The rapid advancement of electronic devices and related technologies has driven the growth of the software industry, bringing increased attention to the field of computer science. The proliferation of the internet and advancements in related technologies have deeply integrated into modern life, transforming how we live. With over 5 billion active internet users worldwide, these advancements have also led to significant societal and cultural shifts. People now handle work tasks and build social relationships through various websites and messaging platforms, highlighting the influence of computer science. Tools such as word processors and presentation software have become essential in professional settings. From managing sales and inventory at large retail stores to advancements in medical technology and even the smartphones we carry every day—these are all products of progress in computer science. The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning has further accelerated innovation, enabling automation and decision-making processes that were once unimaginable. Personal information and critical data are now managed digitally through the web and personal devices, significantly enhancing convenience and efficiency in daily life. Amid these changes, computer scientists are at the forefront of technological advancements, wielding a profound impact on society.
Consequently, it has become increasingly important for computer scientists to recognize the societal implications of the technologies they handle and to uphold their ethical responsibilities. Against this backdrop, the issue of hacking emerges as a significant topic in discussions of the ethical dimensions of technology. While hacking is often associated with illegal activities such as data theft and destruction, ethical hackers, known as “white hat hackers,” also exist. These individuals engage in hacking to strengthen security or satisfy intellectual curiosity. The increasing reliance on technology in critical infrastructure, such as banking and healthcare systems, has amplified the importance of ethical hacking to safeguard against cyberattacks. However, there is considerable debate over whether such hacking can be deemed ethically acceptable in real-life scenarios. This article explores how the ethical justification of hacking can vary depending on how the information obtained is used and the hacker’s intent (Sweeney, 2022).
White Hat Hackers vs. Crackers
White-hat hackers identify vulnerabilities in systems (servers) out of a desire to improve security or satisfy intellectual curiosity, distinguishing them from crackers who maliciously steal or misuse information. Most people agree that the activities of white-hat hackers should be ethically permissible, but real-world cases complicate this perception.
Consider a scene from the film The Social Network, where the protagonist, Mark, hacks his university’s dormitory server to create a website comparing female students’ appearances. Although this act involved the unauthorized exposure of personal information—akin to a cracker’s behavior—it also revealed a security flaw in the dormitory server. The incident underscores the dual-edged nature of hacking, where intentions and outcomes are often misaligned, leading to ethical ambiguity. Mark’s actions, being closer to those of a cracker, warranted punishment.
Now, let’s examine another example: Hacker A breaches the website of Company B. A’s intention is neither to steal nor misuse the company’s data. Instead, A contacts Company B with a polite warning: “I hacked your website. Your security is weak, and there is a risk of data leaks involving your customers and employees.” However, Company B’s representative responds angrily and threatens legal action. This situation highlights the complexities of ethical hacking in a legal and societal framework. In this case, was A’s hacking ethically justifiable (Sweeney, 2022)?
Consequentialist Analysis
A consequentialist approach evaluates the outcomes of A’s actions regarding the happiness and harm caused. First, it is necessary to consider whether hacking Company B was the only way for A to satisfy their intellectual curiosity. A could have chosen to hack another system, such as a site designed for hacking practice, instead of Company B.
If A had hacked a system with prior consent, their actions would not have affected Company B’s data, and Company B would have had no reason for anger. However, many companies fail to address vulnerabilities unless a breach highlights them, raising questions about alternative approaches’ adequacy. Conversely, by hacking Company B, A gained unauthorized access to sensitive information. However, A’s actions and advice could have led to improved security for Company B.
From a consequentialist perspective, it is difficult to determine which option is better, as both have advantages and disadvantages. If A had refrained from hacking Company B, they would not have breached the company’s rights, but Company B’s security issues would have remained unresolved. On the other hand, A’s hacking allowed them to satisfy their intellectual curiosity and helped improve Company B’s security (Nancholas, 2024).
Rule-Based Analysis
A rule-based approach involves identifying the conflicting rights and duties:
- Rights and Duties: A’s intellectual curiosity is an important aspect of professional growth as an engineer, fostering innovation and expertise in cybersecurity. However, Company B has a duty to protect its customers’ and employees’ data and the right to control access to it, as mandated by data protection laws like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
- Potential Actions: A could hack Company B’s website or refrain from hacking it, choosing alternative methods to satisfy their curiosity, such as participating in authorized bug bounty programs or ethical hacking challenges.
