a actual flame war.

2. What are computer worms and viruses? Explain how they operate. Give examples.

In computer security technology, a virus is a self-replicating program that spreads by inserting copies of itself into other executable code or documents. Thus, a computer virus behaves in a way similar to a biological virus, which spreads by inserting itself into living cells. Extending the analogy, the insertion of the virus into a program is termed infection, and the infected file (or executable code that is not part of a file) is called a host. Viruses are one of the several types of malware or malicious software. In common parlance, the term virus is often extended to refer to computer worms and other sorts of malware. This can confuse computer users, since viruses in the narrow sense of the word are less common than they used to be, compared to other forms of malware such as worms. This confusion can have serious consequences, because it may lead to a focus on preventing one genre of malware over another, potentially leaving computers open for more damage.
While viruses can be intentionally destructive (for example, by destroying data), many other viruses are merely annoying. Some viruses have a delayed payload, which is sometimes called a bomb. For example, a virus might display a message on a specific day or wait until it has infected a certain number of hosts. However, the predominant negative effect of viruses is their uncontrolled self-reproduction, which wastes or overwhelms computer resources. Also, a piece of code that works without the knowledge of the recipient. It is transmitted inside other software, can duplicate itself, spread and damage your data and/or system. Viruses relies on human actions, such as sending email, sharing files, copying files from other computer to another. Without copying from other computer to another, without downloading files from the internet to your computer, without using a diskette coming from other computers, your computer or your files will be prevented from virus attack. While worms is able to do so independently, allowing it to spread much faster.

What's a "Virus"?

Viruses - A virus is a small piece of software that piggybacks on real programs. For example, a virus might attach itself to a program such as a spreadsheet program. Each time the spreadsheet program runs, the virus runs, too, and it has the chance to reproduce (by attaching to other programs) or wreak havoc.
Computer viruses are called viruses because they share some of the traits of biological viruses. A computer virus passes from computer to computer like a biological virus passes from person to person.
There are similarities at a deeper level, as well. A biological virus is not a living thing. A virus is a fragment of DNA inside a protective jacket. Unlike a cell, a virus has no way to do anything or to reproduce by itself -- it is not alive. Instead, a biological virus must inject its DNA into a cell. The viral DNA then uses the cell's existing machinery to reproduce itself. In some cases, the cell fills with new viral particles until it bursts, releasing the virus. In other cases, the new virus particles bud off the cell one at a time, and the cell remains alive.
A computer virus shares some of these traits. A computer virus must piggyback on top of some other program or document in order to get executed. Once it is running, it is then able to infect other programs or documents. Obviously, the analogy between computer and biological viruses stretches things a bit, but there are enough similarities that the name sticks.
• E-mail viruses - An e-mail virus moves around in e-mail messages, and usually replicates itself by automatically mailing itself to dozens of people in the victim's e-mail address book.

What's a "Worm"?

A worm is a computer program that has the ability to copy itself from machine to machine. Worms normally move around and infect other machines through computer networks. Using a network, a worm can expand from a single copy incredibly quickly. For example, the Code Red worm replicated itself over 250,000 times in approximately nine hours on July 19, 2001.
A worm usually exploits some sort of security hole in a piece of software or the operating system. For example, the Slammer worm (which caused mayhem in January 2003) exploited a hole in Microsoft's SQL server. This article offers a fascinating look inside Slammer's tiny (376 byte) program.

•Worms - A worm is a small piece of software that uses computer networks and security holes to replicate itself. A copy of the worm scans the network for another machine that has a specific security hole. It copies itself to the new machine using the security hole, and then starts replicating from there, as well.

Trojan virus – My PC is infected by this virus. I used Penicilin 2002 before but then it doesn’t work. I get the virus from the diskette, but Penicilin 2002 does not trigger this out. That’s why all the diskette I’ve inserted in my Pc was lost. All files in Microsoft Word and Excel will have an extension of *.doc.exe and so on, after 25 seconds the file with that extension will automatically appeared and say it is “unknown file”, my computer does not recognize it, plus the file *.idd showed up. In which I don’t know *.idd file why it appears. The boot sector is infected, Virus and worms is unethical, my files in excel and word are damage. I just don’t know what programs or software to use just to take away this trojan virus.

