Ethics blog

Philosopher Immanuel Kant introduced some interesting characteristics of freedom, necessity, justice and right. The word freedom is a powerful word revolving around free will and choice. Necessity can be based on an act performed in order to prevent a greater evil or harm. What about the Justice in an act that constitutes fairness and is there a moral right revolving in such an act?

My ethical hacking term will be based on two computer worm viruses, Stuxnet and Suter. We all know that malicious viruses can create havoc on computer systems by stealing our data, corrupting our software and just causing a big friggin headache! But what if a virus such as Stuxnet and Suter can be used for ethical purposes? A good example would be launching one of these viruses against so called “rogue nations” who are seeking to build nuclear weapons for their evil intentions.

In September of 2007, Israel launched an air strike in Syria that demolished a suspected nuclear plant. Israeli fighter jets were able to cross into Syria undetected due to a virus called Suter, executed by Israel which immobilized Syrian radar defenses. A few years later sometime around November of 2010, Stuxnet was launched against Iran. This virus was used against the Iranian's Natanz nuclear facility plant, which destroyed at least one thousand of their centrifuges. Stuxnet was not only successful in disrupting Iran's nuclear power plant, but this attack is said to also delay Iran's capability in building a nuclear weapon.

So there’s no question a malicious virus that we once thought to be a threat against our computerized systems, may one day become a savior in dismantling a hostile nation's network and there by disrupting their nuclear weapons plant.

Now we come to the question on whether or not Stuxnet and Suter were morally right from an ethics point of few. What gives an act its moral worth? Does moral worth of an action depend on a motive as in doing the right thing for the right reasons? Was there any justice in sabotaging another country’s computer network? Does the word necessity come into play with a distinct argument that suggests that these viruses were necessary in order to prevent future evil that may one day create unimaginable harm?

We certainly can not predict the future and some will argue that mere assumptions may not be so valid to constitute such a right to deliver a virus attack against other countries. But is it best to be safe than sorry? Do we sit back and wait to see Iran’s true intentions of nuclear capability? If so, will we regret later on by not taking the necessary form of action to prevent their use of nuclear weapons? Is it morally right in creating viruses for the purpose of good when we have always dubbed viruses as malicious code? I guess it all depends on the situation.

Take for example an unethical incident in the country of Estonia, in 2007 that country was literally shut down by an unknown virus code. The virus took down the country's government web sites, banks and other financial firms. This attack is speculated to originate from Russia after a controversial debate on relocating a Soviet era monument within Estonia. Was this virus morally and ethically right over a statue? If so, I see no justice to shut down a peaceful country who wanted to forget the darkness of communism that once reined on its sovereignty. Perhaps our comrades had too much vodka and took it overboard?

Regardless, it is possible that malicious code may very well become helpful in dealing with future 21^st century technological threats. The creation of such a virus in my opinion certainly has an ironic twist to it and we need to analyze that from certain perspectives. The use of such a virus may now have some good intentions towards preventing something drastic in the near future. One may call it a necessity.

I believe we will witness an extraordinary event involving a virus, which will help save millions or perhaps billions of lives around the world. When it comes to the word virus, we immediately think of a malicious code with potential destruction. But what we really should be asking ourselves is, is it morally and ethically right to launch a virus for good intentions and if so, will it have a moral worth to it? Again, will that moral worth of an act have some kind of motive towards doing the right thing and for the right reasons in hopes of preventing a greater harm from rogue nations? Only time will tell, great philosopher Immanuel Kant once said “So act that your principle of action might safely be made a law for the whole world.”