Introduction
Cyber technology can be defined as “A range of computing and information/communication technologies, from standalone computer systems to privately owned computer networks to the internet” (Tavani). This technology has evolved over the last two decades and it now forms a very integral part of our day to day life. We have employed this technology for a Varity of applications from banking, defence, education, research, medicine in the office and whole lot of other applications to automate or improve the work processes. In fact the
Due to the above fact, cyber security and the security of information has become very critical for any Individual or organisation. In order to appreciate cyber security and understand the factors that contribute to the breach in security, it is becoming increasingly necessary to focus our attention to the ethical issues that are specifically concerned with cyber technology. This will help us to understand the underlying morals issues which associate to cyber technology and respect to Individual property rights.
In this paper we shall examine the ethical issues raised by the Kevin Mitnick Computer Hacking case study. We shall base our discussion broadly on the three normative ethical theories i.e. Consequence-based, Duty-based and Character-based ethical theories to critically analyze each moral issue raised; to discuss the FBI's apprehension of Kevin Mitnick. Towards the end we shall also discuss role of a professional software/hardware/application engineer in terms of the use of their knowledge and expertise in regard to hacking, by relating to ethical frameworks.The Case of Kevin Mitnick -a brief description
Kevin Mitnick was arrested by FBI after a prolonged manhunt for committing crimes related to cyber technology. Kevin Mitnick had a long history of computer abuse. Mitnick has repeatedly hacked into computer systems causing great distress and financial loss due to the damage on the systems. Mitnick broke into the computer system of Pacific Bell and changed phone bills and made free international telephone calls by hacking into other long distance telephone companies.
He was sentenced for these crimes through the juvenile justice system and received six months probation. Even while on probation, he hacked into the telephone company again and disconnected his officers telephone, and he accessed a credit service computer and altered the computerized computer case record of the judge involved in his case. The Police also found their records has been accessed by someone. He was also convicted of stealing software from a company in Santa Cruz, California. One of the critical places that Mitnick has hacked was that of the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) in Colorado Springs, this was a very critical breach and put the National security at risk. He had also apparently planted a false story in a financial news wire reporting that Security Pacific Bank had lost $400 million in the first quarter of 1988. While investigating the Pacific Bell break-in, the FBI found evidence that Mitnick had hacked into the California Drivers License records to try to set up a false identity for him and had even posed as a police officer to try to get drivers license information There were even many other different systems, some of which were not detected, wherein he had altered different information for his own personal gain, either to his advantage due to avoid criminal convictions, to hide from the authorities, or to excerpt revenge (Fledderman 2004).
A number of moral issues may be considered in this case study:Privacy and Security
Taking into consideration the above mentioned questions, it can be noticed that they are connected to two focal cyber-ethical issues, namely privacy and security. To explore ethical theories in terms of privacy and security a few selected quotes from the given case study are considered in perspective to these questions to give a wider viewpoint.
“Mitnick was accused of breaking into computer systems around the world (…) always causing the owner of the computer great expense and trouble in setting up new security measures to keep him out (…)” (Fledderman, 2004, 98).
“Mitnick also hacked into the computers of the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) in Colorado Springs” (Fledderman, 2004, 98).
“Mostly he seemed to have hacked for the challenge and sometimes to exact revenge on people (Fledderman, 2004, 98).
“He had also apparently planted a false story in a financial news wire reporting that Security Pacific Bank had lost $400 million in the first quarter of 1988” (Fledderman, 2004, 98).
“Mitnick was charged (…) while stealing a secret computer security system, and accessing the MCI network to make free long distance phone calls.” (Fledderman, 2004, 98).
Privacy and Security are two of the basic aspects of the rights of an individual or organization. Without privacy, and security the society would breakdown and lead to chaos. We may look at the above quotes to ponder about ethical theories application. The core issues on privacy and security are discussed.
As with the real realm, Privacy is equally important and critical in the Cyberspace, privacy in cyberspace are indeed unique and provides great challenges, because much information about the individuals that before where only available in different specific physical locations, are now easily gathered on in cyberspace. Much information about an individual or institution are in cyber domain, these information these information that may be classified or sensitive that if falls in to wrong hands may have wide implications, example the financial, health information of an individual, or information of national security agencies.
Also if the information or individual if tampered by unauthorized personal, to plant false information, this could lead to misleading information and could bring about great loss to an individual or organization. Hence it is clear that security overlaps with the privacy issues in this case, just giving it another characteristic of privacy.
