Final Social Engineering Assignment

I am sorry that I did not post this earlier.
1.  What was your task? . As a final social engineering assignment I chose to get a picture while I was handcuff in the police officers car.
2.  What did you do? . For this assignment I went to 4 different police officers to convince them to help me. My strategy was to come up to ask a few questions. I told him that I had a few questions about the process of being arrested because I was writing a paper for a final project in school and that I was also a criminal justice major in to be a cop later on. 

3.  How effective was your strategy?. I failed this assignment because they were only willing to answer the questions about the process about being arrested. When I asked the if I could try and go to the process just to show how it is through my point of view they told me that they needed a purpose to use their handcuff and that they would not be able to help me out.

 
4.  What are the moral stakes? Some would say that your not supposed to deceive a officer. 
 
5.  Now that you have done this, what could you do with the information or skills you obtained?. The only information was the process of being arrested. I also learned that cops are not easily fooled. 
 
6.  Reflect on how you felt when you were doing this. I need to work more on my deception skills

Final Ethics Blog

Oracle put in lawsuit against Google for over $9.3B in reparations because of copyright infringement of Google over its using of Java in Android. Oracle charged Google over six years ago stating that they need a license in order to use parts of the Java platform in the Google's mobile operating system. In the trial in 2012, there was a dilemma in whether Google's use of Java was acceptable as copying is allowed under certain circumstances. On May 9th, 2016, there is to be a new trial in the federal district court. The damage money asked by Oracle increased by 10 times because of the increase of smartphones and Android since 2012. This new trial will include the six new versions of Android. The first trial concluded with the verdict that Google had violated Oracle's copyright by copying the "structure, sequence, and organization" of 37 Java application programming interfaces onto Android. The trial judge later stated that APIs are not protected under the U.S copyright law. This trial will initiate again on May 9th, 2016. The moral dilemma with this trial is that the APIs were copied, which are not included under copyright protection, but they were created by Oracle. Google copied the API format exactly from that of Oracle, and that is unfair to Oracle because they made it. Google contradicted the allegations of Oracle by stating "Java is covered by fair use, which allows copying in limited cases." There are other factors that are included in this, such as the fact that the usage of the APIs was used to construct something new, rather than the same exact applications as Oracle. If John Locke were to respond to this case, he would state that there is a "labor justification" of copyright. The cost of creating a piece of work is high. There is a lot of time and effort, as well as money put into producing a creation. The cost of copying this work and handing out this product is very low. There is a trademark justification, which is built on moral rights. This work that an individual has created is "an extension of one's self" This work has to be protected because of that individual's dignity. An individual has the right to manage the fruits of his/her labor. Locke's impression of labor is physical, as well as intellectual production. Even though APIs may not be protected under the U.S copyright law, they were invented by an individual/institution of Oracle. This was the fruit of their labor, not of Google. This was the basis of their application, and it is not morally correct for Google to use 37 Java application-programming interfaces for Android. Google copied the exact sequences, structure, and organization of that of Oracle's API Java platform. Because this was not covered in the U.S Copyright Law, I believe that John Locke would respond by stating that because this is not covered in the law, you need to look at it from a utilitarian basis. Yes, society would benefit from Google using Oracle's work in Android, but without legal protection of the copyright, the work of Oracle would go essentially be fruitless. This is because Oracle spent time, effort, and money on creating these APIs, but Google came along and took them as their own work. It cost Google almost nothing to copy and distribute this work. Google will be benefitting from the work of Oracle, and that too from stealing the Oracle's creations and claiming it as their own.

In my opinion, I would definitely agree with John Locke because no matter what the laws are, I do not think that it is morally correct to be using someone else’s work in order for personal benefit and making money. Copying and distributing this work cost nothing for Google because the labor of work was already done by Oracle, but it caused so much damage to Oracle because they were not the ones that made the money from the product that Google was selling, yet they were the creators of it. APIs are not a physical item, but it was an idea, and that is not okay to steal. Any kind of digital property should not be given out for free or acquired without permission because the fruits of labor should be given to those that deserve it, not those that have found shortcuts to making money fast without even looking twice at who did all of the work.

