Addressing prompt 2.
Computing does not inherently have its own ethos. The ability to perform complex computations in a relatively short amount of time does not lend itself to any school of thought. Therefore, pioneers of the computing industry have a responsibility to develop an ethos that promotes good. The end goal of a technological field like computing should be to improve human life, because there is no point to utilize computing if there is no benefit. However, any person involved in the industry will have his own interpretation of what is good and what isn’t because there are rarely any advances in technology that do not have negative side effects. Facebook is an obvious example of how technology is used to make it easier for friends and family to communicate using the internet, but it comes at the cost of exposing our data and losing some sense of privacy. The general goal to promote good is widely seen in computing. The most obvious example would be the use of computing for scientific and medical research, helping solve problems in these fields. Large amounts of data can be processed and results can be generated quicker than ever before. The industry itself does not manifest a certain set of ideals, but companies and individuals that have even a remote connection to the industry do, and the outcome of computing depends on these entities to be well intentioned. With some exceptions, the industry is successful at maintaining these principles, or else society would actively prevent computing from having an influence. The growth of the internet forced a discussion about the ethos of computing because anyone has the ability to instantly connect to any other system connected to the internet. The potential for both good and bad to be done has only increased greatly.
Arguments between good and evil become a factor when we look at the ‘hacker’ culture. In mainstream society, the term ‘hacker’ is used negatively, typically to describe someone who has used computing as a means to cause harm. Hackers should not be considered entities outside of the computing industry, because hackers also strive to learn about computers and systems and contribute to the field. Journalist Steven Levy tries to narrow down on what the ‘hacker ethic’ truly means by describing the ‘hands-on imperative’:
Hackers believe that essential lessons can be learned about the systems – about the world – from taking things apart, seeing how they work, and using this knowledge to create new and even more interesting things.
While this seems innocent in itself, there is a point where taking things apart becomes unethical due to the harm it can cause, and this is likely how the negative connotation became associated with the term ‘hacker.’ Where the line is drawn between ethical and unethical hacking is subjective. Taking things apart can cause damage to the systems’ owners and users. For example, hacking into a banking system to understand how it works can be educational, but it leads to the obvious problem of exposing financial details of many people. However, hacking your own television remote to understand its inner workings does not have any major negative consequences.
vhawleynd 