As pointed out by Kizza 2003 (cited in Tavani 2007) suggests that security is defined by integrity, availability, and confidentiality. This also points out the fact that Mitnick illegally trespassed, altered information and misused the information that he found to his own benefit.
As mentioned in the above quotes from the case study, from Fledderman 2004, Mitnick had, on more occasions, been convicted of IT related crimes, but even during probation he managed to hack a service computer and altered the record of the judge on his case, it also seemed that he had also made his file ‘disappear'. This is a breach on the security of the judicial system, and can also be considered as contempt of the judicial system. Judicial system is important to the existence of a society; any breakdown will bring about a breakdown in the law and order, without which the law of the jungle will only prevail.
Another example from the case study is that of the Security Pacific Bank turned him down when he was seeking employment at the company (Fledderman 2004). Mitnick used his skills to illegally hack into the media use the media for a personal vendetta, he then decided to hack the financial news system and altered information about Security Pacific Bank that could have turned into a financial disaster for the company had it gone un noticed.
As we have noticed form the above examples, that Mitnick has compromised the privacy and security of individuals and institutions, by illegally accessing or altering information. He also compromised national security, by hacking into a National Security Agency computer at NORAD. Also his attempt to gain a forge ID also demonstrates the breach into the security accepts, to falsify information for personnel gains, lies both into the boundaries of security and privacy.Consequence Based
The foundation of the consequence based ethical theories, which is also called the utilitarian approach is that the emphasis is placed on achieving or choosing a desirable ends of a moral issue is the one that is desirable for a majority of a given community. (Tavani, 2007,50).
“According to the Utilitarian theory, an Individual act (X) or a social policy (Y)is morally permissible if the consequences that result from (X) or (Y) produce the greatest amount of good to the greatest number of persons affected by the act or policy.” (Tavani 2nd Edition)
Applying the above theory, at the first glance we find that the hacking into a telephone company to gain access to free calls is not ethical as it is arguably also decreases the sense of security in the society knowing that such actions are possible. It also a breach on the privacy, as Mitnick trespassed to a property that is not his, and at most without permission. However with the application of same theory, it can also be argued that the majority in the community may have found happiness in knowing there is a way to attain free phone calls, than the people worrying about the decrease of security. Hence, this act could, according to a utilitarian point of view, be argued to be ethical.
From a utilitarian perspective, if Mitnick really made his own file disappear this would have been highly unethical, as this would bring good only to himself. Looking at the ends of the consequence of the action that would mean that if all criminals could do the same thing that could not have worked against social justice and uniform social utility. Looking at the Security Pacific Bank case where Mitnick hacked into a financial news wire reporting and planed false news that the company had lost a considerable amount of money in the first quarter, though the act was discovered and averted, it again goes on to prove the fact that ends of the act still did not serve happiness as it caused a lot of stress within the company and decreased the sense of security in the society.
Taking into consideration Mitnick's attempt to gain a new ID, by hacking into the California Drivers Licence records databases, and applying the above theory becomes unethical also because it violates the privacy of the owner and data of the users that reside in that database and therefore this would clearly be against the social utility, as the majority would not benefit from such a deed. Mitnick's hack into the critical NORD and National Security Agency has left the majority of the society very unhappy as the security of the nations been jeopardised and put at risk a whole nation. Hence as a conclusion, this act was not useful to social utility and consequently considered unethical.
In accordance to the consequence based theory an issue that can seem to sway to the ethical side is regarding Mitnick's stealing software from a company in Santa Cruz, California, although staling is not ethically correct, it may be argued that since there is a lot of illegal software is being used in the community, this shows that there is a demand for it, so not knowing what Mitnick's intentions on that software was, one could argue that the ends of the act has had social utility as the majority was happy about getting free software.
The FBI's attempted to capture Mitnick according to consequence based theories was therefore justified and correct , as the ends of most of his acts were not serving social utility and arguably left the majority worrying about cyber-security, national security individual privacy and intellectual property rights.
