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.<\/p>\n
Throughout this course, I have grappled with ethical questions throughout that don\u2019t have any easy answers.\u00a0 Three topics that I have decided to discuss throughout this class are cyberwarfare and its place in just war theory, whistleblowing and loyalty that is involved with the Chelsea Manning case and the ethical obligations of programmers in the Sorour case. These topics have challenged and expanded my overall thinking in regard to cyber ethics.\u00a0 I initially approached these topics with a black and white view but through the work with the readings, codes of ethics and tools of moral reasoning, my perspective has become more nuanced.\u00a0 These topics showed me that ethics in the digital world often involve conflicting values and that acting for the right reasons sometimes means standing against the expectations of one\u2019s role or employers.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n At the beginning of this term, I viewed cyberwarfare as something fundamentally different from traditional war with less violence, more abstract and not subject to the same moral frameworks.\u00a0 As I went through the course readings from Taddeo and Boylan and examined real world cyberattacks through a deeper lens, I began to realize that these digital actions more often have very real and physical consequences. Shutting down hospital systems, interfering with elections or paralyzing critical infrastructure are not just harmful hacks, they can also destabilize governments and endanger lives. The application of just war theory to cyberwarfare changed my thinking. It became clear that cyberattacks can violate principles of proportionality and discrimination just as easily as conventional weapons can.\u00a0 Even if a war itself is just using indiscriminate or disproportionate cyber tactics can make certain actions within that war unethical. My perspective evolved from thinking of cyberwarfare as a legal or strategic issue to understanding it as a deeply moral one. My takeaway from this topic is that digital actions carry real world consequences and ethical standards must adapt and remain robust in the face of technological change.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Another topic that changed how I think about ethics was the case of Chelsea Manning. Early on, I saw the question in terms of the duty of betrayal: if you take an oath or hold a position of trust, violating that trust by leaking classified information must be wrong? I then engaged more deeply with ethics of care and other moral frameworks that prioritize relationships, empathy and conscience. Manning\u2019s decision was not made lightly; it reflected an ethical conflict between institutional loyalty and loyalty to the broader human values. She believed that the public had a right to know about the acts of violence being committed in their name. From the perspective of care ethics, her whistleblowing can be understood as an act of moral attention to the suffering of others and the refusal to stay silent in the face of injustice. Rather than seeing her as simply disloyal or as a criminal, I began to see her as someone who made a deeply moral and costly choice in service of higher ethical principles. My takeaway from this topic is that loyalty should not mean silence in the face of wrongdoing but sometimes the ethical path is dissent.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n My third topic is the case of Sourour and the pharmaceutical quiz software brought ethical responsibility down to the level of the individual professional decisions. Before this topic, I didn\u2019t fully consider how much responsibility a programmer has for how their code is used. I mostly just knew he was just doing his job or that he didn\u2019t come up with the questions, just the logic behind it.\u00a0 When I examined the ACM code of ethics and Armstrong\u2019s arguments about professional trust, I came to see the situation in a different light.\u00a0 Writing code that presents biased medical advice, especially without disclosing the client\u2019s motives in turn places people at risk. Sourour\u2019s code shaped what users saw and in turn shaped their overall health decisions.\u00a0 From an ethical standpoint, this was not a neutral act of coding but was a participation in deception and potential harm.\u00a0 Armstrong\u2019s view on professions being a relationship of special trust stuck with me.\u00a0 As programmers, engineers or IT professionals, we don\u2019t just deliver products but bear responsibility for the consequences. My takeaway from this topic is that technical work is never ethically neutral but being a professional means being accountable for how your work affects others.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n This course helped me approach ethics not as a checklist but as a continuous practice of reflection, evaluation and courage.\u00a0 In each topic, I began with assumptions that were challenged by deeper analysis. I have learned to ask better questions, to look beyond formal roles or intentions and to evaluate actions by their impacts and the values they uphold.\u00a0 Going forward, I want to carry these lessons with me, especially in the IT and cybersecurity work I plan to pursue.\u00a0 Technology moves fast and the decisions we make can have wide reaching consequences. Whether it\u2019s evaluating the ethics of cyber operations or the implications of disclosing sensitive information, I now see ethical thinking as a crucial part of responsible professional practice.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n In \u201cThe Code I\u2019m Still Ashamed Of\u201d by Bill Sourour dives into his involvement in creating a pharmaceutical quiz that was designed to promote products that were under the guise of an informative health assessment. The quiz dramatically misled users by providing biased information that would ultimately serve the interests of the pharmaceutical company rather than the well being of the user taking the test. Sourour later expressed a deep regret, he acknowledged that his work strongly contributed to an unethical project. While telling his superior of the unethical practices, that the superior brushed under the rug, he still continued the work. His story raises important questions about the role of software developers in upholding high ethical professional standards, particularly when their work might harm or deceive the public. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that using Kantian Deontology shows us that the code was morally problematic because it violated the principle of respect for persons, and that Sourour should have refused to participate in the project because his actions contributed to a system that manipulated users for commercial gain rather than providing them with truthful, unbiased information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Professional code of ethics emphasize the importance of respect for persons, integrity and honesty. Using these principles are crucial to maintaining trust between professionals and the public. In the case of software developers, the code of ethics has responsibilities to create transparent, non-deceptive systems that fully respect the autonomy of consumers. The respect for persons means that the individuals or consumers should not be manipulated or deceived for financial gain but should be provided with truthful and unbiased information. Integrity is a key component of most professional code of ethics. Professionals are set to a standard to act with honesty, transparency, and responsibility ensuring that their actions do not contribute to harm or deception. This is especially important for fields like software development, where the potential for creating systems to sway users and give information that largely impacts a huge number of them is significant. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Souror\u2019s involvement in the pharmaceutical quiz directly impacted and violated these core ethical principles. The quiz blatantly manipulated users by presenting misleading information that in turn served to promote a certain pharmaceutical product, rather than offering users the tools they need to be able to make an informed decision on a user\u2019s health. This is a violation of the principle of respect for persons, as it treats users as mere instruments for profit rather than respecting their autonomy. The lack of transparency and honesty for the quiz violated the principle of integrity. By being complacent in the creation of a deceptive system, Souror was a major reason for the tool misleading the public which in turn undermines the trust that public has for professionals. The ethical codes for software developers stress the importance of honesty and transparency and both were strongly lacking in this case. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Kantian Deontology, based on the categorical imperative, holds that individuals should act according to maxims that can be universally applied. In this case, if every software developer acted as Sourour did, creating systems that deceive users for profit society would be built on a foundation of mistrust and manipulation. This would be morally unacceptable, as it undermines the autonomy of individuals, treating them as mere means to an end. From a Kantian perspective, Sourour\u2019s actions were morally wrong because he failed to respect the autonomy and dignity of the users. By creating a quiz that misled users, Sourour treated them as tools for commercial gain, rather than as ends in themselves deserving of truthful and honest information. If Sourour had acted according to Kant\u2019s principle, he would have recognized the unethical nature of the project and refused to participate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In her article, Armstrong talks about confidentiality and the ethical responsibilities of professionals in an array of fields. She highlights how confidentiality is a cornerstone for professional conduct, particularly in fields such as medical, engineering and accounting, where professionals are entrusted with personal information that must be handled with care. She also stresses that professionals have a duty to act in ways that both respect an individuals privacy while also for the public good. This principle can fully extend beyond confidentiality to broader ethical concerns, such as an obligation to avoid harm and deception. Armstrong continues by describing how there is a special trust that society places in professionals. Professionals are expected to not only have technical competence but to also be able to make decisions that are ethically responsible, ensuring that their work benefits society as a whole and does not exploit individuals for personal gain. This principle of responsibility requires professionals to consider the broader consequences of their actions and make ethical choices that align with the public trust.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Souror\u2019s actions in developing the pharmaceutical quiz can be seen as a violation in the special trust that professionals are supposed to have with society. As a software developer, he was entrusted with creating a system that would directly affect a user\u2019s decision making on their health. His work was supposed to be in the benefit of having this trust to benefit the public, Souror\u2019s work instead contributed to a system that manipulated users for financial and commercial purposes. It undermined the ethical responsibility that is expected of him as a professional. Souror has an ethical responsibility to ensure that his work would not harm consumers. Armstrong would argue that as a professional, Souror should have considered more of the ethical consequences of creating a misleading quiz and recognizing that participating in this project would fully violate his duty to respect a user’s autonomy, privacy and safety. His failure to consider the broader social implications of his work reflects the neglect of his professional responsibility as a whole.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From a Kantian perspective, Sourour\u2019s participation in the pharmaceutical quiz project violated the fundamental principle of respecting persons. Kant\u2019s categorical imperative insists that individuals should act in ways that treat others as ends in themselves, not merely as means to an end. In this case, Sourour\u2019s actions treated the users as tools for the pharmaceutical company\u2019s profit, rather than respecting their autonomy by providing them with truthful information. Kantian ethics would require Sourour to act in a way that could be universally applied, meaning that if all professionals in his position acted with the same disregard for user autonomy, society would suffer from widespread deception and mistrust. Sourour\u2019s failure to uphold his moral responsibility as a professional is evident in his participation in a project that misled and manipulated users.