Directions: For your term project (see “Course Information” tab for details): if it is a paper: write 350 words (or more) of it and place in your blog. The blog entry should not contain any material already in a previous blog entry. If your project is not a paper: do the equivalent amount of work. Then describe briefly (but with specific details) what you did on your blog (for example, if you are developing a web site, you could provide a link to it. Or if you are filming a skit, you could explain who will play each part, or provide the script outline, etc., depending on how far along you are.) If you’re not sure what to do, see me or send me an email, and I will try to suggest something. Title your blog post “HW 6proj.”

Answer:

Past Vanguard's software dangers are it's ethical ones. Virtue ethics would say that it's up to the user if they trust the company. Tencent has had a troubled history but they claim that "Vanguard does not collect or process any personal information beyond what the current League of Legends anti-cheat solution does." so as far as virtue ethics is concerned whether or not it's ethical is use is up to the individual. Deontological ethics would say that it's not ethical to use. Despite their claims, their history and lack of knowledge of what all it even collects while the game's running let alone what it might be doing while the game is off. Their actions previously do not inspire confidence for their actions right now so it would not be ethical to use under deontology. Utilitarianism viewing only the end result, being the possible collection of data and a decrease of cheaters in the game, has to weigh the two and decide which is ethically better. Everything is under the lens of the viewer, my view of utilitarianism may be different from someone else's so this could easily go both ways. From my over a decade of experience playing their games and watching the company that makes the game, Riot Games, I have determined that they're trustworthy so the outcome of having less cheaters is the view I have of utilitarianism is the ethical one. I don't think they have enough oversight from their parent company that would cause them to implement such a predatory practice. If you look at the virtue ethics of the company and whether or not they're morally 'good', you have to do that for both Riot Games and Tencent. As far as Tencent goes, they do not have a 'good' moral background. Without having it in their privacy contracts, they have violated the trust of their users with their practices. Riot Games on the other hand has had a long record of listening to their customers and have not had any instances of privacy infringement like their parent company Tencent. This would make the virtue ethics view of Tencent 'bad' and Riot Games 'good'.

Sources:

Afkgaming. (2021, February 17). Is riot's vanguard anti-cheat software as invasive
as you think? AFK Gaming. Retrieved November 19, 2022, from
https://afkgaming.com/esports/news/6754-is-riots-vanguard-anti-cheat
software-as-invasive-as-you-think

Sources: Asimov's Three Laws of Robotics and Stanford Ethics of Robots and AI

Notes:

AI or Artificial Intelligence is a computer system that is able to display human like behavior. The main goal of an Artificial Intelligence is to be able to "sense, model, plan, and act". The typical ways that an AI like system is developed currently is through simulating natural cognition or machine learning neural networks. A sufficiently advanced AI would be able to "eliminate poverty, reduce disease, and provide better education to almost everyone on the planet". Although this all sounds well and good we get into the topic of do we want robots or AI to do that for us? For some the answer would be yes as it eliminates the need for many jobs and problems around the world. For others the loss of their job and ability to sustain for themselves would be seen as detrimental rather than beneficial to their life. That is all problems for the future though. Humanity is already having to face the problems that arise from the AI systems that we have in place already. Facial recognition, data tracking, and video and sound manipulation are the current biggest factors. Data privacy is an issue that has been growing rampantly over the past two decades and it will only get worse with the evolution of AI. Facial tracking is one of the most popular issues related to data tracking currently as smart phones and street cameras are able to collect a large amount of data allowing an AI to build a large profile of the populations faces which could be used for tracking or even recording where and when you visit certain places. It has already been used by China for the purpose of tracking protestors in Hong Kong. The other sphere of data tracking that AI influences is the large amount of data that is produced by interacting with the internet. The data generated from websites you visit, places you get Google maps directions to, purchases you make online, and your browser history are all susceptible to being acquired by various companies. These companies can input that data into an AI for a wide variety of purposes; few of them benefiting you. Lastly, AI's ability to fake images and audio are getting scarily hard to distinguish from their real counterparts. A tool known as a 'Deepfake' is able to use video and audio recordings from real people to then be used to create fake video or audio of them doing and saying things that are completely false. Anybody that gets a hold of a decent amount of audio or video recordings of somebody can use tools like these to create Deepfakes of them. As AI advances tools like these will only get harder and harder to distinguish as real or fake. This can of course be used as a tool for comedy, like putting Donald Trump into a scene from the office for instance. The ethics of these applications of AI are ultimately down to the one using them. They can be used both maliciously or beneficially depending on the user's own morality.