- Affected Parties: A, Company B, and its customers are the key stakeholders, as any breach could compromise sensitive information, damage Company B’s reputation, and undermine customers’ trust in the company’s ability to safeguard their data.
- Evaluation of Rights Violations: By hacking Company B, A infringes on the company’s right to control access to its data, violating ethical and possibly legal boundaries. However, without A’s hacking, the company risks being targeted by malicious hackers who could exploit the same vulnerabilities for harmful purposes, potentially causing greater harm to its stakeholders.
Ultimately, the rule-based approach concludes that A should not hack Company B’s website. This decision upholds the rule that one should not violate another’s right to control their data (Nancholas, 2024).
Line-Drawing Technique
The line-drawing technique systematically considers the factors influencing an ethical decision, such as A’s intellectual curiosity, B’s rights over its data, the company’s duty to protect that data, and its customers’ rights to privacy. A’s intellectual curiosity is significant because it drives innovation and the identification of vulnerabilities that malicious actors could otherwise exploit. At the same time, Company B’s rights to secure its systems are critical to maintaining operational integrity and fulfilling its obligations to stakeholders. Furthermore, the customers’ rights to privacy are safeguarded by regulations like the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which imposes strict requirements on how companies handle and protect personal data.
Assigning weight to these factors allows for a structured evaluation (Nancholas, 2024). For example, the importance of preventing potential data breaches may outweigh the violation of Company B’s right to control access to its systems, especially if A acts responsibly and reports the vulnerability promptly. However, A’s actions must still align with ethical and legal norms, ensuring no misuse of the information accessed. A balanced approach considers not only the immediate consequences but also the long-term implications for trust, security, and professional standards in computer science.
Real-World Impacts of Ethical Issues
The story of Robert Julian-Borchak Williams, a Black man falsely arrested in 2019 because of defective facial recognition software, is a real-world illustration of the significance of ethics in computer technology. Williams was mistakenly recognized as a suspect in a shoplifting case by Detroit police’s software, leading to his wrongful arrest and the violation of his civil liberties. The case not only highlights the consequences of flawed technology but also underscores the potential for technology to impact people’s lives in deeply unjust ways. Williams’ wrongful arrest led to public outcry, raising awareness about the dangers of relying on biased algorithms for critical decision-making.
This misidentification shows systemic biases in the development of facial recognition algorithms. These algorithms are less accurate at detecting individuals of color since they were mostly trained on datasets predominately composed of white faces. As a result, marginalized communities are disproportionately affected by inaccuracies in automated systems, leading to a growing mistrust in technology used for law enforcement and security purposes. The lack of diversity in training data also perpetuates the cycle of exclusion and discrimination, especially in AI and machine learning models used for identifying and profiling individuals.
This case demonstrates the fact that technology is not value neutral. Human prejudice can be directly reinforced by biases in algorithm design and data collection, which can lead to real-world harm and the denial of basic rights. The ethical responsibility lies in addressing these issues by developing inclusive, transparent, and accountable technology. Algorithms must be carefully planned and maintained using a variety of objective datasets in order to guarantee ethics and fairness, ensuring that the technology does not perpetuate inequality or discrimination (Sweeney, 2022).
Conclusion
While the consequentialist and line-drawing techniques yield ambiguous results as they consider various factors and potential outcomes, the rule-based approach clearly dictates that A should not hack Company B’s website due to the violation of its rights. Hacking, even with good intentions, infringes on the company’s control over its data and the privacy rights of its customers, which are protected under laws such as the GDPR. Moreover, A’s unauthorized access to sensitive data undermines trust in Company B’s ability to safeguard its systems. Nonetheless, if A’s actions lead to improved security, Company B would ultimately fulfill its obligation to protect customer data and prevent potential leaks. In this scenario, while A’s actions may have unintended benefits, they do not align with ethical or legal standards. This highlights the complexity of balancing individual curiosity and corporate responsibility in the digital age. Moving forward, it is crucial for companies to create secure systems and encourage ethical hacking through established channels, such as bug bounty programs, to address vulnerabilities without compromising rights or legal boundaries.
References
Nancholas, B., 2024. Ethical challenges in computer science. [online] Keele University – Study online. Available at: https://online.keele.ac.uk/ethical-challenges-in-computer-science/ [Accessed 23 November 2024].
Sweeney, M., 2022. Ethical dilemmas in computer science. [online] ZDNet. Available at: https://www.zdnet.com/education/computers-tech/ethical-dilemmas-computer-science/ [Accessed 23 November 2024].
