search.noResults

search.searching

dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
TRANSCRIPTS


Unit 11, Lesson 3, Exercise B≤2.18


Part 3 Let’s turn now to the ways in which regulations, as opposed to law, can be used to help in decision-making. As you will be aware, most companies will have a wide range of regulations. These are designed to provide guidance in decision-making in areas where there may be differences of opinion. So, how important is complying with company regulations? First of all, there is no question that this is a good idea if you want to keep your job. We have to accept, as employees, that there are certain things which computer professionals can and cannot do. But the question is, is it enough to follow company rules in order to ensure that decisions are ethical? Some computer professionals claim that they don’t have to worry about breaking national and international laws if they follow an employer’s instructions. But I’m afraid that just isn’t true. It’s quite clear that companies can and do do things which are illegal. Research into IT companies and the law has shown that there are instances where companies’ actions can be seen as breaking the law. Evidence to support this comes from actual legal cases. A company called Logistep, for example, was found to have infringed privacy laws. Employees posed as users of a peer-to-peer service in order to gather evidence of copyright material being downloaded. A peer-to-peer service – if you’re not familiar with this term – is a network of computers for sharing material such as music, film and computer programs, without the need for a central server. When the Logistep employees demanded the users’ names and addresses from their ISP, the judge found that the company had breached the privacy to which individuals were entitled. You can see, therefore, why it was important for computer professionals at Logistep to be able to show that their decisions were reasonable, and within the law as they understood it.


A different aspect of this type of situation can


be seen in the purchase of a ‘botnet’ for a BBC programme on computer security in 2009. Botnets, a shortened version of robot networks, are groups of computers on which hackers have managed to install software without their owners’ consent. The computers can then be used by the hackers for illegal activities. These uses can include spamming, denial of service attacks or as a base for further attacks on other computers. Apparently, botnets are sometimes made


available to other hackers for a fee. In this case, the BBC purchased a botnet and used it to show how it could be used for spamming and denial of services. When they had finished, they left a message on the computers which were part of the botnet, alerting them to the fact that their computers had been hacked. However, as a number of experts pointed out, the BBC had clearly broken the law by doing this. In the words of one security expert, “the Computer Misuse Act, passed in 1990, makes it an offence in the UK to access another person’s computer, or alter data on their computer, without the owner’s permission.” Clearly, computer professionals employed by the BBC in relation to this project could try to avoid disciplinary action by arguing that they were following their employer’s instructions. However, as a criminal prosecution was a possibility, they should also be able to show that they had fully considered the implications of their decision. In the event, the BBC was not prosecuted as it was felt that the use of real botnets in the programme had helped more home computer users take their online security more seriously.


So, if employers’ rules are not enough, then what other types of rules can be used? Well, almost all the main professional associations have their own ethical guidelines, and these can help in checking decision-making. Some examples of these are the British Computer Society and the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. Although some people may claim that guidelines are often ignored by their members, they offer a good way for computer professionals to evaluate how ethical their decisions are, regardless of their specific employment context.


A very good example of a situation where decisions have to be constantly evaluated is where computer security companies engage in ethical hacking. This is where security company employees with high-level computer skills are given the job of trying to break into their clients’ systems in order to test their security. Sometimes this is done using social engineering, pretending to be somebody in the company in order to get access to usernames and passwords. But sometimes it is technical, where hackers make use of known software exploits – that is, flaws in the software which allow them to take control of a system.


The employees who participate in this sort of penetration testing are often known as ‘white hat’ hackers, like the good guys in the old cowboy movies. The hackers who try to gain unauthorized access to systems in order to


135


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140