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".
  • Machado Teaching Introduction
    of the OAC were faced with a decision about how to respond to harassing and threatening email sent over their system to students of their University using their facilities Machado was eventually indicted on federal charges and convicted of infringing on the civil rights of several of the students who received his email He served a little over a year in jail for his offense The Machado case is essentially about the social restrictions we place on what can be said in electronic mail email One point to begin with a sure way to get confused in this case is to think that one value e g free speech is always more important than another value e g safety equal access Our legal system is based on the balancing of various values against each other Our moral decisions are also usually based on some balance of one good against another or one potential harm against another And so any reasonably thoughtful analysis of this case will require answering questions like Under what circumstances does allowing some particular piece of speech compromise some other value too much What other values in addition to free speech are at stake in this case We can get more complicated by asking how the balance among these values works and if it changes from culture to culture But that is for later For now simply mark the fact that all of the analysis of this case will be balancing one value with others One other major issue that is lurking in this case computing systems have values embedded within them This is one of the basic point of social analysis from the ImpactCS model and this case is a fine place to see how values are designed into a technology Structure of the Machado Case The structure of the Machado case is fairly simple The case narrative provides two background documents on the legal and social climates surrounding the incident After students read these they might then read the case either from the perspective of the Office of Academic Computing OAC from the perspective of one of the students who received the email or from the perspective of Machado himself Reading the case from the OAC perspective requires reading two documents one containing background on the OAC and it policies and the other describing the incident from the OAC s perspective Students might read these either along with the actual text of the email or be asked to make a decision before seeing the text Please be aware that the text of the email contains offensive language Reading the case from the perspective of one of the student recipients only requires reading that student s story Reading the case from the perspective of Machado involves reading some background on Machado and his life and then reading the incident from Machado s perspective Please note that we have tried to stick closely to the facts in describing Machado s actions and motivation We felt too uncomfortable

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


  • Machado Socio-Technical System
    in tone of RFCs from the early implementation of a network based finger command RFC 742 from 1977 to a much later implementation RFC 1288 from 1991 The early RFC makes no mention of privacy issues or other difficulties while the 1991 version has clear and direct warnings about the problems you can get involved in when you implement a finger server on a networked system SMTP Simple Mail Transfer Protocol was originally established in 1982 with RFC 821 It defines it goal as transfer ing mail reliably and efficiently It is technically based on TCP transmission control protocol a part of the early ARPAnet s Department of Defense standards Efficiency and reliability are the watchwords here as they were for all the ARPAnet projects For instance a time stamp line was to be inserted as a new header by every machine that handled the mail If User1 sent email to User2 it might not go directly from one machine to the other since there might not be a direct connection or forwarding might be set up But as it moved from machine a to machine b to machine c each machine using SMTP would place a new time stamp header on the mail showing the date and time it had been received and the identity of the two machines This tracking helped in answering two questions How long did the message take to get from each machine to the next efficiency and If it failed where in the chain did the failure occur reliability The issue that the Machado case brings up is the mismatch between the Unix culture that valued efficiency and collaboration and the UCI culture that required surveillance cameras security measures and tracking The SMTP headers that were originally designed to serve as efficiency markers became security trails that allowed the OAC to track down the original sender of the hate mail Thus a computing system that was designed under one set of values was used by people with a different set of values for purposes not originally foreseen The Office of Academic Computing OAC The OAC was a long way from the small friendly groups of computing researchers that formed the early world of Unix Like most academic installations they used Unix as their primary operating system But they also had hundreds of open personal computers in labs all over campus in an urban area They had thousands of users on a modern university campus with a great deal of turnover in the student population In response to this logistical nightmare the OAC had implemented policies about appropriate computer use see the OAC background document in the case narrative In addition they had mounted surveillance cameras in their computing labs so that they could videotape the people in the labs This combination of measures helped them to catch Machado when he sent his hate mail But they were still running an implementation of the finger program and this allowed Machado to find his targets There