3. Choose one example of computer abuse which you think is morally wrong. Explain why you consider it morally wrong using any of the ethical principles you have learned in the earlier modules.

Actually, I just believed that hacking is not merely bad. In some cases it is bad and morally wrong, like if you use this for theft of service. Through hacking you can withdraw money from the bank even it’s not yours using your ability to hack and that is morally bad. You must not do that. Because stealing violates the law in the land and the Divine Law which is the judge is God’s alone. The 2nd is, if we use this to take valuable files, just to compete with our competitors and see to it that my or your company is the best than the others. Actually most giant company have their own hackers, just to know others company on how they can be defeated. Which is as far as I know is morally bad. The 3rd is, if we use hacking for revenge which is also morally bad. The Bible said the vengeance is mine says the Lord. With this 3 cases, hacking is morally bad under all circumstances.

Saq6: Computer Ethics

A.1. Which of the 10 commandments on computer use did Daan violate?

Daan violates “Thou shalt not use other people’s computer resources without authorization”, “Thou shalt not interfere with other people’s computer work”, Thou shall not snoop around in other people’s files”, “Thou shalt not use or copy software for which you have not paid,” “Thou shalt not use other people’s computer resources without authorization,” and “Thou shalt use a computer in ways that show consideration and respect.”

2. If you were Daan, will you tell Kael the truth or not? Explain.

There’s no secret that cannot be revealed & there’s no problem that cannot be solved. How long will I kept the secret? The more I keep it, the more it will be hard for me to tell the truth and the more our friendship will be endangered. My conscience will be my enemy. I know the truth will set me free. That’s why I must tell the truth as soon as possible. I know he will understand me. If ever Kael hates me, even I say sorry, then it’s up to Kael. I have done my part. I know at the right time he will forgive me. I must wait for that time. Plus I need to be prepared on what he will say and what he will do to me. If he will mock me, then it’s alright. I understand it’s my fault. Plus I will tell him that I will buy new computer mother board for him for the replacement of the damage I’ve done.

3. If you were Kael and Daan told you the truth, what will you do?

If I was Kael and Daan told me the truth in that particular time, I will be disappointed and I will be mad at him. Maybe I’m going to release my punch and mocked him and say, “PARE” why did you do this to me. Why you don’t tell me about your discoveries before you installed it to my computer? You need my permission first before doing this. After that, I will go to my house and I will not talk to him until he finally knows that what he’s done is really wrong and unethical. Daan must see to it that he is really sorry for what happen. Well, that’s case to case basis. If I see that Daan is really sorry for what happen, I will hug and embrace him, then I will really forgive him instantly and say don’t do this again. But I will tell him that because of what he’s done, he must give me a share to buy new computer mother board, after all where friends. My 2nd impression is that I will be proud of him and I will say “you’re the man”. You’re so patient and intelligent in discovering new ideas. But I will tell my friend Daan that he must understand that everything here in the world has a limitation. Don’t do bad things that will cause him to be in trouble. What you do to my computer mother board is enough? Don’t install it to anybody again.

B. Pick three of the precepts on computer use discussed above and briefly explains each precept in terms of the theory of ethics and the ethical concepts (discussed in Modules 1-4) that underpin it.

“Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people”.
Pornography is a good example of this commandment. Nowadays, pornography in the internet is very common; abusing the rights of women, even you don’t browse the website of it and it will automatically appear. Indeed, pornography is bad under all circumstances. It violates the natural law, moral law and most of all the divine law. Users must not use the computer just to gain personal satisfaction and personal happiness and yet somebody will be harmed. Users must see to it that all his explorations and discoveries will not greatly affect or harm others.

