archive-org.com » ORG » C » COMPUTINGCASES.ORG

Total: 197

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Using ImpactCS in Machado: Safety
    computing ethics How did Machado find out the names of the individuals By making the email addresses of individuals easily available through a finger server the OAC contributed in some way to Machado s action An additional issue is that the email addresses at UCI followed the standard protocol of using the last name of the user as the base for the userID This is certainly convenient and make remembering

    Original URL path: http://computingcases.org/case_materials/machado/analysis/ethical_analysis/safety.html (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Using the ImpactCS Grid to Understand Machado - Privacy
    a reasonable amount of privacy to academic users This is not necessarily the case in other systems in the business world Practice there varies widely but most systems still have users sign a document that outlines their rights and responsibilities In our case the university did have a document that Machado had signed in order to get his account But Machado may not have read the document or have understood it This brings up an important distinction that is used in legal cases but is also helpful in our discussion The distinction is between the subjective feeling of privacy and the reasonable expectation of privacy Subjectively Machado might have felt like his message was private and that it could not be traced back to him This was partly because he misunderstood the system many mailers hide the SMTP headers that allow tracking but they are still there for those who know where to look It may also have been that he had forgotten or misunderstood the document he signed college students sign a great deal of paper in dealing with administration But even if he had the subjective feeling of privacy a reasonable user on the system should know that most email can be tracked The Asian targets of Machado hate mail may have felt that their privacy was violated But again the distinction between the subjective feeling privacy and a reasonable expectation of privacy should help us think clearly If your telephone number is published in a telephone book callers could pick out your name based on its apparent ethnicity and call you to harass you The harassment may be immoral but looking up your name in the telephone book is not We might think of the finger command in a similar light It is a sort of telephone book that provides access to specific items of information about you Still many installations do not implement the finger command because they value the privacy of their users more than they value the ease of information access that finger supplies And in most cases concerning privacy we will need to balance various values against one another In this case we have offset claims of privacy Machado s claims vs those of the targets of his email Any consideration of privacy right will need to do this sort of weighing of competing claims Providers privacy obligations Legal work will give us little help here In the U S the owner of the information may by and large do with it as he or she pleases Though the law allows a broad use of information by its owner systems administrators might ask a more fundamental question what good s or values are we protecting with our privacy policy and our use of information To answer this question simply with a right to privacy is not to answer it at all Why do we value privacy or think people have a right to it If we are going to go beyond the requirements

    Original URL path: http://computingcases.org/case_materials/machado/analysis/ethical_analysis/privacy.html (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Machado Equity and Access
    with an interesting social issue why would people think that a thing that is illegal or immoral when done face to face or with unsigned letters in mailboxes would become acceptable or at least tolerable when done over email And with this issue we go back to the socio technical analysis theme of a clash of cultures In essence Machado confused the cultural norms that were at least tolerable on some Internet newsgroups with what would be tolerated in direct mail to targeted individuals An ethical issue that this raises for designers of communications software is how they might make the context in which a person is sending a message more salient to the user If it were more clear who the audience was for a particular communication it might make it easier for individuals to adapt their communication to the rules of the community they were addressing Would this have helped in the Machado case Likely not But it might help in other instances and seems worth exploring What about the right to free speech As the Supreme Court has made clear in its Brandenburg decision see Legal Climate the right to free speech needs to be balanced with other rights There is a history of devotion to free and unfettered speech among computing professionals and on Internet newsgroups and other forums But few would argue that this right can never be trumped by another right More helpful for a class discussion would be to ask What values conflict at times with free speech Certainly speech that threatens the safety of others conflicts with our value for life Was the University obligated because of its educational position as a forum for free speech to provide Machado with a forum to express his views Most college and universities think of

