Cybersecurity Ethics

This course examines ethical issues relevant to ethics for cybersecurity professionals, including privacy, professional code of conduct, practical conflicts between engineering ethics and business practices, individual and corporate social responsibility, ethical hacking, information warfare, and cyberwarfare. Students will gain a broad understanding of central issues in cyberethics and the ways that fundamental ethical theories relate to these core issues.

Course Material

In reflection of Cybersecurity Ethics, we were exposed to multiple philosophical ideologies. We were given provided with the opportunity to choose at least four Ethical ideals out of 7. With the examination of at least we were then tasked to use the examinations as ethical tools that we could then use to critically analyze various white papers, books, and articles that were survey compositions of topics of concern the current landscape of Cybersecurity is being tackled with.  The three of my ethical tools were Deontology, Ubuntu, and Care ethics. I would use these tools to analyze various aspects of Cyberconflict, Information Warfare(IW), and Corporate Social Responsibility(CSR) respectively.  The three specific ethical tools along with their usage in examining the Cyberconflict, IW, and CSR have showed me a side of Cybersecurity issues that I knew existed but hadn’t really encountered them in a way that was articulated.

From the usage of Deontology in analysis of Cyberconflict I argued that sovereign states like the United States have a duty to hold themselves to a higher standard. A standard in which even if they could be negatively impacted, they should not perform unethical duties for a so-called “greater-good”. As a world leader the United States is looked up in regard to their ethical standard and the use of Cyberwarfare tactics like the ones used in Stuxnet and towards North Korea’s missiles tough performed to protect the United States and its citizens is still wrong. The United States has the moral and ethical responsibility to find an alternate ethical means to prevent conflict that would negatively impact North Korea and the American people. In the end of my Analysis I state: “They have a responsibility to find another wayto approach the North Korean conflict, for the American people, for North Korea, and for the World because everyone is watching.”(Burnett, 2019)

In my analysis of IW via the usage of Ubuntu Ethics, I argue that Facebook had a responsibility to show care for the community of users that used its platform. This responsibility stems from the fact that Facebook shares an interdependence with its customers, and it failed them when it was breached by Cambridge Analytica and by allowing the tactics of Russians to influence the 2016 Presidential Election. As a result, Facebook is partly responsible because it failed to responsibly and ethically care for its community using the spirit of Ubuntu.

For CSR, in use of the Care Ethics ETool I asserted that corporate entities like Equifax have a corporate social responsibility which can be argued to have heavy ties with care ethics. From my first analysis conclusion statement of Milton Friedman’s book I state that everyone in a corporation to include the most senior, and the least senior person have a responsibility in their role to better the business more so for all that are impacted by the business. When everyone works in such a way it “fosters a breeding ground for flourishing relationships for everyone and this is the heart of Care Ethics”(Burnett, 2019).

These three specific cases and the tools I used to examine them with  were especially helpful in showing me  that the issues with cyberspace is more of an issue with the bigger entities not only the technology. The brightest minds are being cultivated to tackle insecure code, vulnerabilities, and exploits so it’s not that we don’t have the population needed to tackle cybersecurity issues. Really It’s more of an issue with big entities with huge influence like that of big companies and sovereign states that are taking advantage of the fact that there exist loopholes in regulation and policy to perform “defense forward” cyberwarfare tactics or be paid millions to access social media profiles for the use to influence democracy. These so-called big entities are not acting ethically in via the lens of various ethical tools I examined in this course. It seems they are doing just enough to abide by most laws and regulations but at the end of the day they are really navigating means to their ends via personal motivations. The greater populace and public are not considered otherwise. This social responsibility is not only for them it is also for Cyber professional like  myself to be aware and operate my duties with this awareness as it is my responsibility to do so. This course has enlightened my passions for cyber with a socially responsible mindset and I hope to carry and continue to grow in this focus as I continue in my career.

Burnett, J. (2019, October 8).

Link to full ePortfolio:

https://sites.google.com/odu.edu/judibemploymentwebpage/home