Ahmed Kargbo

Cyber Ethics

Dr. Linford

Zero Days (Case Study #4)

Upon watching and analyzing the Zero Days documentary, I’ve decided to apply the Normative Ethical Theory of Utilitarianism to an ethical challenge faced by Journalist David Sanger. Sanger was introduced to the story as an experienced journalist who specialized in reporting news from a specific region and reports on particular topics such as cyber, nuclear weapons and espionage, he was known for breaking the news about the U.S and Israel cyber ops against Iran. With Sanger being a National Security senior correspondent journalist for the New York Times, he was no stranger to breaking big news and this was the case for the Stuxnet attack. Sanger is faced with the dilemma of maximum secrecy; he faces a challenge of how much information he can reveal to be able to uphold democratic accountability and whilst keeping national security intact. I argue that according to the theory of Utilitarianism, Sanger must reveal as much information as he can and act in a way that focuses on bringing utility, which in this case is protecting democracy and penetrating maximum secrecy whilst maintaining stability. I will further explain the key ideas of Utilitarianism, then I will further describe Sanger’s dilemma and lastly show how the theory of Utilitarianism can solve this issue. 

Utilitarianism, which is a specific version of Consequentialism, is a theory that states that out of all the actions you could perform, the action you ought to perform is the one that brings the most utility. By the definition of Utilitarians, the main concept of Utilitarianism is simply just bringing about ‘utility’. Although Utilitarianism can be defined as  pleasure instead of happiness and pain instead of unhappiness it all focuses on the concept of utility. According to Utilitarians, the word ‘utility’ is simply just a fancy word for happiness and pleasure. Utilitarianism can be used as a mathematical way of thinking about morality because you can view the concept of utility as a number and that number is how much an individual is willing to pay or give up for a specific outcome or sometimes to avoid a specific outcome and avoid disutility. The way Utilitarians decide whether an action is morally correct or incorrect is by determining if the action is desirable and helpful for a greater means. For example, performing an action like watching your favorite childhood movie is an intrinsic desire because it brings you comfort and makes you happy and as humans we know happiness is a virtue. On the other hand we all try to avoid our childhood traumas simply because they cause discomfort and are undesirable. In terms, whatever is intrinsically desirable is good and whatever is intrinsically undesirable is evil. 

Sanger is a well known journalist who specializes in cyber, nuclear weapons, and espionage reporting. Sanger has been at the helm of breaking news that penetrates and attacks maximum secrecy. Sanger’s philosophy is that in order for a democracy to be fully functional, it must also be transparent. According to Sanger, he believes that the principle of maximum secrecy is what weakens democratic accountability. In the Zero Days documentary, Sanger exposes the government for hiding information about military and cyber operations and condemns this habit because it does not allow for citizens to be able make informed decisions about how the actions of their nation or whether or not the nation’s actions are fully legal. Sanger does emphasize that he does not believe everything should be public but that secrecy should only be kept to an extreme in a way where citizens are informed and are still involved. Upon holding up his beliefs about a functional democracy, Sanger must still report carefully because of his involvement with National Security in the U.S and faces a challenge of trying to find a balance. Sanger must find a balance between National Security and his duty to inform the public because if he oversteps his balance he could compromise ongoing intelligence missions, weaken alliances, undermine public trust, and also place his sources in danger. 

By rule of Utilitarianism, Sanger  must act in a way that is intrinsically desirable and brings utility. In Sanger’s case his intrinsic desire is simply about creating a balance and making information fair and attainable for the public in order to run a functional  democracy. Looking at the mathematical scale of Utilitarianism it is all about how much Sanger is willing to give up in order to receive a specific outcome and also in this case of trying to find balance, avoid a specific outcome. If Sanger fails to give up much from either side and fails to find a balance or to find what is intrinsically desirable, then he is considered evil by the standards of Utilitarian principles. The principle of Utilitarianism applies to Sanger’s situation because Utilitarians would weigh the harms and benefits of both scenarios in which Sanger would overstep his balance and then come to a decision.  

To resolve his dilemma, Sanger must act in a way that brings about the most utility, which is to report to the public but do so in a way that does not cause instantaneous harm. By weighing the amount of harm and benefit each decision could bring, Sanger ought to make the choice that would bring about the most utility, which is to find a balance. In this case bringing about utility and finding a balance is the right decision because Sanger avoids the risk of imminent danger such as, compromising ongoing intelligence missions, weakening alliances, undermining public trust, and also placing his sources in danger. Although Sanger faced government and political pressure to not report at all, he went ahead and reported on the origins of Stuxnet while maintaining his ethical and professional guidelines. Sanger informed the public as he felt they had a right to know about the government’s actions in cyberwarfare but he also valued security and stability so he withheld the technical details of Stuxnet and also did not compromise any other ongoing cyber operations. 

In sum, the dilemma of finding balance David Sanger faced in the Zero Days documentary can be resolved by principles of Utilitarianism. I really like factoring Utilitarianism into this dilemma because the principle of Utilitarianism judges an action as morally right if it brings about utility and eliminates disutility which in this case is the harm of undermining public trust or compromising ongoing intelligence missions etc. Although Sanger himself did face some scrutiny from the government it shows that Utilitarianism is a thoughtful principle which means, whatever is intrinsically desirable is good.