    Original URL path: http://computingcases.org/case_materials/machado/analysis/ethical_analysis/equity_and_access.html (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Background on Email
    them directly and because we do not see them directly react to our utterances This lack of social cues in our communication means we do not get feedback about the effects of what we say Second when we sit in front of a terminal we can easily become wrapped up in ourselves and in our own emotions Psychologists call this self focussed attention When this occurs we can become carried away by our own interpretations and emotions Put these two things together lack of social cues and self focussed attention and you have a fine recipe for misunderstanding and flame wars To this psychological level of analysis we can add a cultural one Discussion groups on the Internet form their own rules and sanctions about behavior Finholt Sproull 1990 They may expect people to be either rowdy or calmly professional They will have ways of punishing those who break the expectations Thus these groups become small or very large social venues of their own The difficulty is in learning how to switch from one venue to the next Some practical advice We are beginning to see some convergence in the recommended rules for interaction over electronic media Netiquette simply put is network etiquette a set of rules guiding proper behavior online encouraging respect and consideration of others utilizing Internet services especially email and newsgroup postings Numerous sources have been created to help provide information about netiquette Several different approaches have been made because the net presents a tremendous range of possible problems regarding proper behavior In her book entitled Netiquette Virginia Shea 1994 identifies ten core rules that should be considered when using electronic interaction Remember the human It can be easy to forget that there is in fact a person behind the computer screen When writing an email for example consider the question would you say it to the person s face to determine if you are engaging in proper behavior Also remember that any email you send or receive may be saved or forwarded with or without your knowledge Adhere to the same standards of behavior online that you follow in real life Just because you are working behind a screen does not mean that ethics and the law no longer apply Know where you are in Cyberspace When you reach a site get a feel for where you are netiquette varies from area to area Respect other people s time and bandwidth Bandwidth refers to both the machine capacity for transmitting information and to the individual s time capacity to read and understand it It is important not to send unnecessary emails and information that will exceed this limit Also be mindful of your mailing lists send emails only to those whom you are certain would want to read your message as extras only fill up another person s mailbox Make yourself look good online The anonymity of online communication can be a positive quality in that users are not judged by appearance status etc But this