Considering the utilitarian approach, Mitnick's actions have to be analysed in terms of social utility of the majority. As seen above, all the actions described in the case study have been carried out for personal gain, i.e. Mitnick's personal happiness, in other words social utility for Mitnick. Though one may argue that, Mitnick did not seem to gain much financial advantage from his actions, his intention may have been to challenge himself or another individual, however, the fact that the consequences of his actions caused a lot of damage for the owners of the systems that he illegally hacked into, be it an enterprise or nation institution or any other systems. This his action have consequences may therefore have affected a lot of people in one way or another, giving them a greater workload, unnecessary anxiety , delaying possible deadlines, causing problems in the individual people's relations and creating unnecessary stress. Therefore according to the above reason, the majority involved in the given case would have not been happy about this particular act. In short, according the utilitarian perspective, Mitnick's actions were only of utility to him and thus the acts were unethical. Thus the FBI was justified in their attempt to capture MitnickDuty Based
Duty based ethical theory are founded on the basis that morality must be based on the concept of duties and responsibilities that people hold upon each other (Tavani 2007). This is in contrast to the consequence based theory that claims that morality be measured in terms of consequences of people's actions or people's happiness
The Deontologist Immanuel Kant (seen in Tavani 2007), mentions that individuals should not be treated as a means to an end, but in fact are the ends in themselves - as sovereign agents. In short, the core of duty based theories is that all individuals should be treated equally.
Now let us critically analyze Mitnick actions based on the duty based ethical theory. Considering that Mitnick is a rational and sovereign individual, his actions were not rational or bound by and responsibility. If everyone was to be given the right to do what Mitnick was prosecuted for, that is unlawfully access information systems, this would lead to the breakdown of law and order, and individual property rights, there would not be anyone to care about keeping the duties and responsibilities linked to those acts. A think to keep in mind is that one person's duty is another person's responsibility; this is the basis for the existence of a society, i.e. based on mutual duties and responsibilities. In other words if everyone would be given the right to hack into different systems as unlawfully Mitnick have done, it would not be possible to expect the very same people to carry out duties of ensuring privacy and security. This leaves all Mitnick's acts to be unethical according to the duty based theories, and for that reason this contributes in favour to the FBI's to attempt to capture Mitnick.Character Based
Character based or virtue ethics as it is also known ” focuses on criteria having to do with the character development of individuals and their acquisition of good character traits from the kinds of habits they develop” (Tavani 2007). Virtue ethicist argues that “if person had developed the right kind of moral character (through the acquisition of the “Correct” moral habits), he or she would not be in a position that required such deliberation. “(Tavani 2007). This means that a moral person would already have developed the right character traits that make him disposed to do the right thing. .“(Tavani 2007). For example amoral person would have already developed the virtue that tells him that it is not right to steal. “(Tavani 2007). The deontological and utilitarian theories are action oriented and rule oriented where as in contrast, virtue ethics is agent oriented, since it depends on the moral and character development of the agent. (Tavani 2007).
Critically considering Mitnick's acts it can be seen, that according to this theory he has not attained right character traits. A point here to be made is that the majority of the community have their own sense and interpretations of what is virtuous and what is not, and those ideals are not likely to match with Mitnick's. It seems that Mitnick does not regard the habit of hacking into other people systems as being non- virtuous. In fact his actions does not show him of even having a prick of the conscience, as he kept repeating the same actions again and again, even in spite of being sentenced in an earlier instance. Consequently considering the fact that Mitnick himself does not overtly wanted to acquire moral habits he could according to this theory be viewed as a person with little virtues, so in this case the FBI was right in their attempt to capture and prosecute him.Discussion
Applying the different theories to the case of Mitnick tells us in all three cases, the FBI was right in pursuing and prosecutes him, as the conclusion for the most of the case prove that he acted unethically. A theoretical comparison of the three types of theories would nevertheless show that there is a great disagreement between them as they all have very different approaches and viewpoints.
From the perspective of consequence based theory would have supported the FBI's attempt in arresting Mitnick because his actions of hacking, violating privacy in terms of trespassing and decreasing security within the society would not have served social utility. Looking at the possible consequences of the telephone issue to make long distance telephone calls, it would be breaking the ‘rules' in terms of violating the privacy and property rights, and questioned cyber security. Nevertheless, still it could be argued that the majority would be pleased to know that there is a way that they could avoid some telephone payments or minimize the bills for long distance telephone calls to say the least. Similarly, to the vast majority knowing how and where to get a copy of music, software or other online services, without paying. In this case we need to consider the consequence of stealing from the perspective of the owner, how will an owner feel if his or her property is stolen? In this case of the stealing the software, we have witness that there was a great financial damage on the owner, and brings about breakdown of the law and order.