Final Ethics Project: Plato and Cyber Warfare

In Plato’s Ring of Gyges tale, Glaucon (Plato’s older brother) challenges Socrates to defend his position that preference to being a moral being is intrinsic. The tale is of Gyges, a shepherd, who enters a cave and discovers a bigger-than-life corpse that is wearing a golden ring. Gyges removes the ring and keeps it to himself. He later learns that the ring gives him the power to become invisible, proceeds to seduce the queen, kill her husband, and become the king of Lydia. Glaucon asks would an individual be so moral that they can resist the temptation of performing an act knowing they will never get caught (“Ring”). He stipulates that if the ring were given to good and bad people the end result would be the same. Glaucon also argues that humans are moral because they are forced to by law and that they won’t remain moral if they had the means to get away with it. He also goes on to state that:

"If you could imagine any one obtaining this power of becoming invisible, and never doing any wrong or touching what was another's, he would be thought by the lookers-on to be a most wretched idiot, although they would praise him to one another's faces, and keep up appearances with one another from a fear that they too might suffer injustice."

 In the past few years, through the release of the Edward Snowden papers, we’ve had a glimpse into what the National Security Agency (NSA) can do in terms of surveillance. We’ve also seen what the first cyber warfare attack did to the nuclear centrifuges in Natanz, Iran. We now know it as operation Stuxnet. In 2011, Iran's Natanz nuclear facility was attacked by a malicious computer worm which that crippled at least 15-20% of their centrifuges by spring them out of control. It was the world’s first digital weapon. It has been since confirmed in David E. Sanger’s book, Confront and Conceal: Obama’s Secret Wars and Surprising Use of American Power, that is was the United States with the help of Israel that developed and execute Stuxnet. The purpose was to hinder and set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

 So the question becomes: having the best technology and minds, should the US conduct cyber warfare because, of the end of the day, we are the judge, jury, and executioner? Since we legally don’t answer to anyone else for our actions, should we condone cyber warfare? Plato says we should condone it and that if we don’t we would be “wretched idiots” if we did not use the power we had. I happen to agree with Plato due to the fact that we live in a world where every industrialize nation has their Ring of Gyges. While I believe we should doing within the scope of our laws, I believe we have the right to conduct with our Rings of Gyges because we have the most to lose in regards to having our network infrastructure bought down.

 The next evolutionary question that surges is: should our moral actions (spying and conducting cyber warfare) be detached from consequences? That is another point the Ring of Gyges touches on:

"This they affirm to be the origin and nature of justice; –it is a mean or compromise, between the best of all, which is to do injustice and not be punished, and the worst of all, which is to suffer injustice without the power of retaliation; and justice, being at a middle point between the two, is tolerated not as a good, but as the lesser evil, and honored by reason of the inability of men to do injustice. For no man who is worthy to be called a man would ever submit to such an agreement if he were able to resist; he would be mad if he did."

The irony of all this is that the code for Stuxnet is out there on the internet for anyone to recode and reuse, even possibly against us. At this point, the issue now becomes: do we value justice and a what price? Will we follow justice because of its end result or because it’s intrinsic in us to do so? Do those that weld the Ring of Gyges ask for justice, or is it only those at the receiving end who are its victims call for justice? I happen to agree with Plato when he states that anyone who can get away without being punished or caught will do so.

 In conclusion, human nature will do wrong if it can get away with it, but at the same time, human nature doesn’t like being at the receiving end of wrong. Since we don’t like being at the receiving end of wrong, we developed a social contract of not to wrong each other. In the case of cyber warfare, it’s now the doctrine of mutual assured destruction. And according to Plato, these contracts or accords are origin of justice in our societies.

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Plato/plato_dialogue_the_ring_of_gyges.html

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics/

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/confirmed-us-israel-created-stuxnet-lost-control-of-it/