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

  • Introduction to Machado Analysis
    Safety Privacy Equity and Access Group Quality of Life Use of Power Safety Privacy Equity and Access National Quality of Life Use of Power Safety Privacy Equity and Access Global Quality of Life Use of Power Safety Privacy Equity and Access If the theme of the socio technical analysis for this case was clashing cultures a reasonable theme for the ethical analysis is about competing values Does Machado s right to free speech override the right student s have to a safe environment to go to school Do individuals right to privacy override the need of those running a network to track down people using electronic methods including surveillance Sticking with values Notice first how the language moves quickly back and forth between rights and values We can usually describe some right an individual has as being based in some thing we value e g the right to privacy is based in the value we place on autonomy And so philosophers often derive rights in this way and suggest that discussion on the level of values is more clear But I prefer a teaching oriented reason to move rights discussion to the level of values discussion it helps people keep a more open mind Rights are often talked about as though they were absolute and inviolable I have an unconditional right to privacy and to freedom of speech a student might say But the right to freedom of speech can get in the way of the right to privacy and if they both will not budge then our discussion stops If we move instead to saying we value each of these things then we can ask how much we value it and how we balance it against other competing values Finding free speech in the ImpactCS framework Finally this case

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

  • Analyzing Machado
    likely to find the subjectivity in thinking about causes will become clear as the people doing the analysis from different viewpoints disagree with each other Each of these approaches are likely to produce differences in the way the case is analyzed by students These differences help make it clear how important a comprehensive view of a case is Our modified paramedic ethic procedure consists of 4 phases The basic analysis consists of phases 1 and 2 in which the basic relationships among the important stakeholders in the case are outlined The phases that construct and judge the various alternative scenarios can be done as many times as you wish for each set of actions you think are important To make this go faster you might assign groups to construct and present their analysis of the duties and rights of each of the main stakeholders presented in the case AECL FDA hospitals operators and patients Gather data List the relevant stakeholders Start with some of the groups mentioned in the socio technical system page However do not end there Notice that our victims the targets of the email are not included Other important groups may also be omitted e g other students the public The ImpactCS framework provides you with a useful guide to different levels of stakeholders that you might overlook Outline the duties and rights the stakeholders have toward each other This is best done with a drawing of each stakeholder with arrows indicating duties one owes to other and rights one has Duties always have targets one has duties to a particular person even to oneself Rights may appear to be free floating e g not to be harmed but they can often be translated into duties that others have toward the individual avoid harming X The ImpactCS framework provides a useful guide to outlining these duties and rights Use the list of ethical issues to remind yourself of rights and duties in the range of likely ethical domains Analyze the data List the relevant opportunities and vulnerabilities that each stakeholder had in the case This is the beginning of what Collins and Miller call a utilitarian ethical analysis Who is being helped and harmed What advantages or opportunities does each party receive in this case What costs or dangers or vulnerabilities does each party experience Determine to what degree each stakeholder s duties were fulfilled or neglected Determine to what degree each stakeholder s rights were violated or protected and by whom Construct an Alternative Scenario Construct a promising alternative for some set of actions for a significant actor e g alternative actions Machado might take to achieve his goals alternative actions the computer center personnel might take etc Judge the Alternative Judge the alternative s effect on each stakeholders opportunities and vulnerabilities and on each stakeholders duties and rights Imagine each stakeholder in a negotiation with other stakeholders about whether the alternative should be adopted or not This certainly helps uncover disagreements about the opportunities and

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

  • Guide to Supporting Documents
    of what should have been done you might be left wondering what decisions the main actors actually made This document provides answers to those questions The case history is an overview of the case from Machado s background as an immigrant to his serving a sentence for a hate mail crime It serves as a short history and guide to the case to give you your bearings Several RFCs These RFCs are from the archive provided at the Internet Encyclopedia http freesoft org CIE RFC index htm We include them here so students can see the social and ethical issues that are intertwined in the design of a technical system From our perspective today we can see the privacy issues that are looming with the finger program But it was much harder to foresee them then RFC 742 Early description of Finger 1977 This early description of the finger protocol is designed to allow finger to be done across a network There are no references to social or ethical issues that this might produce and that would call for later changes in the protocol RFC 821 Description of SMTP 1982 This early description of SMTP is focussed entirely on issues of efficiency and reliability in the design of the protocol Later additions to SMTP add other concerns like security and privacy The additions can be found in later RFCs at the site mentioned above RFC 1288 A later description of Finger 1991 This recent version of a finger implementation shows careful concern for privacy issues Background on Email This is a short discussion of some psychological and social issues that may make flaming easier to do in email than in face to face It also includes some practical guidelines for those using electronic mail Interview with Allen Schiano Allen Schiano

