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

Reflective Writing Assignment

Many topics, perspectives, and positions were discussed and thought in this course. Virtue ethics was an interesting perspective since it sees morality as part of one’s character, not considering effects, intentions, social systems, shared humanity, or relationships. It says that morality comes from carrying out the right actions during the right times for the right reasons in a virtuous way. Characteristics of a virtuous person include responding the right way to situations, like having self-control, patience, etc. Having the character trait of being virtuous comes from building habits revolved around it. These are values that I have for myself, so I learned that this type of perspective to live by is called virtue ethics. Having self-control and patience is very important to me and I think these two attributes are some of the hardest ones to have. My position on this type of ethics has deepened as I have learned the entire thought process from this perspective. My takeaway would be to continue working on my patience with others, but also with myself. I cut myself no slack and hold myself to high standards and then get frustrated when I cannot complete 3 assignments, work out for 2 hours, go to work for 9 hours, clean up my apartment, and go check on my grandma all in one day. I would like to be a virtuous person, so working on my patience is a major takeaway for me.

Deontology was another perspective I was engaged with. It says that if a person does good things, but is motivated by bad reasons, then they are doing those things immorally. For example, if you choose not to steal a nice watch only because you are scared you might get caught and sent to jail, then your actions are immoral even though you chose not to steal the watch. Kant’s moral reasoning would say that the person should not have stolen the watch because it is wrong to steal from others, not because there are heavy consequences if caught. In other words, you should be moral all the time with everybody, no exceptions. I had no previous knowledge of this type of ethics, but now have a deeper understanding of it. This is a perspective that I do agree with and would like to integrate into my life. I do believe that people should do the right thing solely because they want to do the right thing. I think a good example of this is something we see now that we are in the digital age: you see people on social media handing out money to the homeless, but they record it for the recognition of doing a good deed. I always thought this was pointless because you should do a good deed whether someone is looking or not. My takeaway from this perspective is to also integrate this type of mindset in my everyday life. I want to do the right things no matter who is looking.

Confucianism is another perspective I engaged with, and it is based on the best way of living life and not so much on the choices we make as individuals. The focus of this moral tool is the path we walk and staying on that path.For example, roles play a part in this moral tool, you can be somebody’s daughter, wife, sister, friend, mentor, boss, etc. Playing your role is part of staying on your path. According to Confucianism it is important to have the right and appropriate relationships within your roles. If one of your roles in life is being a teacher, then that position teaches you how to treat kids whether they are your students or not, you have a sense of dealing and talking a certain way to children now. Staying on the right path will require a person to analyze the situation and the people/roles involved in it. This was another ethics that I had no idea about, but gained a deeper understanding of it once I took this course. I think understanding your role in life and figuring out the best way to live is something everyone goes through. My takeaway from this would be trying to stay on my right path. Temptations and desires sometimes pull us away from what we are supposed to be doing. Nights where I should be doing homework should be prioritized over hanging out with friends. Overall, this course has taught me so much about morality ethics and ethics within cybersecurity.

Case Analysis 5

The YouTube video titled “Collateral Murder” shows the visual and audio recordings of a U.S. Army Apache helicopter firing down upon Iraqis.  The video shows the air crew thinking they have encountered an armed fight within Baghdad, and after the air crew launched their air strike on the civilians, they can be heard laughing about the killings they have caused. The air crew killed a total of twelve people, and all were civilians that were women, children, and men. The air crew thought they saw these men armed with guns and an RPG, but some were only holding phones, cameras, or were inside their house/ children playing outside. The audio that is from the video shows the air crew saying disturbing things like “oh yeah, look at those dead bastards” and after accidently hurting two children while they were firing another said, “well it’s their fault for bringing kids into a battle”. Manning from Wikileaks released and published this video to the public. After the U.S. military tried to cover this story by saying everyone that was shot was armed and insurgents and that the air crew reacted to an active firefight, but Manning released this video that proves the military’s claims false. This leaking of the video recording made the Pentagon start to report Wikileaks as a whistleblower website. In this case analysis I will argue that the virtue ethical tool shows us that Manning did not act out of loyalty to the United States, and that her actions were a moral case of whistleblowing.