Final Ethics Project

"Regard your good name as the richest jewel you can possibly be possessed of – for credit is like fire; when once you have kindled it you may easily preserve it, but if you once extinguish it, you will find it an arduous task to rekindle it again". This is how Socrates perceives in a passage reputation. This argument ties to the case of Fidel Salina. Fidel Salina was pledged guilty of 44 felonies each carrying 10 years of prison for a total of 440 years of prison. The case, back in 2014 made the national news. The former anonymous hacker pledged guilty for hundreds of years of prison. The media stormed all over the country. But what really happened in his case? Was he really guilty? Apparently not, because after a few months from his plea, all his charges were dropped and reduced to a 10.000$ misdemeanor. In the documents released to the public, and from the media's opinion, his charges were against the fact that he'd spammed a woman website and email with contact requests. Nothing more has been released of what he actually did. What we know, is that "the only remaining one of those 44 felonies to which Salinas actually pleaded guilty—downgraded to a misdemeanor—was a computer fraud and abuse charge for repeatedly scanning the Hidalgo County website for vulnerabilities. Prosecutors argued the scans slowed down the site’s performance." So why did all of this happen in reality? It is said that Salina was actually approached by the FBI prior his convictions, to cooperate with them to get some information about the hacking group "anonymous". He obviously refused and this brought on him the wrath of the FBI itself, that with the help of the media ruined his entire reputation. Does this ring a bell? There are many other cases that look into this matter. Aaron Schwartz, the recent FBI vs Apple case and many more show how easy it is for the Federal government to ruin someone's reputation if they don't get any sort of collaboration. In the world we live right now, where people are fed with national media and more than half of the population does not do its proper research, reputation is really easy to destroy. But what happens when that reputation is destroyed? Well, if you are Apple, you have the assets to make things right in the right way, without having any major reputation losses, if you are Aaron Schwartz, well sadly we all know how that ended. How does someone then regain what is all lost? There is no way to do that, at least in the modern world. We are fragile human beings that are victims of a system we can't beat unless we have the assets. But probably this has been a problem since the beginning of time, where the oppressed have always lost when the masses were fed with the idea that their reputation was what it actually was not. Again, Socrates told us that: "The shortest and surest way to live with honor in the world, is to be in reality what we would appear to be; and if we observe, we shall find, that all human virtues increase and strengthen themselves by the practice of them". Who we are, is what we appear, but sometimes, other people can make us appear who we are really not, and compromise our spot in society.

Final Ethics Project Post

For my final ethical project I will be discussing how some companies does not value the intellectual properties of employees in the case against Aleynikov. In general terms, intellectual property is any product of the human intellect that the law protects from unauthorized use by others.  The ownership of intellectual property inherently creates a limited monopoly in the protected property. The products of the human intellect that comprise the subject matter of intellectual property are typically characterized as non-rivalrous public goods.

The intellectual property in case is the piece of software that Aleynikov had worked on while he was at Goldman Sachs. Aleynikov was arrested two days after Goldman Sachs contacted the FBI with evidence that he had downloaded proprietary code. Aleynikov acknowledged taking the code but told FBI agents he only intended to collect “open source” software files on which he had worked, and that his collection of proprietary files on his last day of work had been inadvertent. He never gave the proprietary files to anyone else and that the portion of proprietary code he took inadvertently was miniscule just 32 of about 1,224 megabytes of code and barely constituted the company’s entire platform.

The philosopher Robert Nozick would argue that since Aleynikov worked on the software while he working there and that he wrote partial on the code that he is entitled to it. The content in question is part of the trading software that Aleynikov wrote the code for. Which he took before leaving the company to go work for a competitor which would have paid him three times the amount of money. Others would refute Nozick point of view they would argue that as part of the agreement every employee signs when they work for those types of companies that anything that they create in the company is not theirs but for the company. The professor even gave us an example where if while working at Bunker Hill they create a piece of software that not only the college would take their work but they might not get the recognition for the accomplishment. In my opinion Aleynikov should be allowed to get the code that he had worked on while at Goldman Sachs. If they prosecute him then they should prosecute every single employee that has worked for a major company and left to go work for their competitor.

Henry David Thoreau argues that it is much more important for people to develop a respect for and understanding of what is right than to uncritically adhere to laws which may be unjust. The only thing that people are really obligated to do is what they think is right, not what the law says is right. He is basically assuming that people understand ethics, and can distinguish it from cultural norms and values. But in a way what he his saying he that it wrong that he was to follow a law that does not adhere to him because of ethics but it is morally wrong because he was the one that created it so he should be entitled to it because he did not break any law according the National Stolen Act.

 As much as things change, some things will remain the same: The government will continue to prosecute the theft of intellectual property, defendants will continue to raise creative challenges to the criminal laws, and the courts will continue to wrestle with these issues, all as technology continues to evolve.The laws used in this case were adopted before the days of computers, but prosecutors still try to apply them to this case. Like many other cases regarding computers/cyber, they lack an understanding on how to deal with it.

Ethics Final part 4/25

My topic for the final project will be about copyright/IP. The philosopher will be Nozick, the same person I did for the presentation. There were some topics that crossed my mind, but didn't include in the presentation. One being content creators on YouTube/other video hosting sites. Nozick talks about entitlement of property. As a gamer, I watch quite a bit of games on YouTube. Content creators create videos by placing a commentary over the game they were playing. These content creators get a portion of the ad money from YouTube for the viewer traffic. A while back, some game publishers argued they are entitled to some of the revenue as well since their games are a large part of the content. Nozick states that those who expend the time and resources to make the content has entitlement over it regardless of the process in which the content was made. Both the game publishers and the YouTube content creators put time and resources into the video, so who should have the rights to monetize the content?