Considering the NORAD issue from the perspective of consequence based theories the situation will turn to the contrary to the one mentioned above. If in this case if we consider that the majority means the world population, then what if it turns out that the majority comprising people in other enemy countries will be happy to know that NORAD can be hacked and leave the USA military systems vulnerable? In that case the just for the sake of an argument, it may seem that, hacking into NORAD - which in fact must have been one of the greatest crimes Mitnick was charged for, would have been ethically correct and that would mean that the FBI was not right in perusing him the way they did. However, from the duty based theories perspective, it may cause doubts or confusion. Mitnick has arguably treated other people as means for his desired ends, which is a confrontation of the theories since all people should be “ends” and not “means” (Tavani 2007). Furhtermore, looking into rule Deontology, it could be said that the act of hacking could by no means be universally binding; it is not possible for all people to be allowed to hack as this would hinder them in observing their duties and responsibilities.
On the contrary some may argue that Mitnick is non malicious hacker, a professionals and enthusiasts hacking to see how much more can be done to improve cyber security etc. In that spirit if we look upon the NORAD hack from this perspective and argue that Mitnick did not do anything to the system, he ‘just' hacked for the challenge (Fledderman 2004). The question is does that then make his act ethical? What has Mitnick done to highlight to the authorities about the vulnerabilities? Can we allow a transparent system, allowing everyone to freely hack, and exploit the vulnerabilities in a system; allowing anyone to hack into different systems but not to cause any damage? Is not a breach of privacy and trespassing? Certainly Mitnick was concerned about his privacy as he was trying to avoid being found out and to avoid get caught when hacking. He also tried to cover himself; this is clear as he tried to obtain a new ID. Hence, this all goes to show that however one may view the circumstances around Mitnick according to duty based theories, his actions would still be found unethical; he acted differently from how he treats people in the society. However if we consider the fact, then there would be no motivation in the society for the advancement of new systems without the element of finance and profit. Innovation and individual property rights will not have any value. These points out to the fact that in a society we have duties and responsibilities, similarly every individual has rights in a society. One person's right, is another person's responsibility. Hence from the above it is clear that Mitnick was only considering about himself, used other as means to meet his ends, this is in contrast to the duty based ethics.
In view of the character based theories, there seems to be lots of concerns which considering Mitnick's actions. Considering the Mitnick's actions, one may argue, that Mitnick was an individual and was thinking in an individualistic way, he only thought of his own needs, however when considering the duties and responsibilities, Mitinick was not bound by duty to hack into any system, he was doing it for himself, and in the he used others as objects to met his ends. According to this theory it is not up to individuals outside of a particular society to judge whether that society's ‘culture' is right or wrong. An example of this again would be the case of stealing software and systems and making long distance calls. Tavani 2007 brings up the issue of IT enthusiasts trespassing without doing any harm, this community believes in some sort of code of conduct. The first two points being: 1) Access to computers should be unlimited and total. 2) All information should be free. In that case then, what if Mitnick was a true believer of just these two points of the code of conduct? It would not matter about the rest of the points, as his acts could be justified as morally correct according to character based theories. At this point on, it shows the importance of discussing cultural relativism.
Consequently considering the fact that Mitnick himself does not overtly wanted to acquire moral habits he could according to this theory be viewed as a person with little virtues, so in this case the FBI was right in their attempt to capture and prosecute him.
Another interesting fact that emerges from the case study is that Mitnick, after serving his sentence in 2003 was free to go and to do whatever he pleased. He was therefore free to use computers and internet as he would have liked (Fledderman 2004). Fledderman also points out that when Mitnick was put in jail he was denied bail on grounds that he would commit more cybercrimes, moreover, he was denied access to computer equipment. The probation he was given also stated that he had to stay away from all hi-tech equipment including telephone. In 1989, in an earlier encounter, where Mitnick pleaded guilty of similar crimes, he was also sentenced to six months of psychological counselling. One could argue that all the time Mitnick had been committing cybercrimes, only six months was dedicated into getting him “back on track” and no other follow up was done. After all these series of precautions, Mitnick has not taken to be a great threat and just let him go just after serving his sentence, this could be argued to have ethical concerns, there was no effort to rehabilitate him or use his skills in a positive way. Many countries would for example, not let a paedophile go after serving a sentence and at the same time be able to work with children even if he wants to, there would be certainly some restrains to implicate him. Applying the different theories to this issue would also be conflicting; one may therefore identify this as an example of a “policy vacuum”.