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

  • Hughes Case History
    some hybrids A hybrid is not allowed to be resealed unless it has gone through a complicated and lengthy process and a decap sticker had been placed on it Reddick complained to Goodearl who complained to upper management and she was again threatened with loss of her job The Rachael Janesch Incident In the same month October 1986 LaRue asked Rachel Janesch another tester in the environmental area to sign off a leaker as passing the leak test Goodearl became involved in the reporting of this incident and the parts were re tested The PLRS Incident Goodearl and Ibarra found a tote box of PLRS Position Locating Reporting System hybrids PLRS most likely involved some sort of radar function There was some blank paperwork on the lot travelers accompanying the PLRS parts meaning that tests had not been run on them before they were passed on After she reported this incident Goodearl was told that she was not a part of the team anymore that LaRue did not trust her and that her relationship with LaRue was like a divorce in that she was the one that was going to have to go Goodearl attempted to file harassment charges in Personnel following the incident Goodearl was summoned into the office of a middle manager who had been given the harassment documentation by Personnel He tore up the harassment charge in front of her flung his glasses at her and told her that he was going to fire her if she ever went above him to complain again After this incident LaRue was removed from his job and taken out of E 1000 in order to avoid further conflict But his work still involved supervision of testing chips The AMRAAM Incident Two hybrids destined for an air to air missile failed the leak test LaRue placed these chips on his desk with the intention to pass them on without the test during the evening when Goodearl was not there By this time Goodearl and Ibarra were already talking with members of the Office of the Inspector General and were looking for evidence to prove that Hughes Aircraft was intentionally skipping tests Goodearl and Ibarra photocopied the documentation from the chips showing that they had failed the leak test They then replaced the chips and their documentation on the desk where LaRue has left them A few days later they were shipped to a subsidiary of Hughes They were intercepted by the Department of Defense The two parts were subsequently tested are were revealed to be leakers The decision to blow the whistle After Goodearl began to report the incident internally to upper management Goodearl s performance reviews took a sharp drop Her earlier reviews had been excellent and she had been promoted to her current position because of them The feedback she was getting from upper management was clear she had to shut up and get with the team or lose her job Just before the AMRAAM incident Goodearl and Ibarra

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

  • The Socio_Technical System in the Hughes Case
    tanks would be subject to extreme variations in temperature shock and other hazards This is why testing the chips in their sealed containers was so important and why skipping those tests or shipping chips that had failed tests was such a serious fraud Software The chips themselves embodied software routines but the design of the software is not the center of this case Instead the case is about the organizational procedures that allowed or encouraged the fraud and that resulted in the whistleblowing Physical Surroundings The major physical surroundings for this case involve E 1000 at Hughes Microelectronics in Newport Beach CA E 1000 was a very large clean room containing all the testing equipment environmental testers quality assurance and engineers responsible for testing thousands of hybrids every month It was an open factory floor style organization and was designed this way to allow the supervisors to better view all the operations going on This physical organization enhanced the power of the supervisors since the operators were always on display The section on life on the testing line explains more about the social dynamics of the testing floor People The various players in this case from Goodearl and Ibarra to upper management at Hughes to the Defense Department help us understand the complexity of the case It is easy to simply look for bad guys and good guys in this case but a closer look not only makes the picture more complicated but helps us think about how to change the socio technical system in ways that will make fraud less likely and whistleblowing less catastrophic Procedures It is clear that the procedures for testing the chips and for dealing with complaints were the major thing at fault in this case It was easy for LaRue and Saia to manipulate

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

  • Hughes Ethical Analysis
    we will need to look to the group and national level issues involved The ImpactCS approach to ethical analysis was devised by a panel of ethicists computer scientists and social scientists The point is that any particular computing system can be analyzed from both the perspective of social analysis and of particular ethical issues The grid you see below was designed by the panel to serve as an analytic tool in thinking about any system The idea is that each of the ethical issues can be analyzed at each of the levels of social analysis If you click on the colored cells in the framework you will be linked to a discussion of that ethical issue in the Hughes case This case is primarily about the extreme case in ethical dissent whistleblowing There is no column among the ethical issues for whistleblowing but the ImpactCS approach allows us to see the complex issues of whistleblowing based on its component parts It frames the ethical issues associated with whistleblowing as a complex mix of different ethical issues at several different levels of social analysis Specifically whistleblowing is about the use of power in service of some ethical or unethical end Goodearl

    Original URL path: http://computingcases.org/case_materials/hughes/analysis/ethical/hughes_ethical_grid.html (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive



  •