Answer:

The facts of the case.

When the original iPad was released, customers had to register their new device under AT&T and a man by the name of Andrew Auernheimer discovered a security vulnerability with their registration website. He was able to gain access to the emails of all who signed up. He tried contacting AT&T to get them to fix the issue but he was met with silence. In response he went to the news and gave them redacted emails with a description of the problem to try and publicize it so that it would get fixed. Once the news story ran and AT&T found out about it they contacted the federal government to get him tried for violating the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act. He was sentenced for 41 months and had to pay a $73,000 restitution.

Analysis.

The virtue ethics approach would view Andrew as a 'good' character because he was trying to fix a problem that could've impacted many people. He wanted to fix an issue that was otherwise being ignored. The deontological approach would view him as bad. Although he simply wanted the issue fixed, when he publicized that it existed it opened up the possibility of other people finding it and exploiting it. The utilitarian approach would view him as 'good'. This is because in the end, the problem did end up getting fixed and nobody else was able to exploit it before then.

Conclusions.

The conclusion of the case was very unsatisfying. The government forced charges upon him much greater than his crime, many of which weren't even applicable to his actions. He ended up being tried and forced to pay a large sum for trying to do a good deed. Had the problem been left unattended bad actors could have used this exploit for negative effects.

Future Environment.

In the future I envision there would be a system in place to pay people for finding and revealing security exploits such as this. Many companies already have such a system in place, but having one in place globally would benefit everyone. The incentive for most hackers in exploiting security vulnerabilities is either money or social justice. At the very least this would get rid of the money incentive greatly decreasing the number of hackers.

Future scenario.

In the future say a large company like AT&T had another worse security vulnerability that revealed more than just emails. Say it gave access to passwords, credit card information, and addresses too. A hacker that gained access to information like that has two options, to sell it on the black market, or to reveal the exploit. In my future both deeds are rewarded with monetary value so when faced with a crime that pays money and a legal avenue to make money, more people would choose the legal way instead, reducing the amount of crime and exploited systems that occur.

Entire rewrite and editing of paper.