    Original URL path: http://computingcases.org/case_materials/machado/support_docs/machado_resources/email_background.html (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Dr. Schiano Interview
    the UCI net ID of that person sitting in that spot with that name laugher So at the point he the employee came upstairs and said there s someone down in here that s sending hate mail sending mail of some sort so I ll take a break here and describe something else we have a policy like most universities who ve run into any problems like this or anything much more minor than this ah a computer use policy C Yeah I was going to ask about that too S And we have developed one from other universities that have developed and what we ve been hearing about lawsuits what laws should be etc so we developed a policy about usage It specifically says a variety of things it may have been in fact in the documents you have and it s online it hasn t changed C Yeah I think I do have that S And it basically says Thou shalt not do certain things or you ll run into all sorts of problems And we worked that out with our campus Dean of Students as to that s our way of doing the Dean of Students work for these things basically our equipment that we have it s up to us to decide what inappropriate use is of the systems themselves like someone running a program we don t want them to that we told them not to but we also have the responsibility to work with the Dean of Students and the campus judicial sects when there are things that occur that go beyond that like ah public indecency We ve just been dealing with a case of public indecency in the laboratory so that goes beyond campus to criminal law so we have to we help them with that job and they ve assigned us the ability to do that job of when someone does something wrong it s equivalent to someone cheating on an exam or ah handing in somebody else s homework we basically could say these are the penalties So having said that when the student came up and in fact talked to me first saying someone s sending me hate mail and I know who it is we identified the system administrator and I d gone down with him to point out where the person was And at first I thought it was essentially just someone sending an ah annoying e mail of some kind I don t like you you know or ah some poor language which is something part of our policy that is not allowed Profane language how s that I thought it was just profane language And so ah at that point I went with him and saw where the person was and at that point also other people had started coming upstairs and saying I m receiving this as well and my boss at that point Dana Roode and I went downstairs and Dana talked to Richard Machado and asked for his ID and there s a video tape of this because we have surveillance tapes ah asked him who he was etc and said you know you ve been using this equipment wrongly breaking our computer use policy at that point neither one of us actually had read the e mail What we had heard was you know using derogatory terms sending bad mail or whatever We didn t actually sit down and read it That was in hindsight one of our mistakes We should have looked at it more carefully but we basically told him to leave the building and he left After that the e mail started getting around and over the weekend my boss read the e mail in detail Dana did and on Monday morning we called the campus police C Okay that s something we were confused about because we knew that he been asked to leave on Friday and then nothing else S Right no one had really read the e mail It went by wild fire over the weekend people had received it and said this is more serious in fact someone had talked to me one of my staff who s background is Japanese Hawaiian was very offended that this had occurred and then we called the campus police They then called the DA and it went from there C Okay so it was kind of just more that nobody understood how serious it was when it happened S Yes yes The people who received it ah some of them didn t pay much attention to it some of them got very concerned The person who had come to us first it was one of our employees and it wasn t Liz essentially just thought this was just within in reason or whatever When the people who normally ah John Ward who was applying the policy and monitoring the usage at that time by the time on Monday we all got together and realized it was much more serious So the delay was over the weekend and the fact that we didn t read the message We get a lot of people saying Yeah someone sent me mail with curse words in it and that s what it was assumed to have been But when we actually read the threats you know I m gonna kill you and the fact that he had sent it to 40 specific people the details are important too it wasn t just sent to a newsgroups anonymously and whatever C Yeah he d taken great care S In hindsight I never met him but this was very foolish and stupid He didn t know what he was getting himself into at all Then if you read the rest of the things that were going on in the community I have to describe UCI a little bit UCI is about 30 40 Asian American or actually Asian nationals coming here for instruction So there s a large Asian contingent at the University Orange County itself has a large Vietnamese ethnicity several hundred thousand people and a comparable size of other Asian cultures in the county So it hit in an area where there was a lot of sensitivity to anything like this So that caused campus and communities groups to get up in arms the fact that it went to 60 people and the local FBI got a hold of it very quickly and it seems to us in hindsight that they were looking for they had seen lots of hate mail incidents in the LA area and they were very attune to such things This one was just unusual being an e mail So it basically mushroomed in a hurry laughter C Yeah Would you mind if I asked you a couple questions just about your procedure in general S Sure C So it sounds like there s not really ah you don t go to the Dean then S Well let s say let s get a better example Ah we find out we get a complaint that someone has received an e mail from an account or an account seems to be in a weird state So we will then ask the person responsible to come here or in e mail did you send this e mail usually we ask them for an interview and how we get them in an interview we lock their account to get their attention because they basically work with e mail only University students don t usually give us access to their home phone numbers we don t use that information so we use their e mail account locking it to get their attention we have essentially what amounts to a hearing to figure out what has occurred and it s to find out if something serious has occurred like an account has been broken into C Now is this a hearing within the computing S Within yes with the system administrator and maybe a few staff at most here acting as lieutenants to the Dean of Students Our job is essentially to find out what did they do to the equipment that we re responsible for We often get people who will say share a password and that s a definite no no But they do it you know so we try to determine if it was something where they violated policy or is it something more serious like did someone break in or did they break in Based on that we make a judgement Well you shared your password you should have known better you didn t read the rules We force them to read the rules when they log on they can t get an account unless they physically read it and answer a few questions If it s a sort of moderate level case like I said with the password being shared we say well no account access for two weeks or something If it s more serious than that then we advise the Dean of Students and they re usually they re pretty draconian of making people doing community service they re used to people stealing things So they re going one step before calling the police Or they ll call the police and sometimes we ll do it directly ourselves But most of the time it s essentially an internal hearing making sure they ve read the policy they understand at the same time try to figure out exactly what the incidents were C I think that sounds like a really beneficial procedure S Well there are still lots of pieces that people have difficulty with universities have this problem getting all the info out to all the students that this is the responsibility it s not for free that they have a right to it that they have responsibilities not to do a lot of things people believe that anything s okay on the web or an e mail and it s not C Right that s part of what we re trying to target S Yes Not everything is okay and a lot of things cross the boundary to criminal activities and the FBI are very interested in such these days and I think in the case of Machado he had no clue He added to his misery they probably would have let him get off with some probation or whatnot but he skipped bail went to Mexico they found him again as a fugitive that added to his woes but because now he was in jail when they finally found him guilty it was essentially well you serve time and we haven t heard from him since I don t know what happened to him Umm it s the worst case we ve had in terms of dealing with following this through but we ve had hacking incidents where we ve traced it and had the police come in students have been expelled not many but people have been suspended but it s equivalent on a college campus the same thing as people cheating on tests the worst cases you have it s very similar C So policies and penalties are pretty case specific then right S Well we have a list it s not public but it s something we share with the Dean of Students and the people coming along essentially a penal code as to what we do C Oh okay S and some of the things are just administrative if we don t want you to write a file in a particular area because it causes trouble we tell you don t do it and if you do it once it s a warning If you do it many times you re not paying attention and we lock your account take away privileges So getting access is a privilege not a right The basic description that the Dean of Students will say these are UCI rules that ah once their students are admitted to the college then they have rights like any other students to the various things on campus unless they get themselves in a situation where they re basically denied those privileges If they break a rule that we set it s our responsibility to say No you don t need this where it comes up very difficultly in an academic setting is more and more instructors are using the web and e mail and whatnot to communicate with their students and in those cases what it ends up being is students have been told they no longer have an account and you need to tell your instructor ahead of time and they ll need to do something else C So then what is the liability for the NACS S Well you mean if they re being sued by the people or something C Yeah S Well again we re representing the University and the policies we set we have to be specific about writing the policies we use and we have to follow a due process where we allow the student to say what s going on We have to communicate that to the Dean so the Dean knows that s what we decided upon and that about covers it The various things that we give out are not any kind of rights as I said the services we provide in terms of something like the Machado case we generally will just turn it all over to the campus police and the Dean who basically take it from there so we re representatives mostly to the Dean but not to the police dept but it just goes off So our liability is not necessarily to us identifying them but the steps we have to take are that we re not discriminating against them that we re applying the same rules to everyone and that we re stating what those rules are and that s what they sign off at the beginning saying yes I have read this policy Ah there s one other thing I talk too much I need to let you ask some more questions the other one that we re trying to do is we ve sort of stream lined this a bit to make the people who actually investigate a lit more formal with a penal code and a set of rules In the past in was little bit more informal the system administrator would write these things down but they d be like the only agent They d come to their manager if there was someone who wanted to talk to the management or something like that The other thing that we re doing that s maybe kind of interesting and unique is we realize a lot of these issues are minor There are things like even though I gave my friend my login we re worried more about it s consequences more than the actual act So we ve set up what I ve called a Computer Traffic School which is essentially all the things that are minor we make the students go back and go through and read questions related to the computer use policy and answer them appropriately or if they don t keep answering them until they get it right so it forces them to sit down for maybe a half hour in our areas going through this again C I think that s a really good good idea S Well I think you ve got to do that because most of them are in fact minor so you re worried more about big things happening but you want to make sure you educate people and you can t just do things like Oh go read this it s over there they don t You ve got to get them to sign something off that s where you get the liability issue as well you said you read it C You kind of touched on something I was going to ask you said it s kind of new and I was just wondering how much or what in your policy has changed since the Machado case like penalties and that sort of thing S No nothing since this is so far outside the range of it there s nothing that says Thou shalt not send hate mail anymore than it says Thou shalt not be indecent in the lab right now we re dealing with a situation where someone in the lab was indecent probably even worse than that but I ll leave that to your imagination and he went off to court and he was tried in court today and found guilty of doing various things in our labs that other students were seeing Now that s not something we re going to write in our policy you can t violate the laws of the state of CA in the US penal codes so we re not writing down the worst case scenarios and in the Machado case there was really nothing to write down The only thing it taught us is that these things can be more serious than at first and doing things like reading the message or assuming that the message is of one kind when it could have been something else And then part of the whole legal case was is this just a normal flame or is this in fact hate mail or a criminal activity And in fact the actual regulation is quite fascinating that was used by the federal government on him was a law from 1968 or was it 63 C Oh I didn t know that part S Yeah well the actual part that was used was that in the federal statues and this comes back from the civil rights era that no one will have the right to abridge the access of any citizen to public institutions