Vandekerckhove wrote “Whistle Blowing and Rational Loyalty” with one of the main concepts being about problems with loyalty and whistle blowing. He summarized Duska’s (1977) argument, “most business ethicists claim that employees have some obligation to the company or employer, which is usually characterized as an obligation to loyalty. Whistle blowing violates that obligation.” In other words, Duska is saying that whistle blowing is an obligation a person has to the public and to society to prevent harm. However, while he is saying that there are times whistle blowing is morally required, it still violates that obligation to loyalty. In this case of the U.S. army air crew’s actions, Duska and Vandekerckhove would say that it was morally required to whistle blow. Manning leaked this video to the public to show them what harm was being caused by our military. Duska and Vandekerckhove would also argue that this violated the obligation to loyalty of our government and military but was morally required for Manning to whistle blow. This video of the air crew showed a genuine lack of concern or respect for the lives of others. No children or women were spared in this airstrike. Gruesome action was taken against these civilians, and even when one of them was being helped by others to get to safety, the man that was shot and the car full of children and people were shot at and killed/harmed. The audio from the video shows the air crew making horrifying remarks about the lives they just took. Virtue ethics sees morality as part of one’s character, not considering effects, intentions, social systems, shared humanity, or relationships. It says that morality comes from carrying out the right actions during the right times for the right reasons in a virtuous way. Characteristics of a virtuous person include responding the right way to situations, like having self-control, patience, etc. Being virtuous in the right ways can still break rules at times. Having the character trait of being virtuous comes from building habits revolved around it. Role models help others by showing them virtuous tendencies. Your actions form habits, and those habits make you a certain type of person, whether that be virtuous or whatever trait a person thinks are right. The virtual ethical tool would say this air crew acted immorally and not in virtuous ways. While it is their job to take out bad guys, they should have had the self-control and the emotional intelligence to make sure every single person they were going to kill had the intentions to kill them and were armed. The air crew did not react to the situation correctly, and instead took numerous innocent lives while making fun of the situation they had just caused. The military should have trained these men to not use excessive force, gruesome killings, and insensitive remarks about others lives. Creating virtuous habits will in turn create a virtuous person. The virtuous tool would also argue that Manning acted morally in the way of leaking the video to the public to see what one crew of our military was doing to civilians in Baghdad.

Oxley and Wittkower wrote “Care and Loyalty in the Workplace” and one of the main ideas from their article is the concepts behind loyalty. The authors wrote, “For example, we usually think that a loyal friend will help a friend who is struggling, for example, with alcoholism, even if such loyalty requires taking that person to a rehabilitation center against her stated wishes. Similarly, loyalty in business may include performing actions that are difficult and go beyond or even against stated job requirements and the traditional law of agency.” (Oxley and Wittkower, 2011). The authors are arguing that loyalty is not just adhering to the wishes and wants of a person or business, but also doing what is in their best interest even if they do not wish for it. Some situations call for a loyal friend or employee to step in and do the right thing even when it goes against what the person or business wants and stands for. In this case analysis, Oxley and Wittkower would say that Bradley Manning was being loyal to the U.S. military and government by leaking the video and other documents and giving them to Wikileaks to show the public. They would say he was being loyal because our military does not believe in acting this way, nor do they train soldiers to commit war crimes like the one in the video. It is in the best interest for the military and the government to know they are not above the law and that they will be held accountable just like every other citizen in our country. While it does make the government and military look bad, it is a real wake up call for them to know that just one crew of bad men can make the entire organization look bad to the public and forces them to hold these men accountable for the uncalled-for killings. The virtue ethical tool argues that each individual person should be virtuous, have courage, self-control, and respect. It argues that each person should make the right decisions, not focusing on society, relationships, or any other person, but that making the right decisions is for you as the individual. This ethical tool would argue that these men did not act in virtuous ways. They thought they were being targeted by a group of Iranians below, but instead of being one hundred percent sure they were armed, they made a rash decision that they might be armed and took action before assessing the consequences. They had no right to take an innocent life. They had no right to make fun of killing innocent people. The virtue ethic morality tool would also argue that Manning was right to show the public what the government and military were trying to hide. Manning showed the government and military that they are not above the law, and by conclusion of the public, that air crew’s actions were wrong and immoral. He showed how that air crew lacked self-control and discipline when it came to doing their job correctly and morally.