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In conclusion, the ethical analysis of Sourour\u2019s actions using Kantian Deontology and Armstrong\u2019s framework of professionalism and responsibility shows that his involvement in the pharmaceutical quiz was morally wrong. Sourour violated the principle of respect for persons by treating users as mere means to an end, rather than as autonomous individuals deserving of honest and transparent information. Additionally, Armstrong\u2019s concepts of special trust and professional responsibility highlight that Sourour failed to uphold the trust placed in him as a professional. His participation in a deceptive project undermined the public good and violated his ethical obligations to consider the broader consequences of his work. Sourour should have refused to participate in the development of the quiz. While he may have been following orders, Kantian ethics holds that professionals have a duty to resist unethical practices and prioritize moral principles over obedience to authority. By refusing to participate, Sourour could have preserved his moral integrity and upheld the ethical standards expected of professionals in his field. This case showcases the importance of ethical reflection and responsibility in professional work. It reminds us that professionals, particularly those in fields like software development, have a duty to consider the broader societal impact of their actions and to ensure that their work aligns with the principles of honesty, transparency, and respect for individuals\u2019 autonomy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n In 2010, Chelsea Manning, who was a U.S intelligence analyst, had leaked a large number of classified military documents and videos that included the most famous video \u201cCollateral Murder\u201d to Wikileaks. This footage showed a U.S Apache helicopter target and attack that killed several people in Baghdad that included two journalists from Reuters. Manning\u2019s intention from what she stated was to expose what she saw as unethical military behavior and to start a debate about how the U.S conducts its affairs in the Iraq war. While her actions were condemned by the government that ultimately led to her conviction under the Espionage Act, many have argued that her decision constituted a moral act of whistleblowing intended to prevent future harm and promote greater accountability. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This case raises important ethical questions about loyalty, responsibility and the obligations individuals have not only to their country and institutions but also to fellow human beings. Manning could have acted out of loyalty to the military hierarchy or national secrecy but she instead chose to act from a position of concern for others’ well being that were both harmed by the U.S military\u2019s actions and believed the American public had the right to know what was being done. Manning\u2019s actions invite an analysis not simply of legal duty or justice but also of relational responsibility and care. In this case analysis I will argue that ethics of care shows us that Manning did act out of loyalty to the United States but loyalty to its people and values rather than its institutions and her actions were a moral case of whistleblowing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Vandekerckhove\u2019s work on whistleblowing emphasizes its moral complexity and the contextual factors that shape how whistleblowers are judged. One of his key ideas is that whistleblowing is not just an act of defiance but can also be seen as a form of ethical resistance that is driven by a sense of moral obligation to others. Vanderchove also introduces the concept of communicative integrity which describes how whistleblowing can be a constructive way to initiate engagement with institutional failures by attempting to bring about change through information disclosure. According to Vandekerckhove, whistleblowing is a dialogical process that involves ethical judgement, courage and a large sense of responsibility not only to one\u2019s institution, but to those impacted by the actions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Applying these ideas to Manning, we can state that her actions were an attempt to restore communicative integrity within a military system that, in her point of view, had gone silent on its own wrongdoing. Manning\u2019s choice to release the \u201cCollateral Murder\u201d video and thousands of military cables was not an impulsive move but in response to what she saw as systemic disregard for human life, transparency and accountability. While she did violate the rules around secrecy, her actions can be seen as ethically motivated by the desire to bring public awareness to the realities of war, especially with civilian casualties and the lack of oversight. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Through the scope of ethics of care, Manning\u2019s whistleblowing gains further ethical depth. Ethics of care focuses on relationships, contextual responsibilities and the promotion of mutual flourishing, especially in situations of power imbalance. Her actions demonstrate a commitment to interdependence as she prioritized the well being of Iraqi civilians, journalists and even to her fellow Americans who she believed deserved to know what was being done in their name. Care ethics resist abstract or universal rules in favor of particular situated acts of care and concern. Manning\u2019s whistleblowing actions were not about disloyalty to the U.S but about a deeper loyalty to the people and the democratic values she thought the country stood for. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While justice based approaches might harshly criticize Manning for violating laws and procedures, a care based ethic focuses on her vulnerability, empathy and awareness to others suffering. She did not act out of personal gain or revenge but instead she risked everything like her freedom, her career and perhaps her safety because she could not stand by and watch the harm being done. That emotional and ethical labor is central to the care of ethics. Her decision to stop participating in what she saw as unethical behavior shows an ethic of care for herself as a moral agent that refused to remain complicit in violence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Vandekerckhove\u2019s framing of whistleblowing aligns with care of ethics in its insistence that whistleblowers are not mere rebels or traitors, but more often moral actors operating from a relational ethic. Manning\u2019s disclosure was not aimed at destroying institutions but at renewing them by calling for more transparency and accountability. Her hope, as she stated, was that the public, once informed, would act to prevent further injustices. In this way, whistleblowing becomes more of an act of care not only for the present but for the future as well. Using the ethics of care to assess Manning\u2019s case through Vandekerckhove\u2019s framework, we can conclude that her actions were ethically motivated and morally justified. Her concern for others, attention to suffering and the commitment to honesty reflect an ethic of care that strays away with rigid institutional loyalty. Rather than betraying her country, she cared enough about the people and principles to expose the uncomfortable truths. She fully exemplified ethical courage and relational responsibility making her actions a moral case for whistleblowing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In the work by Oxley and Wittkower, they explore how the ethics of care can provide a deeper and more human centered understanding of ethical decision making, especially in the contexts where justice based approaches fall short. They argue that care is not a feeling but a practice rooted in responsiveness, attentiveness, and relationship building. Unlike the abstract rule following, care ethics requires us to understand the needs of others within their specific social, historical and emotional contexts. In this way, care of ethics emphasizes the value of interdependence, recognizing that individuals are never isolated but always embedded within networks of mutual responsibility and support.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Oxley and Wittkower use care of ethics to analyze whistleblowing as a form of relational responsibility. They suggest that whistleblowers like Chelsea Manning may act not out of rebellion or ambitions, but from a deep sense of obligation to others, to the people harmed by institutional actions and to the broader society misled in the dark. This contrasts from the justice based view that might see whistleblowing only in terms of rules broken or legal consequences. Through care of ethics, Manning\u2019s actions become an expression of concern and moral attention to the suffering of others, not a betrayal of duty but a transformation of it. Applying this view to Manning, we can see her as acting not in opposition to her duties as a soldier, but in alignment with a different duty that is rooted in care, honesty and the desire to prevent harm. The Collateral murder video she leaked that showed the U.S military personnel killing civilians and journalists in Iraq. Watching that footage, Manning expressed deep horror, not just at the deaths, but at the indifference shown by her fellow soldiers. This moment reflects the ethics of care at its core, the attentiveness of the needs and vulnerabilities of others, especially those that are made invisible by systems of power. <\/p>\n\n\n\n From this perspective, Manning\u2019s actions were not reckless, but relational. She deeply cared about the civilians who were killed, the families who never knew why and the American public who were being denied the truth of this scene. Care ethics values mutual flourishing and Manning seemed to believe that only by revealing the truth could a society build an accountable and empathetic view to thrive. Her decision to act was grounded in hope that others, once informed, would also care too and that collective caring could lead to institutional change. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Care ethics shows us that Manning had a sense of self-care, which Oxley and Wittkower emphasize as equally important. Manning\u2019s internal struggle while continuing to serve while feeling morally compromised reflects a tension between obedience and integrity. By choosing to act, she preserved her moral agency, caring for herself as someone who would not ignore injustice. This is crucial in understanding that she did not act out of a place of selfishness but from a need to reconcile her values with her actions and to truthfully in relation to others. Oxley and Wittkower remind us that caring relationships are also asymmetrical. Manning had power but not enough power to make change but had enough to act on behalf of those who had none. She used her access not for personal gain but to help others. That kind of moral courage is vital in care of ethics. When viewing the ethics of care and Oxley and Wittkower frameworks, Manning\u2019s actions fully represent a moral form of whistleblowing. She responded to the needs and suffering of others, broke through institutional silence and acted out as a genuine desire for mutual flourishing. Her care extended to people she didn\u2019t know and would never meet and yet she still took responsibility for their lives, even at great costs for her personal life. <\/p>\n\n\n\n With this case analysis, I showed that Manning\u2019s decision to release classified footage should be understood under the ethics of care as a moral stand for whistleblowing, grounded in interdependence with others and her concern for mutual flourishing. With the frameworks created by Oxley, Wittkower and Vandekerckhove, it becomes clear that Manning was only motivated by selfishness or disloyalty, but by a relational sense of moral responsibility. Her care extended far beyond national boundaries, military hierarchy and her own personal risk that was toward a concern for human life and truth. This analysis also reminds us that whistleblowing is rarely a clean or easy act. It involves tension, sacrifice, and often, great personal cost. But as care ethics teaches us, ethical action is not about following rules, it is about being responsive to the needs of others, preserving dignity, and protecting life wherever possible. In that sense, Manning\u2019s decision to blow the whistle, though controversial, was an act of deep care for herself, for others, and for the possibility of a more honest, accountable world. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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… <\/p>\n