    Original URL path: http://computingcases.org/case_materials/machado/support_docs/machado_resources/schiano_interview.html (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Machado Timeline
    OAC reads Machado s email and decides that it is a police matter 9 24 96 Monday the incident is reported to University Police Department An officer is assigned to the case 9 26 96 retrieval of surveillance video confirmed Machado as sender Irvine City Police notified and involved in case 9 27 96 registrars office helps police locate Machado s address and phone number 9 28 96 an officer phones Machado s residence and leaves message Machado calls back and agrees to meet with an officer that afternoon at 5pm charges filed after meeting Knowingly Without Permission Uses Computer Services Telephone Calls w Intent to Annoy 11 14 96 a stolen vehicle report is filed for Machado s second roommate s car Machado had told one roommate he was borrowing his other roommate s car Machado did not have permission to borrow car 11 18 96 FBI attempts investigation an agent goes to Machado s residence Machado is not there and hadn t been seen there since 11 13 Machado allegedly left with Young s keys on 11 14 other suspicions 80 missing from roommate s coin jar 154 visa charges to roommate s card 54 of which were unauthorized calls on 11 10 11 and 12 11 21 96 FBI agent phones Machado s roommate for confirmation of stolen car info on Machado s disappearance 11 22 96 roommate is interviewed 11 23 96 Tammy Machado Machado s sister interviewed and said Machado disappeared on day his brother called him to inquire about Machado s name appearing in newspaper regarding Asian hate emails Machado denied the reports in the paper to his brother claimed it to be someone else Tammy is informed that court date is set for 11 25 and if Richard doesn t show would be