Nozick would argue that game publishers have the right to ask for a piece of the revenue derived from ads. Since the publishers were the ones that “bought or contracted for all other held resources used in the process”. He would also say the EULA states that buying the game (software), you are granted personal non-commercial use of the software. You do not own the software as that is the IP of the publisher. With that said, when a content creators receives revenue from ads, they would be “steal(ing) from others, or defraud(ing) them, or enslave(ing) them, seizing their product and preventing them from living as they choose, or forcibly exclude others from competing in exchanges. None of these are permissible modes of transition from one situation to another.”

I would have to argue against Nozick. In my opinion, the videos made by combining games and commentary are the results of creativity. The resulting transformation is a new form of entertainment. Viewers watch the videos not only for the game, but also for the ability to interact with the content creator and the community with similar interests. Videos created by content creators are very similar to remixes. Borrowing, stealing, transforming, adding existing content/ideas to create something new. I understand the game publishers “bought or contracted for all other held resources used in the process” of making the game and it is their intellectual property, but intellectual property laws (Copyright Act of 1790 / Patent Act of 1790) were meant to protect intellectual property by providing a brief period of exclusivity to prevent copies. The videos created do contain intellectual property of others, but isn’t that true for everything? Hollywood transforms the old into the new. Many movies were based off of existing plays, novels/comics, other films, TV shows, toys, etc. In a way, content creators do “steal(ing) from others, or defraud(ing) them, or enslave(ing) them, seizing their product and preventing them from living as they choose, or forcibly exclude others from competing in exchanges. None of these are permissible modes of transition from one situation to another.” That again, can be said for everything else. Steve Jobs of Apple famously stated “Picasso had a saying -- 'good artists copy; great artists steal' -- and we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas." Henry Ford said a similar statement, “I invented nothing new. I simply assembled the discoveries of other men whom were centuries of work…progress happens when all the factors that make for it are ready and then it is inevitable.”

The videos might have used intellectual property owned by game publishers. It actually helps them as the videos are pretty much free advertising. Under EULA’s, the software is strictly for non-commercial use. The definition of non-commercial use is blurry and depends on how one perceives it. Non-Commercial Use - “not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation. The inclusion of “primarily” in the definition recognizes that no activity is completely disconnected from commercial activity; it is only the primary purpose of the reuse that needs to be considered.” Content creators make their videos for fun, entertainment, community, etc. The revenue is not the primary purpose.

References

A Remix Manifesto – Brett Gaylor

Everything is A Remix – Kirby Ferguson

Creative Commons – Lawrence Lessig

https://www.ted.com/talks/kirby_ferguson_embrace_the_remix?language=en

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Case_Studies/RIP:_A_Remix_Manifesto

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_Nozick

https://joseywales1965.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/0001_anarchy_state_and_utopia.pdf

Final Ethics Project - Final Post

"Man is condemned to be free; because once thrown into the world, he is responsible for everything he does"

The words of Jean-Paul Sartre, an existentialist which did not believe there were an “essence” to our individual persona. He seemed to believe that a preconceived definition of an “essence” to human beings was incompatible with individual rights and humanism, as every individual not only had the right to pursue their own purpose in life, but a responsibility to do so. He also believed that this was unavoidable.

Sartre fought against Nazi Germany during its occupation of France during the Second World War. National Socialism, as other brands of Fascism, defines an “essence” and imposes it to its citizens by force: It demands an absolute obedience to the State, and was contrary of any way of expression or way of thought. Being entirely philistine in its nature, Nazism had every single reason to be contrary to Existentialism, and thus, being loathed by Sartre.

The idea of a “Big Brother” government spying to its citizens without its consent would have bothered Sartre, to say the least. It is in my belief that Sartre would have supported the actions of the whistleblowers in order to create a backlash against it; all of this, for the purpose of preventing a slippery slope towards a totalitarian State. Sartre, as an Existentialist, would also have blamed the American Society for this, since this situation would have been prevented if the American people would have been less indifferent to politics, and do more than “lip service” when stating their cultural distrust towards the Government (Sartre was involved in the uprisings of May 1968 in France, on which he mentioned that the State is the biggest threat to individual freedom).