Cheating in video games is extremely prevalent in many genres, from low levels of play all the way to professional leagues. Each video game has their own way of combating this problem, some of which are admittedly better than others. FPS games, in particular, have been plagued by this phenomenon due to their relatively simplistic coding, allowing a plethora of ways to get past cheat detection software. Valorant, an FPS game made by Riot Games and owned by a Chinese company Tencent, is one of the most popular games on the market today. Tencent introduced a new anti-cheat software “Vanguard” with this game, and it has changed the market forever.
Vanguard works entirely differently than previous methods. Most anti-cheat programs run when you start the game and continue until it is closed. Vanguard, however, operates by running from the moment you start your computer until you shut it off. This is necessary because it requires “kernel-level access” to your computer, which allows the program to have full control over all the processes and data your computer handles. Amazingly, it has had a high degree of success. Whereas other FPS games are perpetually plagued by cheaters, anyone who wishes to jeopardize either the competitive or casual scene in Valorant are caught nearly immediately. There have been many instances in which a player decides to start cheating in a match and is caught and permanently banned by the end of the game.
Counter-Strike Global Offensive (CSGO) is its leading competitor in the market, but it doesn’t hold a candle to Valorant’s anti-cheat system. Coming across a hacker in CSGO is just expected at this point, but in Valorant it’s such a rare occurrence that you could easily play a hundred matches without encountering a single one. CSGO’s anti-cheat works differently by relying on players to watch recordings of matches and personally determining if the player is a cheater or not. Taking all of this into consideration, it’s clear that the Vanguard system has its upsides, but it has some very glaring drawbacks as well. To achieve such high levels of success, it also requires an unprecedented amount of access to your computer. This frightens many computer science experts who are aware of how this can be manipulated. This is made all the more scary when looking at Tencent’s history with data collection in their other apps: they were ordered by the Chinese government on Nov 3 2021 to "rectify what it called the excessive collection of personal information" (Horwitz, 1). This is not an isolated incident as they have had similar infractions in the information collection field since then. An investigation by a research company showed that they survey foreign users on their messaging app WeChat, which has over 1 billion users globally (Kharpal, 2). The investigation found that content that was deemed politically sensitive was sent between non-Chinese accounts and Chinese registered accounts was repeatedly censored (Kharpal, 11). Seeing what kind of actions they take in their other programs, it's not hard to imagine what they might be doing with unprecedented access to 22.5 million active monthly players. With the access they’re allowed they could monitor everywhere you visit online, any password you type in, online purchases you make, even what other games you’re playing. Anything you can do with a computer, they can monitor.
Nevertheless, Vanguard is not alone in its level of access and power. There are many other anti-cheat programs that operate in much the same way but have some key differences. nProtect is one such application and is probably the most similar to Vanguard, yet it somehow manages to operate in an even worse manner. nProtect also runs from the moment your computer starts until it shuts down, but, unlike Vanguard, nProtect has no easy way to uninstall. It requires many unintuitive steps that are difficult to do without a decent degree of computer knowledge. This practice preys upon people who aren’t technologically inclined and are completely unaware that they’re being taken advantage of. Even if you are savvy enough to realize what’s happening, they have made it as troublesome and downright frustrating as possible to remove it. Vanguard, on the other hand, at least offers an easy and quick one click uninstallation. Predatory practices that these anti-cheat software developers employ should be much more closely monitored as there is no recourse for their actions. This is especially apparent when you compare them to other anti-cheats that are arguably better. For instance, another similar anti-cheat is called EAC, or Easy Anti-Cheat, which has the same level of access as Vanguard, but it only runs once the game has actually started, meaning that it has much less capability of being used maliciously. The one significant downside to this is that many hacks or cheats used in games are loaded when the computer is booted, meaning that an anti-cheat of EAC would not be able to detect cheats like this as easily as Vanguard would be able.

Valorant's anti-cheat is undoubtedly an effective solution to limiting unfair advantage. Many people like myself view the usage of it as worth whatever negatives may be attached. Having played competitive games for most of my life, I can say with confidence that the experience is significantly more painless without the worry of hackers and cheaters plaguing the ecosystem. That being said, it is important for users to be aware of the hidden dangers that come with such an alluring environment as many people aren't even aware of the possible effects of having it installed in the first place. If a hacker was able to get access to Vanguard and gain control over it they could do any number of disastrous things to your computer and your life. Any and all passwords you enter, any documents you have saved, your bank account information, all would be open for a hacker with such control to see. The computer it's running on could even be manipulated physically by the hacker. Your CPU or Graphics Card could be overclocked to 150% with fans turned off, quickly blowing up your hardware, even possibly starting a fire. This is all possible due to the high level of access Vanguard has to your computer. However, only the individual can weigh whether or not the risks are worth the reward.

Q1. As a “case” to discuss for this unit, use a law related to security, privacy, etc. Suggestions: HIPAA, FERPA, Computer Security Act, Sarbanes-Oxley, Gramm-Leach-Bliley,COPPA, Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), US Patriot Act, Section 508 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or some other law.

A link or other citation to the case you are using, or if it is from personal experience, point that out.
A list of 8 or more important facts about the case. These could help you tell your group members or anyone or remind yourself what the case is all about.
A list of questions (4 or more) to think about or discuss about the case.

Answer:

The source of my case is US v Andrew Auernheimer

Eight important facts are:

When the iPad was released customers were required to register their accounts through an AT&T website.

The website required your personal information to sign-up including your name, address, email address, and phone number.

When testing the websites security, Andrew Auernheimer discovered a flaw that allowed him to gain access to the email addresses of all their customers.

Andrew notified AT&T about the security vulnerability but they did not respond and took no action to correct it.

In response Andrew decided to leak customer's emails to the press to publicize the vulnerability, although much of it was redacted.

After the press made a story about it, AT&T hit back hard by alerting the federal government.