Manning was not loyal to the government or the military in the way of exposing what that U.S. army air crew in the Apache helicopter did that day. Vandekerckhove would argue that he was not loyal but Oxley and Wittkower would argue that he was loyal by going against them since it was in the best interest for the public to see that video. Manning was ethical by exposing the government and military for trying to hide this incident and by bringing light to the people that committed these war crimes. Some would argue that it is not moral to leak something that was supposed to be private and secret because it shows how even the Pentagon can be a victim of hacking. Some would argue that it was immoral to leak this video because some people might believe all our military is like this. I would say that it is obvious our entire military would not and is not taught to act the way those men did in that video. I would also say it was a virtuous thing to do because no one person should be above the law regardless of the station or job they have in life.

Case Study 6

The articles “The cyberwar between Israel and Iran is heating up” and “Iran says sweeping cyberattack took down gas stations across country” discuss the cyberwar between Israel and Iran. Iranians discovered a major issue when they went to fill their fuel tanks and realized a major glitch had occurred all over the country. The message that popped up on the gas machines said “cyberattack 64411” with that number being the phone line to Supreme Leader Ayatollah’s office.  Although no one has taken responsibility for this cyberattack, the only countries that seem to benefit from cyberattacks against Israel and Iran is each other. Cyberattacks have been going on for years between the two countries and do not seem to be stopping anytime soon. No war is a just war, whether it is between Israel and Iran or any other country, especially when civilians are facing the consequences of it too. In this case analysis I will argue that the virtue ethics tool shows us that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not just because of the damage and conflict it causes not just the targets but the innocent civilians as well when it comes to cyberwarfare like shutting off gas and fuel in Iran or hacking into Israel’s hospitals to leak user data.

Boylan explains an important concept of the just war theory and the difference between sabotage and cyber warfare. Traditional warfare falls under the just war theory, but in more modern days we see more cyber warfare than traditional warfare.  Boylan further explains how this just war theory explains that an attack is launched against another state for the purpose of political gain, land, resources, etc. Boylan says the difference between sabotage and cyberwarfare is just a matter of degree, in other the words the severity and damage caused can determine if it was intended sabotage or a cyber war engaged on that company, person, country, etc. We now see in cyberwarfare that you can take down key components of a state to cause damage without a gun or physical violence for the same political gain. Another important component of cyberwarfare that was discussed was the way it can be hard to determine who is carrying out the act. Cyberwarfare can be just as dangerous as traditional warfare even though it is not as physical. For example, Iran’s gas and fuel was shut off by hackers. This completely stops an entire country from going to work, taking kids to school, delivering packages, etc.

In this case, it is easy to guess who is hacking into the gas machines to cause this inconvenience, the country that has been carrying out cyberwarfare against Iran. Same goes for guessing who is carrying out cyberwarfare acts against Israel, the same country that has been doing so for years, Iran. This constant cyberwarfare between the countries shows no signs of slowing down or stopping. To shut off gas and fuel, to leak user data from hospitals, to hack into nuclear plants, all are very dangerous things to hack into and control when it is coming from an opposing country. This is a case of cyberwarfare in each instance I have mentioned due to the nature of the attacks and how much potential damage it could cause.

