Sample Worksheet - Interviews with a Hacker and a Corporate Security Expert

Carefully read the CNN interviews with Emmanuel Goldstein and Charles Palmer, and then answer the following questions. Remember that in the case of many of these questions, there are no absolutely right or wrong answers. For this reason, you need to explain the reasoning behind your answer in depth. Also, remember that concrete examples are generally very useful in defending one's moral point of view. Where appropriate, give concrete examples, and sketch in all relevant details.

 

  1. Dictionaries are not always correct, but many people in the IT community think well of Eric S. Raymond’s dictionary of hacking terms which is available on the Net at http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/. Using Raymond’s dictionary as a guide, evaluate both interviewees’ answers to the first question, "How do you define hacking?"
  2. Goldstein, in his answer to question #1, refers to a "right to know." Do you agree that Goldstein has a right to know? If so, are there constraints on that right, i.e., any information that he doesn’t have a right to possess?
  3. In his answer to question #2, Palmer says that the key difference between appropriate and inappropriate forms of hacking is authorization to probe the target. Can you describe a hypothetical situation in which an organization does NOT authorize hacking its information stores, but the hacking of those information stores is morally appropriate nonetheless? Do so. If you can’t, try harder.
  4. Carefully consider Palmer’s answer to question #3. How exactly does his IBM job description differ from the job description of Goldstein’s characterization of the hacker community?
  5. In his answer to question #5, Goldstein muses, "But this is the price we pay when people with no understanding of technology are the ones in charge of regulating it." Can you elaborate on what exactly he’s saying here? Give concrete examples, if you can.
  6. Palmer poses a hypothetical question in his answer to question #6: "But if a stranger came into your house … would you consider that harmless?" Try your hardest to imagine a situation in which the actualization of Palmer’s counterfactual hypothesis would, indeed, be a morally appropriate deed. If you can’t imagine such a hypothetical situation, then I think you’re not working hard enough.
  7. In his answer to question #8, Goldstein says, "It’s the ability to … not reveal your personal information … that most attracts people to the hacker culture." In an interesting study, [available on the Net at http://www.icsa.net/library/research/anonymity.shtml] M.E. Kabay argues that anonymity and pseudonymity promote antisocial and immoral behavior. Do you think the following thesis is plausible: It’s immoral to do something the doing of which you would not agree to be made public. Explain your answer. [Goldstein’s answer to question #19 might be relevant here.]
  8. In his answer to question #10, Goldstein suggests that hacking is necessary for the survival of a free society. Is he exaggerating, or is he right? Explain your answer.
  9. Carefully evaluate Goldstein’s answer to question #11 about criminality. What do you think Goldstein means by "crime?" [His answer to question #s 15 and 18 might be relevant here.]
  10. Consider Palmer’s answer to question #13. He says that corporate security requires keeping one step ahead of the bad guys. Isn’t this exactly what Goldstein says is the goal that hackers are pursuing, i.e. gathering information about security vulnerabilities that are communicated to the vulnerable parties? If so, does this suggest that Palmer should welcome the activities of some members of the computer underground? Why or why not?
  11. In his answer to question #18, Goldstein says, in the case of a hacker gaining access to your computer files: "The true violator of your privacy is the person who made the decision to make [your files] easily accessible." Does this statement ring true to you? Why or why not?
  12. Consider Palmer’s answer to question #18. Is there anything here that Goldstein would disagree with? Why or why not?

 

 

Page maintained by: kwb@csee.usf.edu