“Thou shalt not use a computer to steal.” Stealing one’s property is bad under all circumstances. Again it violates the moral law, the natural law and the Divine law. Yes, you will be rich if you steal because you gain money from others. You can buy anything you want, just to gain personal happiness and satisfaction. But after that, are you satisfied? Do you find the true happiness? Impact, stealing ones property is dangerous. Wealth and richness is good, it makes us happy. But the love of money is the fruit of all evil. The love of money is the key for us to be in hell. Humans loved money so much, that’s why, even their soul will die and perish it’s alright with them. They don’t know that there will be a judgment when they die. My question is that why people are not satisfied to what they have right now? Why do they steal? Yes, you have the property, the money that you can buy, but your home is lost and no harmony at all. So what’s the point of having all the richness? It’s useless. “You can’t be with your money if you die”.

“Thou shalt not use other people’s computer resources without authorization.”

Hacking is a good example of this commandment and at the same time the case of Daan. Daan loves to surf the Internet and try all available applications. One of his exploration, he discovered a virus that destroy computer mother board. To test his discovery he installed it to the computer of his friends without permission. This situation illustrates, that what he’s action is morally bad but good under certain circumstances. I don’t see bad things in explorations, in discovering new ideas and try all available applications if it works. For me it’s good, because it will increase your knowledge. There’s new innovation in exploring and surfing the net. But what is bad in this illustration is that Daan surreptitiously installed the virus in his friends PC. He does not ask permission to his friends which is morally bad under all circumstances. Hacking for me is not really bad if you will just use it for new idea, but if it is abusive and destructive, then, it is morally bad under all circumstances.

C. Cite two ethical issues in computing. Explain how they are ethical in nature.

Privacy in Computing such as email privacy, database privacy, software privacy and others are ethical in nature. Many laws and policies have created to protect the users, ones they entered in the computer world or ones they access the said website or the World Wide Web (WWW). See Privacy Act http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/5/552a.html. Privacy in computing is ethical in nature because they protect the user rights. The rights that the file, databases and others remain private. The law implies that the user must respect the rights of other users by not snooping around in others files. Privacy in computing is the same as you owned a house and someone, “a stranger” went to your house without informing you. We called that trespassing. Privacy in computing is a sense of ownership. One’s you have email address, files, website and others, it is yours. You’re the owner of it, and no one must bypass. It is your private property.

Integrity in creating computer programs is ethical in nature. Meaning all programmers can designed and create programs that will benefit the society. “Thou shalt think about the social consequences of the program you write.” Designer and programmers must design and create only program that will be useful, that it will not harm anybody else. That computer programmers will not create worms and viruses that really affect and damage ones property.

D. As a computer user, do you approve of an ordering principle, in the form of legislation, being formulated and enforced to govern computer use? Why? Defend your answer.

Actually my answer is no and yes. I’m in the middle. No because we have the freedom to do what we want to do, as long as we don’t infringe intellectual property of someone else and as long as were not violating any law. Plus the scope of legislation is too big; how come the system administrators will detect those people who violate the law in computing? I just think that the scope is too big and the task is too difficult to do.

Yes, so that the user will be informed that there is a law in the land. The user will have fear, that in their mind if ever you do this or do that, which is wrong, and then they trace you, you will be punishable. “You will be in jail”. So I just think it is also good to have an ordering principle in the form of legislation. So that abusing someone rights, infringement of intellectual property will be lessen.

Saq5: Moral Problems

And he said a certain man had two sons: and the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me. And he divided unto them his living. And not many days after the younger son gathered all together, and took his journey into a far country, and there wasted his substance with riotous living. And when he had spent all, there arose a mighty famine in that land; and he began to be in want. And he went and joined himself to a citizen of that country; and he sent him into his fields to feed swine. And he would fain have filled his belly with the husks that the swine did eat: and no man gave unto him. And when he came to himself, he said, How many hired servants of my father’s have bread enough and to spare, and I perish with hunger! I will arise and go to my father and I will say unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee, And am no more worthy to be called thy son: make me as one of thy hired servants. And he arose and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck; and kissed him. And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son. But the father said to his servants bring forth the best robe, and put it on him, and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet: and bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it, and let us eat, and be merry: For this my son was dead; and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry.