    Original URL path: http://computingcases.org/case_materials/machado/support_docs/machado_resources/timeline.html (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Machado References
    Groups at Work Organization Science 1 1999 pp 41 64 C W Huff Practical Guidance for Teaching the Social Impact Statement SIS in C Huff Ed Computers and the Quality of Life The Proceedings of the Symposium on Computers and the Quality of Life ACM Press New York Feb 1996 pp 86 89 C Huff T Finholt eds Social Issues in Computing Putting Computers in Their Place McGraw Hill New York 1994 D G Johnson Computer Ethics 3rd Edition Prentice Hall Englewood Cliffs NJ 1999 S Kiesler ed Culture of the Internet Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Mahwah N J 1997 V Shea Netiquette http www albion com netiquette book index html current April 2002 S P Weisband B A Reinig Managing User Perceptions of Email Privacy Communications of the ACM Vol 38 No 12 Dec 1995 p 40 48 D Winter C W Huff Adapting the Internet Comments From a Women only Electronic Forum The American Sociologist vol 27 no 1 1996 pp 30 54 News Articles The Orange County Register is the local paper for Irvine and Orange County Its searchable archives cost money to retrieve an article but have the best documentation on the Machado case as it unfolded http www ocregister com archives R F Raney More Trouble for Man in Hate Mail Case The New York Times on the web Retrieved from http www nytimes com library tech 98 10 cyber articles 01email html current Oct 1 1998 Government Documents United States v Richard Machado 96 142 AHS U S 1997 Irvine Police Department Crime Report 57190 A029 DR 961473 Sept 23 1997 Irvine Police Department Supplemental Report Case UCIPD 96 1473 Harassing Communication Threat Sept 24 1996 Federally Protected Activities Act U S Code Title 18 Chapter 13 sect 245 1968 University of California Links The

    Original URL path: http://computingcases.org/case_materials/machado/support_docs/machado_resources/references.html (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • The Chips
    sine wave A digital signal is a representation of this wave form as a discrete set of numerical values All data that can be 7understood by central processing units CPU are in this discrete binary form To understand how hybrid A D converters function it is important to note how A D conversion works on the circuits The circuit receives an analog signal usually an amount of voltage and simultaneously compares it to a set of reference voltages Figure 4 An analog to digital comparator The number of comparators vary by the speed of the hybrid microcircuit 8 bit 12 bit 16 bit etc Each comparator is one Least Significant Bit LSB higher than the comparator immediately below it If the input voltage level is above the reference voltage the comparator takes on a 1 value If the input voltage is below the reference voltage then the comparator remains a 0 value The output is thus in binary code as a sequence of zeros and ones that show where the voltage was at that instant in time The process described above occurs at a specific sampling rate measured in Megahertz megahertz is a million cycles of electromagnetic currency alternation per second The input voltage level continues to change and is regularly sampled a certain amount of times per second These discrete samples are then run through the comparators which produce the binary code When the binary code switches from 0 to 1 the actual voltage level is somewhere between the fixed levels of the two comparators So the more comparators there are in the circuit the smaller the differences between the fixed voltage levels in the comparators can be The closer the comparators fixed levels are the better the computer s guess is to the original input voltage level Figure

    Original URL path: http://computingcases.org/case_materials/hughes/support_docs/hughes_case_narr/the_chips.html (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive



  •