On a concluding note, we must keep in mind one point that no system in the world is perfectly foolproof. However the best we may try to build a perfect system, there will always be loopholes that exploit the systems. It is here that rules, regulations and ethical behaviour that is expected to fill in the gaps, that expects everyone to follow the rules for the smooth functioning of the society. The judicial system makes sure that the guilty are apprehended and brought before the law, hence the FBI was justified in following and apprehending Mitnick.
Part 2: The Role of the professional Computer Engineer, in terms of their use of knowledge and expertise with regards to Hacking
Professionals have a great role to play in the society. Doctors render services in the health sector, similarly engineers help to develop and maintain complicated systems that helps to mitigates impediments or improve work flows thus increase the quality of life. Computer engineers similarly have a very vital place in the society, in developing and maintaining safe and secure computing environment. Having critically analyzed the ethical issues brought to light by the case study, in the previous section and analyzing the FBI's decision to apprehend and prosecute Mitnick, we now turn our attention to discuss the role of computer professionals regarding the use of their knowledge and expertise; with regards to computer hacking is briefly discussed.
In a society, the role of professionals is different from that of the layman. This because there are some attributes that characterizes that are inherent to a professional, which include expert knowledge, autonomy and service to the community, and thus differentiates him or her from a layman. Expert knowledge is the advanced technical knowledge that is possessed by the professional and not a lay person, Barger (2008). Like every other professional, since computer professional develop critical computer systems and software, they have the potential to either use their expertise for good or to cause harm, they can use their inherent knowledge to influence others and empower others to cause harm or do good, Tavani (2007).
There are various professional organizations in various countries which define and accept professional ethics. There exists various professional codes of ethics or conducts adopted by technical professional societies, like the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), British Computer Society (BCS) and the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers-Computer Society, IEEE-CS, Tavani (2007), which serves to lay the guidelines for the professionals in general and computer professional in specific. The ACM code of ethics sets out guidelines that are well suited to the professional's use of his or her expertise as related to the issue of computer hacking.
One of the computer professional's responsibilities and objective must be to develop secure computer systems in order to prevent or mitigate unauthorized system access, in other words known as hacking. Also, there are some moral and social obligations that the computer professional has, due to his or her advanced knowledge and expertise, and their great potential to use this knowledge to cause harm. A review of the ACM code of ethics shows that imperative 1.7 and 1.8, which highlights that the computer professional must respect the privacy of others, and that he or she should honor confidentiality, addresses some issues related to unauthorized access to a computer system most of the institutions have the Non disclosure agreement. Considering an example in Anderson, Johnson, Gotterbarn, and Perrolle (1993) highlighting a case concerning privacy of sensitive information. A consulting company was developing a database management system to store some sensitive information, like medical records, claims, salaries, performance evaluations and so on. But due to cost implications of building a well secured DBMS, the client opted for a less secured system. This raised the concern of the computer professional involved, since the guidelines of the Code say that the professional is obligated to preserve the integrity of about individuals “from unauthorized access or accidental disclosure to inappropriate individuals.”, unfortunately, upper level management overlooked this and compromised on the part of security, (Anderson, Johnson, Gotterbarn, and Perrolle, 1993).
Also, it is the responsibility of the computer professional not to use his or her expertise to exact revenge on others for their actions. Unfortunately, however, there have been cases where the computer professional's expert knowledge has been put to unethical use as we can see from the following example.
“Roman Meydbray, 27, of San Jose, former information technology manager of software maker Creative Explosions Inc. has pleaded guilty to gaining unauthorized access to the company's computer system and e-mail, according to the U.S. Attorney's Office for Northern California.
According to court documents, within two weeks of being terminated, Mr. Meydbray hacked into the computer system of Creative Explosions from his San Jose home in November 2003. During this unauthorized access, Mr. Meydbray deleted an e-mail server domain, accessed the e-mail account belonging to the president of Creative Explosions, and made configuration changes to the mail servers that caused e-mails to be rejected,” Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal (2005).
Furthermore, computer professionals are supposed to use their advanced knowledge for the greater good and advancement of the society, developing secure systems and tools to prevent the unauthorized access to computer systems. Because according to Forester and Morrison, (1994),
“The growth of computer crime calls for new kinds of security measures, measures that can be costly and that can involve the use of computers. But improved security often lags behind the discovery of new crimes; computer security experts are forever trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted. Many companies are still extremely lax about computer security, often believing that computer frauds could never happen to them.”