The ethical tool virtue ethics can be used to analyze this case of cyberwarfare between the countries of Iran and Israel. Virtue ethics sees morality as part of one’s character, not considering effects, intentions, social systems, shared humanity, or relationships. It says that morality comes from carrying out the right actions during the right times for the right reasons in a virtuous way. Characteristics of a virtuous person include responding the right way to situations, like having self-control, patience, etc. Being virtuous in the right ways can still break rules at times. Having the character trait of being virtuous comes from building habits revolved around it. Role models help others by showing them virtuous tendencies. Your actions form habits, and those habits make you a certain type of person, whether that be virtuous or whatever trait a person thinks are right. This ethical tool would argue that the cyberwar going on between Israel and Iran is unjust and unethical. There is no respect for having morality or virtuous habits. Launching cyberattacks that you know will harm innocent civilians is in no way moral or virtuous. In a perfect world, the leaders could sit down with each other and find a solution to these issues. Launching cyberattacks and carrying out cyberwars against each other for years will never solve the problem nor is it virtuous to do so. Although virtue ethics says that there are cases where breaking the rules might be the only way to act virtuously, this is not the case for this cyberwarfare. There is no solution being made to these cyber-attacks, only harm is being done. To fix this issue, both Israel, Iran, and any other country that has business with either need to sit down and come to an agreement on how to move on and live in peace with one another. No one person or country is more important than the other, so learning to cohabit and live in peace would be the best solution in this case.

Taddeo explains cyberwarfare and its definition, “uses of ICTs within an offensive or defensive military strategy endorsed by a state and aiming at the immediate disruption or control of the enemy’s resources, and which is waged within the informational environment, with agents and targets ranging both on the physical and non-physical domains and whose level of violence may vary upon circumstances” (Taddeo 2012). Cyberwarfare is exactly what is going on between Israel and Iran. They are both targeting each other’s resources, like gas and oil. Taddeo also explains the features of traditional warfare verses cyberwarfare. Traditional warfare is violent, physical, includes civilians, and includes humans. Cyberwarfare includes violence and non-violence, it is physical and non-physical, includes civilians and militaries, and includes humans and artificial intelligence. In this case of Iran and Israels’ conflict you can see multiple acts of cyberwarfare. Cyberwarfare between both countries has included the use of AIs, malware, harming civilians, and is violent. It has put both countries at serious risk of harming civilians and ruining a country with the taking down of nuclear plants, hospitals, and gas pumps.

The virtue ethics tool explains that the right way to act is how a virtuous person would act in that same situation. This type of ethics is person based, not action based. In other words, this ethic focuses on the character of the person carrying out that action. It says that a good person is one that lives virtuously. Furthermore, to have a good society you need to have good members within it, and that is one of the purposes of this ethic. The main principles are that the action is only correct if the action was carried out by a virtuous person who would act the same way in that situation, a virtuous person is one that acts virtuously, they posses and live the virtues, and the virtue is a characteristic of that person who needs it to live well and good. The four main characteristics of a virtuous person are justice, prudence, temperance, and bravery. Justice means that you are treating all humans equally. Prudence means that you constantly look for ways to acquire more of the virtuous tendencies and behaviors like justice and bravery for example. Bravery means that you can do the right thing even when it is hard and scary. Temperance means you can act logically and have patience. The virtue ethics tool would argue that the people/states carrying out these cyberattacks are not acting virtuously. There is no patience being demonstrated with these attacks. The right thing is not being done if innocent people are being harmed. No bravery is shown when others are being harmed, especially if there are other solutions that do not involve war. As mentioned above, to have a good society this tool would argue that it starts at the members of the society. It is the same idea as a basketball team: your weakest player will always be your weakest link. One rotten egg can prevent a person from buying the carton. To have a good society the leaders of each state should lead by example and show others that there are better ways to find a solution other than cyberwar. If the leaders can show their virtuous ways, then the members of the state can follow the example. It is hard for humans to control emotions and not act on those emotions, but acting off of emotion will more than likely be the reason you are not acting virtuously. This cyberwarfare is only causing harm and millions of dollars to fix and repair.

