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 cyber ethics and the ways that fundamental ethical theories relate to these core issues.

Course Materials

Reflective writing assignment

            While progressing through this course there was a lot of new information that had opened my eyes for the future as well as how my opinion has changed through my college career, and life experiences themselves. Starting with the first case analysis on privacy while reading “The Googlization of Everything” I kept thinking back to when I was younger, I would travel the world looking at different countries sightseeing. Now that I am older looking at Google Street View it is an invasion of privacy. Google has implemented software that will blur up to ninety-nine-point nine percent of people and their clothing, but if the software misses them, you can call in to Google and they will manually blur you out. For this case analysis I argued that Confucianism shows that Google did the right thing by consistently making sure they did not break privacy laws by redriving through Japan, and blurring everything you would like if you called and ask. The takeaway from case analysis one was how important your privacy is because not everyone on the internet is doing the right thing and you must always protect yourself when it comes to the internet.

            The second topic that stood out to me was in the fourth case analysis which was on professional ethics and reading “The Code I’m Still Ashamed Of” I argued how the ethical tool care shows how the code affected Bill Sourour while some would say it’s a simple quiz, he did nothing wrong. Bill did not take it that way and felt terrible after hearing that the drugs side effects were causing depression in young girls, and one girl sadly committing suicide. Ultimately Bill left his career because he did not agree with what he had done. I applauded Bill for sticking to his moral compass and not letting his career make him do what he felt was wrong ever again. This action took a lot of courage to leave a promising career to try to make a difference in the world. For this section the takeaway is how you should always stick to your morals and fight for the right thing no matter how hard it is.

            For the third topic that stood out to me was module six cyberconflict. In this module I read two articles one titled “The cyberwar between Israel and Iran is heating up” and “Iran says sweeping cyberattack took down gas stations across country”. I argued that the deontological tool for moral reasoning shows that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not ethical because it is mainly only affecting the civilians. Such as the gas pumps, and the hospital attack causing civilians to not be able to get gas, as well as doctors to work manually without looking up the charts online. The takeaway from this section was for the future of cyber warfare there needs to be some rules of engagement in place on both sides of the fight to not attack civilians even though there is always the case of collateral damage in warfare.

Case Analysis on Cyber Conflict

After reading the articles “The cyberwar between Israel and Iran is heating up”, and “Iran says sweeping cyberattack took down gas stations across country” talks about the cyber warfare between Iran and Israel. Cyberwarfare will undoubtably become the future of warfare as it shows in both articles of how Israel and Iran keep attacking each other and going larger than the previous attack. Starting with “computer facilities at Iran’s largest port, Bandar Abbas, were subjected to an Israeli cyberattack. Three months ago, unknown attackers targeted the Iranian Railways computer system in a way similar to the attack on the petrol network last week, causing thousands of trains to be cancelled.” (Amer, A. A. 2021). Then stepping up to “Iranians attacked the systems at six water and sanitation facilities in Israel. The occupation state determined immediately where the damage was and repaired it.” (Amer, A. A. 2021). Continuing to Iran getting attacked causing the gas pumps to not work “a sweeping cyberattack had disrupted gas stations across the country, which disabled government-issued cards that many rely on to buy subsidized fuel.” (Silva, C. D., & Collier, K. 2021). In this Case Analysis I will argue that the deontological tool for moral reasoning will show us that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not just because cyberwarfare can affect all the civilians in the country that is targeted.