The federal government then prosecuted Andrew for violating the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act. The government then claimed that the act took place in New Jersey to elevate the charge from a misdemeanor despite nothing having occurred there.

He was subsequently convicted for 41 months and forced to pay $73,000 in restitution.

Four questions to ask about the case are:

Was the verdict of Andrew's case ethical?

If Andrew were to go back in time, how should he have tackled the issue differently, or did he do it right the first time?

If despite all attempts to contact them about the problem, AT&T ignored it, is it ethical to reveal the problem to the public like Andrew did?

Andrew was trying to shed light on a security vulnerability that AT&T wasn't fixing. Should revealing security vulnerabilities like he did be punishable by law?

Three additional standard questions:

What does virtue ethics say about this case?

What does utilitarianism say about this case?

What does deontology say about this case?

1. The video was intended as life advice to whom?

This video seemed like it was intended as life advice to everyone, but primarily young people that go through hard times or get their hopes up. People that have been demotivated in life. To me he was saying that even if you reach a brick wall in the pursuit of your dreams, it's not stopping you, merely telling you to find a way around it.

2. List the advice items that you/your group can recall below. (Many, but not all, are related to ethics.) For each, note whether you agree or not.

Brick Walls: When you hit a wall don't get discouraged. Just think about it calmly and find a way to get past it.
- I agree with this

Getting Pushed Hard: "When you're screwing up and nobody's saying anything anymore, that means they gave up". This is to say that when someone is criticizing you or working you hard, it's a good thing because it means that they love you and they care.
- I agree with the sentiment that if someone is pushing you hard it's because they want you to succeed.

Brick Walls: "They're not there to keep you out, they're there to show how badly you want something. They're there to stop the people who don't want it badly enough"
- I agree with this one

"Wait long enough and people will surprise and impress you. When you're pissed off at someone and you're angry at them you just haven't given them enough time".
- People will fail and fail again but given enough time their success can certainly surprise and impress you.

There's good and bad ways to say the same thing but it makes all the difference in the world which you choose.
- I agree with this as well. Two sentences can have the same intent and meaning behind them but the words you choose and the way you say it could have an audience either encapsulated by you or completely disinterested.

Q3. Write up your case on your blog with the following subheadings:

“The facts of the case.” Here is where you describe the case in your own words.
“Analysis.” Examine the case in terms of the questions.
“My conclusions.” Your conclusions and opinions about the case. Be sure to explain and justify what you write. 3 sentences of average length or more.
“Future environment.” Describe your vision of a future in which technology is more advanced than today, or society has changed in some significant way, such that the ethical issues of the case would be even more important than they are in today’s world. 3 sentences of average length or more.
“Future scenario.” Describe how this ethical case (or an analogous one) would or should play out in the environment of the future, and give your opinions about it. 3 sentences of average length or more.

Answer:

The facts of the case.

The Code of Hammurabi was the earliest known set of codified laws. It was started by a king of Babylon, King Hammurabi who ruled from the years of 1792 B.C to 1750 B.C. The set of laws had 282 edicts for a wide range of ethical dilemmas. It was rediscovered in 1901 by French engineer Jacques de Morgan who found it in an ancient Persian kingdom. The laws found on it bear a striking resemblance to laws outlined in the Old Testament. It can now be found on display in the Louvre in Paris.

Analysis.

I believe through the discussion had it can be found that the Code of Hammurabi was not ethical. The Code did not treat everyone fairly and harbored favoritism for the rich. On a historical perspective, discussion has revealed that I was wrong and it is not the earliest known codified system of laws, merely the oldest that was kept in the best condition. Although not ethical, the system of laws was the best that could be come up with in ancient times as they lacked much of modern technology and philosophy that most of the world can access from their fingertips. Even though it may have been the best they could come up with, it was still cruel and barbaric.

Conclusions.

In conclusion the Code of Hammurabi was a flawed, cruel, and barbaric method of handling law disputes. If you were to take a utilitarianist perspective then you might could say it was ethical, but the severity of punishments and bias would prove otherwise. They did what the could at the time but it should no means be a system to look to when developing modern day systems of law.

Future Environment.