Iran and Israel have been in a cyberwar with each other for years, and no solution has been made. Some people would say this is just human nature. It is hard to coexist with others that do not share your same beliefs. Some would say it is the leaders’ responsibility to end this cyberwar. At the end of the day, innocent civilians are being harmed on each side. Is harming some for the greater good justifiable? Some would say yes, while others would say no. If no harm or violence could be done at all then that should be the best option. Why have wars if you can just talk it out to find a solution. Overall, traditional warfare, cyberwarfare, or any type of war should not be the solution. As a leader you should act virtuously and find a better solution than war. Harming innocent civilians and calling it collateral damage is not the way to go.

Case Study 6

The articles “The cyberwar between Israel and Iran is heating up” and “Iran says sweeping cyberattack took down gas stations across country” discuss the cyberwar between Israel and Iran. Iranians discovered a major issue when they went to fill their fuel tanks and realized a major glitch had occurred all over the country. The message that popped up on the gas machines said “cyberattack 64411” with that number being the phone line to Supreme Leader Ayatollah’s office.  Although no one has taken responsibility for this cyberattack, the only countries that seem to benefit from cyberattacks against Israel and Iran is each other. Cyberattacks have been going on for years between the two countries and do not seem to be stopping anytime soon. No war is a just war, whether it is between Israel and Iran or any other country, especially when civilians are facing the consequences of it too. In this case analysis I will argue that the virtue ethics tool shows us that the cyberwar between Israel and Iran is not just because of the damage and conflict it causes not just the targets but the innocent civilians as well when it comes to cyberwarfare like shutting off gas and fuel in Iran or hacking into Israel’s hospitals to leak user data.

Boylan explains an important concept of the just war theory and the difference between sabotage and cyber warfare. Traditional warfare falls under the just war theory, but in more modern days we see more cyber warfare than traditional warfare.  Boylan further explains how this just war theory explains that an attack is launched against another state for the purpose of political gain, land, resources, etc. Boylan says the difference between sabotage and cyberwarfare is just a matter of degree, in other the words the severity and damage caused can determine if it was intended sabotage or a cyber war engaged on that company, person, country, etc. We now see in cyberwarfare that you can take down key components of a state to cause damage without a gun or physical violence for the same political gain. Another important component of cyberwarfare that was discussed was the way it can be hard to determine who is carrying out the act. Cyberwarfare can be just as dangerous as traditional warfare even though it is not as physical. For example, Iran’s gas and fuel was shut off by hackers. This completely stops an entire country from going to work, taking kids to school, delivering packages, etc.

In this case, it is easy to guess who is hacking into the gas machines to cause this inconvenience, the country that has been carrying out cyberwarfare against Iran. Same goes for guessing who is carrying out cyberwarfare acts against Israel, the same country that has been doing so for years, Iran. This constant cyberwarfare between the countries shows no signs of slowing down or stopping. To shut off gas and fuel, to leak user data from hospitals, to hack into nuclear plants, all are very dangerous things to hack into and control when it is coming from an opposing country. This is a case of cyberwarfare in each instance I have mentioned due to the nature of the attacks and how much potential damage it could cause.

The ethical tool virtue ethics can be used to analyze this case of cyberwarfare between the countries of Iran and Israel. Virtue ethics sees morality as part of one’s character, not considering effects, intentions, social systems, shared humanity, or relationships. It says that morality comes from carrying out the right actions during the right times for the right reasons in a virtuous way. Characteristics of a virtuous person include responding the right way to situations, like having self-control, patience, etc. Being virtuous in the right ways can still break rules at times. Having the character trait of being virtuous comes from building habits revolved around it. Role models help others by showing them virtuous tendencies. Your actions form habits, and those habits make you a certain type of person, whether that be virtuous or whatever trait a person thinks are right. This ethical tool would argue that the cyberwar going on between Israel and Iran is unjust and unethical. There is no respect for having morality or virtuous habits. Launching cyberattacks that you know will harm innocent civilians is in no way moral or virtuous. In a perfect world, the leaders could sit down with each other and find a solution to these issues. Launching cyberattacks and carrying out cyberwars against each other for years will never solve the problem nor is it virtuous to do so. Although virtue ethics says that there are cases where breaking the rules might be the only way to act virtuously, this is not the case for this cyberwarfare. There is no solution being made to these cyber-attacks, only harm is being done. To fix this issue, both Israel, Iran, and any other country that has business with either need to sit down and come to an agreement on how to move on and live in peace with one another. No one person or country is more important than the other, so learning to cohabit and live in peace would be the best solution in this case.

