Reporter Volume 25, No.22 March 24, 1994

By BETHANY GLADKOWSKI
Reporter Staff  
If we are to take communicating through computer networks seriously,
then we must establish ethical guidelines which will ensure
trustworthy information. If we don't, then it should only be used for
non-serious pursuits, said Dr. Deborah Johnson, at  a Computer Science
Department Colloquium March 17 in Knox Hall.
	Johnson, a professor of philosophy, science and technology
studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, spoke about the growing
need to define proper codes of conduct for computer network users.
	"On-line problems very much mirror the world off-line. It's
not a radically new endeavor," she said. "We should try to do better
[with policies] on-line than we've done off-line," she said.  Because
individuals can lie, steal, and otherwise inconvenience others through
on-line communication and tools, ethical principles and values are at
stake. "It should become a public issue," said Johnson. 
	Three characteristics of on-line communication make it
vulnerable to moral abuses, Johnson said. Scope, anonymity, and
reproducibility not only make the network a powerful tool, but can
also hurt the user. The sheer amount of data at stake and the fact
that it affects users virtually worldwide makes privacy in computers
an imminent concern, said Johnson. 
	On-line communication allows users to remain anonymous,
Johnson said. This makes it easier to impersonate other people and to
steal information. Although anonymity facilitates communication, it
also makes it difficult to catch impersonators and frees people to
"flame" (hasty, impolite responses which are not well-thought-out and
may offend other readers). 
	"Anonymity weakens the integrity of words," Johnson said.
Instead, user groups should be monitored more carefully. "We can have
forums where the operators go to great trouble to make sure of users'
identities," said Johnson.
	Although nearly all network activity is traceable,
reproducibility in network systems allows for undetectable copying.
"When something is stolen [in the off-line world], you notice its
absence. With the on-line world, you can copy something and steal it
without the owner ever knowing. This is counter to our notions of
control and property ownership," Johnson. said 
	One solution, Johnson said,would be the establishment of  a
"principle of non-interference," meaning that as long as one person's
actions do not infringe upon the rights of others, the action is
acceptable. Although this principle is already followed by most
on-line communicators, public access networks are usually unmediated,
leaving them vulnerable to abuses by "crackers," or those who
purposely attempt to crack computer security systems, she said.
	"I deliberately lock my door. I know it can be broken into,
but I expect that you will not break into it. It's my right to
privacy." Johnson said. "Even if you pick the lock, but don't go
inside--or if you're a cracker, you break into my system but don't
take any information--it is still immoral because I have a right to
privacy."  
	Cackers engage in purposely malicious behavior for which the
sole intent is to interfere with other users, Johnson said  They
justify their actions by saying that their pursuits are an
intellectual challenge, and that they do no harm by just breaking in,
not stealing information, she said. Crackers also say they are
performing a valuable service by showing us the loopholes in our
security systems. Because of this, said Johnson, computer users are
forced to continually invest in upgraded security systems. 
	"In life, we rely on people not exploiting vulnerabilities; I
do not walk in public with a suit of armor because I am trusting you
to not attack me. The weight of the argument is in justifying it. If
you can give me a good reason why you should violate my rights, fine.
But the arguments aren't strong enough," the speaker said.
	Johnson expressed a concern that public access networks, such
as Internet, will eventually lose government funding and be taken over
by commercial enterprises, which would limit access to those who can
afford it. "But there's a difference between what  I would like to
happen and what  I see happening," said Johnson, "I believe it's going
to sort itself out similar to how the newspaper and magazine industry
did. Some are standardized, like The New York Times, while others are
more liberal, such as The Enquirer."