You became the chief of police in your place after successfully going after big time computer hackers and a syndicate engaged in the production and sale pf pirated software. One day, you find out that your eldest son is an active computer hacker. When you confront your son, he tells you that he is sorry and he promises that he will never engage in activities involving computer crimes. You are now face with the problem of having to choose between too options: first as a chief of police, you have a duty to arrest your own son; and second, as a parent you have the duty to protect your son.

In every family there is always a black sheep or what we called “different” but although their sons and daughters committed “sin” there is always forgiveness. True Repentance is the key for forgiveness. Whatever bad things that your sons did, it will be forgiven because a father has always a compassion for it. It is not wrong to protect your son. Nor it is not wrong to do your duty as a chief of police. But what ever decision he has now, it must be clearly understood that he will need to sacrifice one. He must choose His own son or the lost of his job. The chief of police must suffer for what decision or consequence he has made. If he will be in the position as a chief police then he must do his job. And that job is to arrest those hackers and syndicate including his own son. Yes, the sin of his son is forgiven as a parent but there is law that guilty person must be charged. In most studies those sons and daughters doing criminal cases like this are those people that lack attention and parental guidance. That’s why they act rebelliously. But as I’ve said parent have a compassion to there son. In reality I don’t see people, famous one, son and daughter of the President or sons of “Pontius Pilate” that is persecuted and accused by his own parent although they have sinned against the government law like in this case. Most cases, those sons of the famous one or those sons of politicians although they have sinned and guilty they went to America just to be safe and not to be accused. Well, I’m not saying that I will tolerate my son. But now this is the reality. Your son is your own blood. Even it is the most wanted criminal syndicate here in the Philippines forgiveness and compassion will come on your way. Yes position, dignity and pride are important. You hardly invest it just to gain the fame and fortune of your family. But if your son will perish I don’t really think the position as a Chief of Police is important right now. But if my son after committing a sin, he is forgiven and then it turns out that his action is not true or just a fake one and he is not truly repenting then I will punish him. Repentance means you will not turn back and you will not do bad things again. So if you will do it again, then, forgiveness is not for you. Forgiveness is only for those people who truly repent. This situation illustrates the problem of moral obligation and the problem of moral principle. If you will perform your work as a chief of police then you will gain respect and fame. But your duty as parent will be questionable, your son will be in jail and that is too painful in to your other side.

The problem of moral obligation and the problem of moral principle is the most pervasive among the four. This two involved choosing what is wrong and what is right. If you think that is right, one will suffer and you must sacrifice one. Meaning you must eliminate one. I just have a question why I need to choose? I just think I need them both. I need my friend to be with me but I also need a job. My job is my bread and butter. So what’s the point of choosing? Both are important. Well, I just think I must discern the right things. Discerning what is wrong and what is right. Talking the problem of moral principle, will discussed the 1st scenario. I’m a computer specialist employed in HRD. I’m responsible for safekeeping and updating computer records of employees that’s why the documents under me are highly confidential. But my friend who is employed in the same company needs favor from me and that is to give her the records of a doctor. What will I do? Well, I will tell to my friends that doing these things is merely bad. I need to make her a point that what she’s doing will cause them both out to the company. My friend needs to understand these things, if that is confidential then it must be confidential. But if my friends don’t understand me then it’s up to her. Well, it’s too hard if you have “Utang na Loob” to those people who need favor from you, it’s too hard to say no. That “Utang na Loob” makes me sick. It is your obligation in return to give them favor too, but see to it you will not be in trouble. But in reality if you have “Utang na Loob” in somebody it will cause you in trouble, not just trouble but in pain. That is very bad. If you think that “Utang na Loob” will harm you then don’t do it. May be there is another chance to give them favor. If your conscience and your heart is telling you it is wrong, and it is against your moral principle then don’t do it. If I’m a computer programmer who is being asked by my employer to create a program that would sabotage a competitors computer system then what will I do is to resigned because it’s against my principle. Well, I think it’s upon the person who is in that situation. But for me if it is against my belief, then I will stop for it. I will resign for that job because there are many best jobs. If it is against your will don’t do it.