            Reading through “Can there be a Just Cyber War?” by Michael Boylan I really enjoyed this paper because Michael put it into perspective as well as raises questions between the difference of cyber sabotage and cyber warfare. By saying “The difference between sabotage and cyber warfare is a matter of degree. When you shut down a particular company for a short period of time or steal some corporate secrets or social security numbers, then we are talking about a criminal action of a minor nature. If a foreign country disabled the U.S. Navy’s Seventh Fleet in such a way that it was put out of commission for an extended period of time while some other nefarious events took place that were in the jurisdiction of the Seventh Fleet, then the cyber-attack would constitute an act of war.” (Boylan, M. 2013). Which raises the question in typical warfare if a soldier goes against the rules of engagement and acts on his or her own free will, they will face severe consequences as well as time in prison depending on the verdict of a trial. Which raises the question what happens if someone that works in a country’s government commits a cyber-attack? Such as “The Iran response was to target the systems at Hillel Yaffe Hospital in Hadera. This was a more serious attack than those earlier. It forced the hospital staff to work manually, which could have jeopardized Israeli lives.” (Amer, A. A. 2021). If patients had passed away because the staff of the hospital had to work manually this could start a war between the two countries. For another example, when “Iranians attacked the systems at six water and sanitation facilities in Israel. The occupation state determined immediately where the damage was and repaired it.” (Amer, A. A. 2021). If Israel did not catch that this attack happened, and it had contaminated the water supply of Israel killing civilians this would also raise the question who would be responsible for the attack the country or the government affiliate who released the attack? There are also cases when cyber warfare is beneficial for the country such as “In September 2007 the Israelis launched a cyber-attack against the radar and antiaircraft devices in Syria. This maneuver aided the Israelis to successfully bomb a nuclear facility that also might have been on the verge of creating nuclear weapons.” (Boylan, M. 2013). In this case “Syria felt the cost of going to war with Israel to be excessive, there was no retaliation.” (Boylan, M. 2013). When it comes to cyberwarfare, it will aid in the future of warfare being able to bring a country to its knees, starting ciaos with the countries civilians making it easier for the ground troops to invade. For a deontological standpoint I understand why we all retaliate with war because a country done wrong to another country but when you bring cyber warfare the citizens of the country being attacked could potentially get harmed more than the country itself.

            After reading through Mariarosaria Taddeo’s work titled “An analysis for a just cyber warfare” She brought up a great point about “The military deployment of Information and communication technologies has radically changed the way wars are waged nowadays. It was actually determined the latest revolution in military affairs, making the cyber space the fifth domain of war waging, along with land, sea, air, and space.” (Taddeo, M. 2012). Which backs up my point earlier that cyber warfare is the future of warfare and will always now go hand and hand with typical warfare. When you are just talking about cyber warfare it sounds like it’s the way to go because “At first glance, cyber warfare seems to avoid bloodshed and human commitment and therefore it liberates political authorities of the burden of justifying military actions to the public opinion. A more attentive analysis unveils that cyber warfare should be feared as much as traditional warfare as it can lead to highly violent and destructive consequences” (Taddeo, M. 2012). Another positive point to cyber warfare is you don’t have to put boots on the ground all the time and you could potentially do reconnaissance for when you do plan on putting boots on the ground. With that being said you can see how a cyber-attack can turn the country upside down just like in Iran when “videos posted on social media claimed to show electronic street signs hacked to read: “Khamenei, where is our gasoline?” appearing to address Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.” (Silva, C. D., & Collier, K. 2021). Then whoever released the sweeping attack made things worse for Iran’s president when “Motorists looking to buy subsidized fuel using government-issued electronic cards were instead met with cryptic messages on gas machines that read: “Cyberattack 64411,” the semiofficial news agency ISNA reported on Tuesday. The digits, 64411, also appear to be the number for a phone line connected to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s office.” (Silva, C. D., & Collier, K. 2021). Before the fuel station sweeping cyber attack Iran attacked Israel by “becoming more sophisticated, like the attack on the electricity network and internet servers, which caused serious damage to the banking sector. Things would be more serious if Israelis have to buy emergency generators or make backup copies of their computer files for fear of being hacked by Iran.” (Amer, A. A. 2021). For a deontological standpoint on the back-and-forth attacks between Israel and Iran it is wrong to keep stepping it up to only hurt the civilians instead of the members of government like they want to do. Because when you attack for example the gas pumps, hospitals, and electrical grids you are mainly hurting the public the civilians are the only ones mainly feeling it while the leaders they are trying to go after just get phone calls and task the work out to get the systems back up and running. I do believe there is a time and a place for when cyber warfare can be beneficial such as the Stuxnet worm, but not if it is only going to hurt the innocent civilians.

