Where does one actually draw the line of what is right and wrong in technology ethics, and how does one make the decisions. Are things really black and white?
What if, let’s say, you were asked by your employer to steal data from another organization to give it a competitive advantage? I think most of us would say that it is unethical. Now, what if your employer is the NSA or the CIA and you’re a covert operative, and you are being asked to steal information from an enemy that can give your country a competitive edge, or protect the safety and welfare of your country.
Now, in this case, and in many respects, we’re starting to get into territory that isn’t as black and white, I think many more people would be divided over this question than the original one. But what is so different between the two scenarios that makes one so different than the other?
For example, in my job sometimes I am asked by an organization to execute penetration tests against their own organizational body. So when when executing a risk assessment through penetration testing I call up the company, get a sweet gal on the other line of the phone, I make up some fictitious name, fictitious problem, and basically lie to her to deceive her into giving me secret and protected information.
In so doing, I then build a report that outlines to the members of the organization where their weaknesses are, so that they can protect their systems against real hackers that would be out to deceive and retrieve real data for real harm. But in this case, was it o.k. that I was lying and deceiving and breaking laws to prevent other bad people from lying and deceiving and breaking laws?
These questions in ethics aren’t necessary tied to Information Technology either; what about policemen that speed down the road so that they can get to the speed trap and catch speeders that are speeding down the road?
The intrigue of all these types of discussions is what so tightly draws me to questions of Information Ethics, and ethics as a whole.
_2.jpg "donnieblue (2)")