Dorothy E. Denning
Most people agree that we should teach computer ethics, and efforts are underway to include ethics in the curriculum at all levels. I shall close this paper with a few comments regarding ethics education as it might impact hacking.
Based on my conversations with hackers, I am convinced that we must do more than simply tell young people that break-ins are wrong. As mentioned earlier, many of them know that, they just don’t consider non-malicious break-ins to be a serious offense. Moreover, I am skeptical that we can convey the consequences of hacking entirely through analogies, for example, by comparing breaking into a system with breaking into a house, and downloading information and using computer and telecommunications services with stealing tangible goods. Hackers recognize that the situations are not the same. They can appreciate why someone would not want them to break into their house and browse around, while failing to appreciate why someone would seriously object to their browsing on their computer.
Brian Harvey, in his position paper for the ACM Panel on Hacking (Harvey), recommends that students be given access to real computing power, and that they be taught how to use that power responsibly. He describes a program he created at a public high school in Massachusetts during the period 1979 – 1982. They installed a PDP-11/70 and let students and teachers carry out the administration of the system. Harvey assessed that putting the burden of dealing with the problems of malicious users on the students themselves was a powerful educational force. He also noted that the students who had the skill and interest to be hackers were discouraged from this activity because they also wanted to keep the trust of their colleagues in order that they could acquire “super-user” status on the system.
Harvey also makes an interesting analogy between teaching computing and teaching karate. In karate instruction, students are introduced to the real, adult community. They are given access to a powerful, deadly weapon, and at the same time are taught discipline and responsibility. Harvey speculates that the reason that students do not misuse their power is that they know they are being trusted with something important, and they want to live up to that trust. Harvey applied this principle when he set up the school system.
Giving students responsibility for computing can help them learn the consequences of different actions on themselves and others. If it is not feasible to give students hands-on experience managing computer systems, then perhaps some form of role playing or case study analysis can help students see consequences of different actions.
Finally, ethics has to do with actions, not words. If we do not practice good ethics ourselves, then we will be poor role models and justifiably accused of hypocrisy. How well do we embody responsible computer use?
Georgetown University
I am grateful to Peter Denning, Craig Neidorf, Steve Steinberg, and “Tim” for comments on an earlier version of this paper.
Bok, S., “Secrets,” Vintage Books, New York, 1983.
Denning, D., “Concerning Hackers Who Break into Computer Systems,” Proc. of the 13th National Computer Security Conference, Oct. 1990, pp. 653 – 664.
Harvey, B., “Computer Hacking and Ethics,” in “Positive Alternatives to Computer Misuse: A Report of the Proceedings of an ACM Panel on Hacking,” J.A.N. Lee et al., ACM Headquarters, New York.
Go to: The Social Impact of Computer-Mediated Voting – Urken
Home > Research Resources > Computing Security > Hacker Ethics
HOME | IN
THE NEWS | RESEARCH
RESOURCES
TEACHING RESOURCES | STUDENT
RESOURCES | LINKS
The Research Center on Computing & Society
at Southern Connecticut State University
501 Crescent Street | New Haven, CT 06515
Director: (203) 392-6790 | e-mail: webmaster@computerethics.org
© 2000 – 2007 – Research Center on Computing & Society