That said, I have to say that Sartre hardly questioned his own ideas of freedom. He stated that Man is free, and it is up to him to give his life its own meaning, and this is an idea that I totally support. However, there is barely any remark of temperance from him, to say none, to balance this freedom. I am afraid that Sartre would have rather encouraged a massive leaking of documents from an oppressive superpower without foreseeing consequences. Do not get me wrong: Sartre was a brilliant mind, but it seemed that he lost perspective in his latter days, on which he tried to conciliate individual freedoms of existentialism with the collective freedom of Marxism. The former based upon a bloated sense of self-interest, and the latter based on compulsory altruism. (Do not interpret this as an Ad Hominem against Sartre, but rather as a critique of the collective ideals of Marxism and its opposition to Liberal Capitalism and Imperialism). 

As Sartre believed, it is up to us to give life meaning, but we also have to keep in mind that our actions have consequences. The State is indeed the biggest threat to individual freedom, but it is also a necessity for national security.  Nobody benefits from a weak State. Do the actions of whistleblowers make this world better? Not all the time. Leaks have the magnitude of disrupting the lives of millions in already volatile areas such as the Middle East. It is suspected that the Arab Spring was inspired by leaks of the diplomatic cables of Wikileaks, and it is important to note that only one country (Tunisia) was successful in this outcome (not without a lot of bloodshed).

References and useful links:

https://philosophynow.org/issues/15/A_students_guide_to_Jean-Paul_Sartres_Existentialism_and_Humanism

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAMCZKDgL04

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1586191/

Final Ethics Project

Bradley Manning was born on December 17, 1987. Years later, the Crescent, Oklahoma native, who is transgender, was granted the right to be legally recognized as Chelsea Elizabeth Manning. After joining the Army, Manning was sent to Iraq in 2009. There she had access to classified information that she described as profoundly troubling. Manning gave much of this information to WikiLeaks and was later arrested after her actions were reported to the U.S. government by a hacker confidant. On July 30, 2013, Manning was found guilty of espionage and theft, but not guilty of aiding the enemy. In August 2013, she was sentenced to 35 years in prison.

There are various arguments for and against the act of Chelsea Manning. Many people believe she broke ethical code of morality for her own people and country by revealing military secrets to unauthorized person. At the same time, there are many people/ philosophers in our society who believe Chelsea Manning has done nothing wrong. She was kind of whistle blower and was doing her job as an alert citizen to let people know what’s going on.

One of the similar thoughts were shared by well-known American philosopher Noam Chomsky. In “The Laura Flanders Show”, in the support of Chelsea Manning, he is recorded commenting on Chelsea Manning as, “Bradley Manning should be regarded as a hero”. That is his personal view but I am just astonished by the statement which considers Manning as a hero? I couldn’t agree with the view presented by Mr. Chomsky. Why she is to be considered as hero? For putting numerous lives of own colleagues on risk? Mr. Chomsky arguing in the same show says, “He is doing what an honest, decent citizens be doing letting the population know what you're good with people who rule you were doing”. There is one problem with his argument, military does have its own rules and regulations, and people putting on uniform under the oath have an obligation to stick with that. If a person can’t obliged, that person shouldn’t put on the uniform. Leaking nearly three-quarters of a million of sensitive military and diplomatic documents to WikiLeaks can’t make her hero or decent citizen but some kind of traitor. Who can take the guarantee that WikiLeaks wasn’t /isn’t conspiring against U.S.?  That’s why that leaking was bad for the country and military, which can’t make her hero.

Probably she thinks her believe is everything, what about others believe who put on the uniform to protect this country and people? What about her own oath to the military and this country? Doesn’t she feel like betraying own country? I feel like this is all about selfishness of Manning and her own thought process rather than following a morality after putting on the uniform.

            Because of the above facts and analysis, I can’t condone the act of Manning against military and this country. I also do not agree with the view of Mr. Noam Chomsky to consider Chelsea Manning as a hero, my ethics won’t allow me to do so.

