The Internet Virus--A Commentary

[Barry Shein]

>So tell me: how will a *class* in ethics make someone more responsible
>and concerned about right and wrong?  I don't think I've ever seen a
>person become responsible or moral as a result of a class -- this seems
>to be a set of values kids acquire (or don't acquire) pretty young.
>-- 
>Clayton E. Cramer

You're missing the point. The intention is not to mend the broken, the
intention is to try to get a bunch of mostly young people in a room
once and try to convince them not to do some of these things.

Part of the method would be:

	a) Convincing them that *most* of the obnoxious things they
	are going to think up are not clever and have been tried before.
	Making them memorize a long list of pranks might really dampen
	the adolescent enthusiasm that they've thought up something
	clever. NOTE: I DO NOT THINK WHAT RTM (ALLEGEDLY) DID WAS
	CLEVER, it was stupid and obvious, all of it.

	b) Informing them of the possible outcome of their behavior,
	if they must, is useful. I wish I had a nickel for every kid
	who said "gee, it was *only* a joke". F**K YOU! That's not
	a JOKE! YOU WANT A JOKE, HERE'S A JOKE!..."rm -rf ~yourname"
	HA HA HA, now go away...

	Someone has to say at least once that files are property and
	represent people's work, that the support staff's time is
	valuable and is as amused at your horsing around as your
	typical chemical lab TA is amused at you throwing reagants
	about the room.

	AND, that there could very well be legal implications of your
	actions beyond our control, what they are, and what results
	you might expect (eg. if you break into someone else's private
	files and they decide to press charges or sue you may very
	well be up the proverbial creek if the evidence is there,
	and it has *nothing* to do with local policy, sorry.)

	c) Finally, what is expected of people on public networks,
	beyond "the obvious". Things like which ones frown on commercialism
	(an error I've seen new users make innocently trying to help
	a friend make a buck.)

The whole problem here is ignorance. If given the information they
still choose to ignore it (and hopefully there will be less such
problems as at least some will be convinced, even if only of the
detectability of their acts and consequences) well you did the
best you could. At least you did *something* which probably helped
somewhat.

Actually, I'd go one step further and require a course like the above
and certification of completion as a minimum requirement to obtain
access to a computer attached, even indirectly, to a public network.

Failure to obey this could result in an institution's loss of access
to networks and quite possibly denial of contracts from research
agencies, at least as a second-order effect.

Failure by the individual (at any point in his/her career) could
result in revocation of his/her certification and consequent loss of
ability to earn a living or an education (etc) in this field (after
due process) and permanent notation of the facts of the case available
for security or employment review (maybe, I'd be glad to hear
arguments about the accessibility issue tho it's not critical.)

Seems better than facing 20 years in prison and other lynch-mob stuff
the public will dream up, allows professionals to have an effective
hand in reviewing infractions rather than going immediately to the
public courts where there's no requirement that the judge or jury have
any understanding of the details of the infraction and provides an
effective and direct method of punishment for those who are found
guilty, loss of livelihood in this field. Of course further criminal
and economic liabilities are possible, but at least there is a first
line of action.

	-Barry Shein, ||Encore||

P.S. This is an argument for absolute minimal and mostly ethical
competence, not for actual competence in the field which I will agree
is a whole other can o' worms. Think of it more like a driver's or ham
radio operator's license than a professional certification of
competence.  Proof that you might know actions and consequences
relating to misuse of shared computing facilities and the opportunity
to lose access.