Fortunately, there are now some universities and colleges running certified degree programs in ethical computer hacking, that teaches students computer ethics in addition to skills and techniques of breaking into computer systems in order to secure them. Majority of the organizations are now becoming aware or are concerned with the security of their information networks. Corporate are are now paying computer security firms, with licensed computer security experts, to perform venerability test on their network using penetration tests, and try to to break into their network and computer systems in order to find security loopholes and plug them or develop a better security system. This will enable then to analyze their infrastructure, and develop process, procedures to mitigate the threat. This has helped to further the development of reliable computer security systems keep off hackers. Also major software and operating system developers hold workshops that challenge the professionals to identify flaws in their systems so that the same can be plugged. Although, for some highly proficient, gifted and determined hackers, some of these security measures may not be enough to keep them from gaining unauthorized access; there must be equally stringent policies and legislations in a global scale, to bring the undeterred hacker to justice.
To sum up the discussion, a computer professional plays a pivotal role in developing safe and secure computing environment. He should apply his knowledge and skill in developing computer systems that are secure, security must be the key element when designing information systems. Last he should have the right ethics and should not disclose or use the information technology to extract revenge or use his knowledge to gain unlawful advantage. Last but a critical point, although with the best of efforts, there cannot be a perfect system that can keep away the worst of hackers, there must be stringent rules regulations and an efficient judicial system which will deter unauthorized access and help maintain a secure cyberspace.References:
Cohen, Stephen & Grace, Damian;”Engineers and Social Responsibility: An obligation to do Good”; 1994; IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, pp. 12-19, Fall.
Fledderman, Charles B; “Kevin Mitnick and Computer Hacking”, Extract taken from “Engineering Ethics”, 2nd Edition, pp. 98-100; 2004; Pearson Prentice Hall.
Godfrey, R; “The Complete Software Engineering Professional - doing the right thing as well as doing it right: Five steps on the road to an ethics curriculum”; 1996; International Conference on Software Engineering: Education and Practice, pp. 26-32, 24-27 January.
Gotterbarn, Don; “Computer Ethics: Responsibility Regained”; 1995; Cited in Tavani, T. Herman; “Ethics and Technology - Ethical Issues in an Age of Information and Communication Technology”, 2nd Edition; 2007; John Wiley & Sons, Inc; United States of America.
IEEE Board of Directors; “IEEE Code of Ethics”; August 1990
Kant, Emmanuel (1725-1804); In “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals”; Trans. T.K Abbot; 1995; Cited in Tavani, T. Herman; “Ethics and Technology - Ethical Issues in an Age of Information and Communication Technology”, 2nd Edition; 2007; John Wiley & Sons, Inc; United States of America.
Kizza, Joseph; “Ethical and Social Issues in the Information Age”, 2nd Edition; 2003; Cited in Tavani, T. Herman; “Ethics and Technology - Ethical Issues in an Age of Information and Communication Technology”, 2nd Edition; 2007; John Wiley & Sons, Inc; United States of America.
Spafford, Eugene; “Are Computer Hacker Break-Ins Ethical”; 2004; Cited in Tavani, T. Herman; “Ethics and Technology - Ethical Issues in an Age of Information and Communication Technology”, 2nd Edition; 2007; John Wiley & Sons, Inc; United States of America.
Tavani, T. Herman; “Ethics and Technology - Ethical Issues in an Age of Information and Communication Technology”, 2nd Edition; 2007; John Wiley & Sons, Inc; United States of America.
Barger, Robert N., (2008). Computer Ethics: A Case-based approach. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, Ronald E., Deborah G. Johnson, Donald Gotterbarn, and Judith Perrolle (1993). “Using the New ACM Code of Ethics in Decision Making,” Communications of the ACM, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp 98 - 106.
Software Engineering Code of Ethics, Version 3.0
Silicon Valley/San Jose Business Journal (2005) (online). Available on the World Wide Web: http://sanjose.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2005/06/06/daily39.html [accessed on 2nd Jan., 2010].
Forester, T., and Morrison, P. (1994). Computer Ethics: Cautionary Tales and Ethical Dilemmas in Computing. 2nd ed. London: MIT Press.
