Tuesday, April 4, 2017
ASSIGNMENT: Ethics final project
Part I
For
your final project, you will develop a blog post and presentation that do three
main things:
· Describe: Symantec Connects 40
Cyber Attacks to CIA Hacking Tools Exposed by WikiLeaks.
· Do moral
reasoning: This is a case that leans towards a reasonable use of tools with
the purpose to protect our security where to achieve such goal the CIA is
breaking into our systems and other countries as well. The interesting point
here is not how they used their tools to conduct cyber-attacks but how much
power this institution has over our lives. One could only “get away” with these
types of activities if when considering oneself above the law or with the
certain ability to camouflage under the law, or manipulate the law per what
would be favorable. Almost as if one was wearing the invisibility ring of “The
Ring of Gyges” tale story.
· Contextualize the case by analyzing it
from the perspective of a philosopher of your choice (complete with references
to specific texts by that philosopher supporting your analysis)
I
chose Glaucon and Socrates because of the moral dilemma presented on “The Ring
of Gyges.
First,
I’d like to explain what this story is about.:
Glaucon
is talking to Socrates about a magical ring that can be used two ways: inward
to make the bearer of the ring disappear or outward to reappear. Glaucon
explains that “if they were two rings,
one to be worn by the just and one by the unjust man, no man can be imagined to
be of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice. No man would
keep his hands off what was not his own when he could safely take what he liked
out of the market, or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure, or kill
or release from prison whom he would, an in all respects be like a God among
men.” -
In this context, the actions of the just and unjust people would be the same because
they would not have a moral obligation to do things the right way or must follow
the law because they would not be a way to prove they committed a crime because
of the power of the ring. Ideally in a legal system like ours with a solid
foundation of respect for the law and guidelines that dictate no one is above
the law, The Ring of Gyges will only be a silly tale but it reality the
perception of whom is under the law and is supposed to respect the authority is
a line thinner than expected. We justify the use and abuse of the law, even the
misuse of the law if the intended purpose of the same needs to be altered for
the legal system to seek for justice. This is where I’d like to cite the
article that lays the foundation of this paper: “Symantec Connects 40 Cyber
Attacks to CIA Hacking Tools Exposed by WikiLeaks”. In this article its
explained how the CIA uses hacking tools to attack computer systems from other
countries in other to breach information and how it uses it domestically to
monitor Americans. Almost like a reminisce of the book’s 1884 “Big Brother”
from George Orwell, always watching what we do.
The
application of Ethos and thus WikiLeaks reputation has not been the most
stabled we’ve seen but Symantec is indeed a renowned computer system security
company and was the company who made the relation, validating the abuse of the law
many Americans are victims of without knowing. We have given such a great power
to our judicial system that breaking into our own privacy and stirring up
conflict in another sovereign country is justify, in case one of us living in
American or someone from overseas is trying to get hands on information that
should not have access to. Also, in case someone maybe in some form of “abuse”
of the law is trying to get away with committing a crime. And we do know that
in other to search or seize our electronics devices contents, the authorities
must provide with a warrant and a description of intention why we’re suspects
but somehow, some authorities that are intended to serve and protect our
communities and our country manage to switch back and forth on who’s wearing
the ring of Gyges.
In
some occasions, it is us wearing the ring, being visible and vulnerable to the
law and the authorities that enforce the same. I other occasions is the
authorities wearing the ring, being visible enforcing the law to then turn the
ring inward and silently monitor our conducts online, searching for plausible
reasons of intent and evidence of a crime, or even trying to hack into other
countries to gather intel. All these as if the only organization that could do
this is the CIA. Almost as if the law does not apply to them due to the nature
of their activities to protect us. In my opinion, privacy has become a valuable
that not all of us can afford anymore. I’m not referring to privacy in our
social media interactions. This is about privacy and right to use or personal
computers and smartphones without being hacked into by our own government, just
in case we maybe, might be intending to commit a crime.
In this topic, there’s a point where
is no longer clear who gave the CIA permission to violate the 1st
Amendment or who is responsible for evaluating where is the line to be drawn?
Who decides when hacking into civilians’ computers and international governments
is an excessive use and abuse of the law? Well, the same authorities or at
least authorities’ homologues in degree of power in practice that are not the
CIA, are the ones who dictate when is too much, when the hacking and
surveillance is violating our rights and of course if it was worth doing. We are
constantly bombarded with media publications and displays of this constant
abuse of the law by the authorities that are supposed to enforce it and respect
it, just as we are supposed to as civilians. We see how justifications are
displayed applying moral reasoning on why breaking into someone’s computer was
necessary to make sure that person was not committing a crime, even hacking
into another civilian computer. Same apply to the CIA hacking into other
countries government systems to gather intel.
I’d like to end my assignment leaving
a question to give it some time to simmer in our conscious to think who gave
the authorities such power and who has the power to change the system?