            Finally, after pulling from the two articles titled “The cyberwar between Israel and Iran is heating up, and Iran says sweeping attack took down gas stations across country”. You can see how cyber-attacks can affect a country personally I believe just as Michael Boylan does when he stated, “Regarding cyber, warfare new rules must be drawn up.” (Boylan, M. 2013). Because what is stopping another country from shutting down a whole electrical grid affecting the civilians in the areas by not letting them get medical care in hospitals, food from grocery stores, money from banks, and gasoline for their vehicles. There needs to be a cyber warfare rules of engagement established to put restrictions in place to protect innocent civilians which is what Israel was worried about the escalating cyber attacks would result in if they continued. Unfortunately, in traditional warfare there is the chance of collateral damage but in cyberwarfare it seems like collateral damage could be more prominent in the future if things continue even though the loss of life is a lot less in cyber warfare who is to say that will always be the case.

References

Amer, A. A. (2021, November 8). The cyberwar between Israel and Iran is heating up. Middle East Monitor. https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20211108-the-cyberwar-between-israel-and-iran-is-heating-up/

Boylan, M. (2013, September). Can there be a just cyber war? https://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/54138/1/JAEP5_2_Boylan.pdf

Silva, C. D., & Collier, K. (2021, October 27). Iran says sweeping cyberattack took down gas stations across country. NBCNews.com. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/cyberattack-blamed-iran-gas-stations-hit-major-disruptions-rcna3806

Taddeo, M. (2012, January). (PDF) an analysis for a just cyber warfare. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261488493_An_analysis_for_a_just_cyber_warfare  

Case Analysis on Privacy

After reading The Googlization of Everything, I thought back to when Google Street View came out. I would go on there and look around my hometown to see if I could see me in any of the photos taken, but unfortunately, I did not. After failing to see me I moved to see historic landmarks in Rome and England such as the Colosseum and Buckingham Palace after learning about them in school. Knowing I would probably never get to see any of them in person this would be my way of seeing them at the street level to appreciate the size and beauty of the famous buildings throughout history. When Google Street View came out, I was too young to understand why others were getting upset about the invasion of privacy of their homes, license plates as well as themselves being put on the internet I see why now how they could be upset. Because not everyone would use Street View like I did when I was younger and could possibly be using this program for crime. For a Confucianism standpoint I feel like Google did their best to implement the software to blur out ninety-nine-point nine percent of faces and license plates even though if it misses it, you can contact them to delete or blur you out more per request. Even so in Japan Google redone the Street View with a lower camera to avoid looking over hedges and fences.

            While reading about Professor Luciano Floridi’s central concepts I chose to talk about Ontological Friction. Professor Luciano states “One important site of re-ontologization is regarding friction in the flow of information, or ontological friction. Floridi claims that the infosphere is becoming more frictionless; that is, information flows easier, but this ease is not distributed evenly. This has numerous implications. On a personal level, we find claims of ignorance less convincing, and a barrage of information can lead to hasty conclusions and even anxiety. On a systemic level, we see the rise of micro metering, new depths to the digital divide and changing notions of privacy” (Gorichanaz, T. 2019). I felt like this central concept fit with the article The Googlization of Everything for the fact of people from all over the world being upset, jumping to conclusions leading to an increase in anxiety. I can understand the growing case of panic and anxiety because we as people all get overwhelmed thinking what can happen or expect the worst with something new, we see this year after year. Based on with the Google Street View where anyone at anytime can go online and see your house as well as what you have outside while considering to potentially rob you. Then after time passed and nothing bad happened regarding Google Street View the world moved on to being uncomfortable with other events surfacing. This could be paired with the ethical tool of care because Google sent their drivers out to redrive Japan with lower cameras to respect privacy after multiple complaints of being able to see over hedges and fences. Also utilizing the ethical tool of care when it came to privacy Google considered the levels of privacy, they needed to install software for face blurring as well as whole body blurring to make you as unrecognizable as possible. Even if you were recognizable or the software missed blurring you or for example a license plate, they will blur it for you after you call in and make a complaint. I understand they must do these thongs especially because you did not consent to the photo of you walking down the street. With that being said I can still see the aspect of care when they made the software to cover up ninety-nine-point nine percent of people unfortunately it is not one hundred percent which means we must look for ourselves to make sure. Another point utilizing the ethical tool of care I did like how the governments stood up for its own citizens to Google. Such as Canada wanted them to blur out entire bodies including dogs to avoid tarnishing reputations incase a store was doing something illegal, and your employer seen you just happening to walk by they could suspect you of joining in on the activities when all you were doing was just walking by. I feel like all the statements I mentioned fit well with Professor Flordi’s central concept of Ontological Friction and the ethical tool of care.