Taddeo explains cyberwarfare and its definition, “uses of ICTs within an offensive or defensive military strategy endorsed by a state and aiming at the immediate disruption or control of the enemy’s resources, and which is waged within the informational environment, with agents and targets ranging both on the physical and non-physical domains and whose level of violence may vary upon circumstances” (Taddeo 2012). Cyberwarfare is exactly what is going on between Israel and Iran. They are both targeting each other’s resources, like gas and oil. Taddeo also explains the features of traditional warfare verses cyberwarfare. Traditional warfare is violent, physical, includes civilians, and includes humans. Cyberwarfare includes violence and non-violence, it is physical and non-physical, includes civilians and militaries, and includes humans and artificial intelligence. In this case of Iran and Israels’ conflict you can see multiple acts of cyberwarfare. Cyberwarfare between both countries has included the use of AIs, malware, harming civilians, and is violent. It has put both countries at serious risk of harming civilians and ruining a country with the taking down of nuclear plants, hospitals, and gas pumps.

The virtue ethics tool explains that the right way to act is how a virtuous person would act in that same situation. This type of ethics is person based, not action based. In other words, this ethic focuses on the character of the person carrying out that action. It says that a good person is one that lives virtuously. Furthermore, to have a good society you need to have good members within it, and that is one of the purposes of this ethic. The main principles are that the action is only correct if the action was carried out by a virtuous person who would act the same way in that situation, a virtuous person is one that acts virtuously, they posses and live the virtues, and the virtue is a characteristic of that person who needs it to live well and good. The four main characteristics of a virtuous person are justice, prudence, temperance, and bravery. Justice means that you are treating all humans equally. Prudence means that you constantly look for ways to acquire more of the virtuous tendencies and behaviors like justice and bravery for example. Bravery means that you can do the right thing even when it is hard and scary. Temperance means you can act logically and have patience. The virtue ethics tool would argue that the people/states carrying out these cyberattacks are not acting virtuously. There is no patience being demonstrated with these attacks. The right thing is not being done if innocent people are being harmed. No bravery is shown when others are being harmed, especially if there are other solutions that do not involve war. As mentioned above, to have a good society this tool would argue that it starts at the members of the society. It is the same idea as a basketball team: your weakest player will always be your weakest link. One rotten egg can prevent a person from buying the carton. To have a good society the leaders of each state should lead by example and show others that there are better ways to find a solution other than cyberwar. If the leaders can show their virtuous ways, then the members of the state can follow the example. It is hard for humans to control emotions and not act on those emotions, but acting off of emotion will more than likely be the reason you are not acting virtuously. This cyberwarfare is only causing harm and millions of dollars to fix and repair.

Iran and Israel have been in a cyberwar with each other for years, and no solution has been made. Some people would say this is just human nature. It is hard to coexist with others that do not share your same beliefs. Some would say it is the leaders’ responsibility to end this cyberwar. At the end of the day, innocent civilians are being harmed on each side. Is harming some for the greater good justifiable? Some would say yes, while others would say no. If no harm or violence could be done at all then that should be the best option. Why have wars if you can just talk it out to find a solution. Overall, traditional warfare, cyberwarfare, or any type of war should not be the solution. As a leader you should act virtuously and find a better solution than war. Harming innocent civilians and calling it collateral damage is not the way to go.