References

http://www.biography.com/people/chelsea-manning-21299995#synopsis

http://www.interviewmagazine.com/culture/chelsea-manning#_

https://chomsky.info/20131010/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chelsea_Manning

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky

https://twitter.com/xychelsea

https://www.chelseamanning.org/ourwork/supporters

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqfi4au3cKo

Final Ethics Project

For my final project I would like to focus on the new privacy rules that the FCC has proposed for ISPs. The proposal would require ISPs to first obtain the customers' permission before using and sharing their data. Under this proposal they would still be able to collect and share the data with other communications-related affiliates without permission. They wouldn't be able to share that data with non communications partners without permission. The ISPs handle all of our network traffic which gives them access to significant amounts of information about us based on our activities online. The FCC proposal has now been approved by a 3-2 Democratic majority. My chosen philosopher is Alan Westin. If Westin was still alive today he would support the FCC's privacy proposal. He believes that we should have a choice as to when and with whom we share our information. In his work he stated "I have identified four psychological conditions or states of individual privacy - solitude, intimacy, anonymity and reserve... In these states of privacy, the individual's needs are constantly changing...Such changing personal needs and choices about self-revelation are what make privacy such a complex condition, and a matter of personal choice." A prediction that he made about consumer privacy in his work is "I see major new legislation, enforcement, and litigation unfolding in the consumer privacy arena. This will lead businesses both off and on line to install comprehensive privacy management systems and to appoint privacy officers to administer compliance. Consumer marketing will move inexorably to a permission-based system, in which consumers exercise their choices as to how they are marketed to, in a mixture of opt-in and opt-out procedures based on the sensitivity of the data Easy-to-use individual privacy management software will be developed to allow consumer choices to be understood and carried out in both the offline and on venues.". Which in this case his prediction is true. I believe that the privacy proposal that the FCC has made for the ISPs is great we get to limit how and with whom they share our data. Like Westin I also believe that we should be given a choice. At the same time I think that if the ISPs really wanted they could set ridiculous terms so that the consumers would either have to opt-in on the sharing of data collected to third parties or go without internet since ISPs are essentially a monopoly. Given the results of Westin's survey/research on if respondents received HIPAA privacy notices. Westin had anticpated a yes response from well over 90% of respondents given the ubiquity of it. When 32% of the American public said that they never received a HIPAA privacy notice he found the results surprising and disturbing since he is sure that most of these people did have a privacy notice given to them but do not recall the paperwork as the privacy notice. Which leads me to believe that even if the ISPs sent out their privacy notices to their customers a lot of them wouldn't even know. Depending on ISPs go about getting a customers explicit opt-in consent they would still be able to gain a lot of money selling their data to third parties.

http://www.privacysummersymposium.com/reading/westin.pdf

https://patientprivacyrights.org/2005/02/testimony-of-dr-alan-f-westin-professor-of-public-law-government-emeritus-columbia-university-and-director-of-the-program-on-information-technology-health-records-and-privacy/

Ethics Final - Aaron Swartz And W. D. Ross

W. D. Ross once said “there is probably no act, for instance, which does good to anyone without doing harm to someone else, and vice versa.” Aaron's downfall started with his willingness for greater good, he saw problems with certain aspects of Academia and the Government. Aaron knew how corrupt the system was and he was always trying to cast it in front of the public eye. was always trying to make the world more efficient and less hectic. He had political aspirations towards the end and I feel if Aaron was able to climb ranks he could have made a positive impact. Aaron was brought down by a broken judicial system. The judicial system is faulty as we know it, out dated laws, wrongful punishments, the over extending of power, and abusing power to make examples out of people.

Did the courts intentions start out as good ones or bad ones with Aaron's case? did they want retribution for the academic journals and awareness or did they want to strike him down and dismantle him. To me Aaron's actions were righteous but the courts would try to convince you he was a deviant and he needed to pay for his actions. Aaron said this in his Gorilla Manifesto “Information is power. But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier” Lets flip the script and say Aaron had his way and all of this knowledge was public and we didn’t have to pay it and anyone who didn’t have the proper means to purchase it could take in the articles. I would consider that a great thing. There are people being born every day that could have a chance to change the world for the better, but what if they are under privileged and never get the information they need to shine. Aaron saw keeping this information away as an injustice to us all. How can a brilliant mind grow without its roots? now with that said who does the good harm according to Ross's quote. The money grubbing site Jstor and any other vendors like them. It hurts them financially technically but does that "harm" outweigh the good? I don’t believe so.

the reality is there were not any good out comes from Aaron's trial, jstor still charges for articles and he took his own life because he feared that the 30 year sentenced they threatened him with would stick.  I used W. D. Ross's quote as positive and a negative but both led into Aaron's Corner in my mind. It comes down to whether the good outweighs the bad.

http://ethicalstudies.co.uk/?page_id=61

https://archive.org/stream/GuerillaOpenAccessManifesto/Goamjuly2008_djvu.txt

http://www.ditext.com/ross/right1.html