            After reading through The Privacy Virus by James Grimmelman when he talks about contextual privacy “the idea that came from Helen Nissenbaum who called it contextual integrity” (Grimmelman, J. 2010). I like how he states it a more blunt way “If you say you care about privacy but don’t, then you’re a hypocrite. If you don’t reconcile your desire for privacy with the facts of Facebook, then you’re stupid. If you haven’t yet had a bad experience on Facebook, then you’re young, lucky, and foolish.” (Grimmelman, J. 2010). Because it is true and sometimes, we need to hear things such as this to open our eyes to the ever so changing world around us especially with all the different forms of social media our information is all over the internet if we know it or not. I also liked how he was saying if you haven’t had a bad experience your just young that could not be more true for the fact it seems like every year one of my Facebook friends gets hacked having to make a new page for themselves. For a Confucianism standpoint I personally feel that James Grimmelman does a good job in this case because he is honestly warning us how important our privacy is especially online. This also relates to the article The Googlization of Everything when the German citizens of Kiel put signs stating not to photograph the house or property because they did not want anyone to be able to see it at the street level online. Which is their rite because it is their own property, they should be able to exercise that rite whenever they see fit. I feel like with this article it is all a matter of your personal background and where you are from as well as age will depend on your own level of privacy. Another statement that stood out to me in The Privacy Virus is “Drawing this bright line between “private” and “public” means that privacy is a close relative of secrecy. Private information is secret information: just you and a few close friends and family. If someone tries to make it public without your consent—the paparazzi, a blackmailer, a creepy neighbor who steals your diaries—the legal system will step in and protect your desire for privacy. But once you voluntarily choose to give up secrecy, by going out in public or publishing your writings, the cat is out of the bag and the legal system won’t help you put it back in. The choice is yours: you can keep your secrecy or give it up. But you have to choose one or the other, no waffling.” (Grimmelman, J. 2010). This stood out to me because it’s a true statement especially on the internet because once it is on the internet it never goes away even if they blur it out or delete it someone out there could have taken a screenshot, and you can never get it back. This is why privacy is so important in this case and many other whether it is private or public.

            Personally, I understand why people were getting upset with Google Street View because they want to have a level of privacy in their community and their property. When I was younger, I did not see the big deal I wanted to see myself in my hometown and see beautiful sights from the street level in other countries not taking the account of others privacy. Now that I am an adult with some life lessons under my belt, I can see why people did not want to see them in their front yard because not all used Google Street View for the same reasons I did growing up. With that being said I do commend Google for doing everything they can to ensure privacy even if they miss something you can call, and they will smudge or delete that part of the photo for you. If we should take from this passage and the work of James Grimmelman, and Professor Luciano Floridi. It is important to remember to not be afraid to stand up for your rite of privacy and you cannot expect anyone to do it for you because if and when it gets out of your hand on the internet you can never get it back.

References

Gorichanaz, T. (2019, June 28). Basic concepts from Floridi’s philosophy of information. ScratchTap. https://scratchtap.com/basic-concepts-from-floridis-philosophy-of-information/

Grimmelman , J. (2010, April 8). The privacy virus – james.grimmelmann.net. The Privacy Virus. https://james.grimmelmann.net/files/articles/privacy-virus.pdf