Ethics assignment 7: Qatar computing code
1. This code of ethics is composed of “dos” and “don’ts,” and mostly “don’ts.” How can forbidding individual behaviors be a protection of the public interests? In what way does the code address the protection of the public?
The forbidding of certain behaviors is a protection of the public interest in that it puts the utility of the group ahead of the desires of the individual. If the so called "don't"s didn't affect the computer usage of others, they would not need to be expressly forbidden in the code of ethics. The code tries to insure that there will be adequate security, copyright protection, and bandwidth for all students and faculty wishing to use the computers.
2. Does the code violate individual rights in its restricting the user’s freedom? Does the code protect the interests of users, too?
It can be argued that individual rights are being restricted by the ethics code. Plus, it doesn't guarantee any rights for the user. However, it must be kept in mind that the user's rights are being superceded by the overall security and equality being afforded to the majority. In ethics discussions, it is popular to categorize rights into three "tiers". The first tier is composed of the right to life, right not to be injured, and those that would worsen a persons level of happiness. Second tier rights are those used to maintain current status, and third tier rights are those rights granted to better one's current situation. If one uses this idea, the computer users rights would be consideered third tier rights, which would be superceded by the right not be harmed (security).
3. Are all the rules detailed, clear, and specific? Is this code reasonably comprehensive?
This code is somewhat condensed and clear, but lacks a bit of depth. It doesn't afford many priveliges to the user, and makes some uses inconvenient. For instance, if atudent is sick, but needs to work an an assignment, they cannot send a friend to retrieve whatever files they may need. The code also says "should", leaving a fair amount of interpretation.
4. How enforceable is this code?
This code is difficult to enforce, since it is doubtful that there is security in the computer lab, and much more so that the computer lab staff visually recognizes everyone in the lab. Also, unless they are able to monitor the network usage of all computers individually, it will be hard to determine which students are breaking rule #4. The last rule is especially hard to enforce, since the school really has no power over what is said, written, or told outside of the computer lab.
5. What would you suggest if you are asked to rewrite it?
If I were to rewrite the code, i would be more explicit about exactly when high-bandwidth applications could be used. I would also ask each account holder to sign a promisory agreement stating that they have read and will comply with the rules given in the code of ethics.
The forbidding of certain behaviors is a protection of the public interest in that it puts the utility of the group ahead of the desires of the individual. If the so called "don't"s didn't affect the computer usage of others, they would not need to be expressly forbidden in the code of ethics. The code tries to insure that there will be adequate security, copyright protection, and bandwidth for all students and faculty wishing to use the computers.
2. Does the code violate individual rights in its restricting the user’s freedom? Does the code protect the interests of users, too?
It can be argued that individual rights are being restricted by the ethics code. Plus, it doesn't guarantee any rights for the user. However, it must be kept in mind that the user's rights are being superceded by the overall security and equality being afforded to the majority. In ethics discussions, it is popular to categorize rights into three "tiers". The first tier is composed of the right to life, right not to be injured, and those that would worsen a persons level of happiness. Second tier rights are those used to maintain current status, and third tier rights are those rights granted to better one's current situation. If one uses this idea, the computer users rights would be consideered third tier rights, which would be superceded by the right not be harmed (security).
3. Are all the rules detailed, clear, and specific? Is this code reasonably comprehensive?
This code is somewhat condensed and clear, but lacks a bit of depth. It doesn't afford many priveliges to the user, and makes some uses inconvenient. For instance, if atudent is sick, but needs to work an an assignment, they cannot send a friend to retrieve whatever files they may need. The code also says "should", leaving a fair amount of interpretation.
4. How enforceable is this code?
This code is difficult to enforce, since it is doubtful that there is security in the computer lab, and much more so that the computer lab staff visually recognizes everyone in the lab. Also, unless they are able to monitor the network usage of all computers individually, it will be hard to determine which students are breaking rule #4. The last rule is especially hard to enforce, since the school really has no power over what is said, written, or told outside of the computer lab.
5. What would you suggest if you are asked to rewrite it?
If I were to rewrite the code, i would be more explicit about exactly when high-bandwidth applications could be used. I would also ask each account holder to sign a promisory agreement stating that they have read and will comply with the rules given in the code of ethics.
posted by Aureliano at 9:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home