The future I imagine is one in which the world has more advanced technology and a greater access to varying philosophy and opinions. It is more diverse, accepting, and merciful. The future I'm talking about is the one we're already living in. The differences in society are vast from the one that created the Code of Hammurabi and solving the matter of a crime is much more complex than cutting off a thief's hand on the spot.

Future scenario.

Say a surgeon is required to perform surgery on an important political figure who was in an accident. The surgeon performs to the best of his ability yet despite all of his skill the person still dies. Since the patient was rich and important, under the Code of Hammurabi his hands would be cut off, but in this future environment if someone were to accuse him of killing him on purpose it would be more complicated than that. There would be a trial, various factors would be looked at, and in the end at worst he would be imprisoned. So the barbaric practices that were put into place by the Code of Hammurabi and it's influences would not be felt.

Question:

Make a blog entry titled “HW4proj.” If your term project (see “Course Information” tab for details) is a paper, write 375 words or more and put it in the blog. Do not include any material already in a previous blog entry. To see the word count, copy into MS Word and look at the little status bar in the lower left corner of its window. OpenOffice Writer has a tool that you can click on to find out the # of words. Let me know if you can’t find it.
If your project is not a paper, do the equivalent amount of work. Explain what you did on your blog. For team projects, focus on your own activities although you can also discuss the overall effort to provide some context. Explain and give evidence (for example, if a web site, you could provide a link to it; if software, give the code; if a skit, give some of the script or list rehearsal or meeting times; etc.). If you’re not sure what to do, see me or send me an email and I will try to suggest something.

Answer:

There are many types of anti-cheats out there in the world and Vanguard is not alone in it's level of access and power. There are many others that operate in much the same way but have some key differences. nProtect is another anti-cheat used by games and it is the most similar to Vanguard but somehow manages to be even scarier. nProtect, like Vanguard, is running from the moment your computer starts until it shuts down. Unlike Vanguard nProtect does not have any easy way to be uninstalled. It requires many steps to uninstall it that are unintuitive and difficult to do without a decent degree of computer knowledge. The reason this is scarier is that even if you suspected your computer of being taken advantage of, it would be troublesome and downright impossible for a layman to uninstall. Vanguard at least has a very quick one click process of uninstallation. Another similar anti-cheat is called EAC, or Easy Anti-Cheat, and it has the same level of access as Vanguard as well, but it only runs when the game is started so it is much less capable of being used maliciously. The downside to this is that many hacks or cheats used in games are loaded when the computer is booted, meaning that an anti-cheat of EAC would not be able to detect cheats like this as easily as Vanguard would be able.

Valorant's anti-cheat has it's benefits and drawbacks and only the individual can weigh whether or not the risks are worth the reward. Many people like myself view the usage of it as worth whatever negatives may be attached. Having played competitive games for most of my life I can say with confidence that the experience is significantly more painless without the worry of hackers and cheaters plaguing the ecosystem. Many people aren't even aware of the possible effects of having it installed in the first place. If a hacker was able to get access to Vanguard and gain control over it they could do any number of disastrous things to your computer and your life. Any and all passwords you enter, any documents you have saved, your bank account information, all would be open for a hacker with such control to see. The computer it's running on could even be manipulated physically by the hacker. Your CPU or Graphics Card could be overclocked to 150% with fans turned off, quickly blowing up your hardware, even possibly starting a fire. This is all possible due to the high level of access Vanguard has to your computer.

Q1. Prepare case notes on an ethics case which, for this HW, is an example of an ethical code. Online students: post your notes to your blog. Your notes should include the following.

A link or other citation to the case you are using, or if it is from personal experience, point that out.
A list of 8 or more important facts about the case. These could help you tell your group members or anyone or remind yourself what the case is all about.
A list of questions (4 or more) to think about or discuss about the case.
A 5th discussion question about how computer security relates to or could relate to the case.
Answer:

The source of my case is: https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-history/hammurabi

Eight important facts are:

The Code of Hammurabi was one of the earliest written codified law systems

Named after a king of Babylon, Hammurabi ruled from the years of 1792 B.C. to 1750 B.C.

The set of laws had a total of 282 edicts ranging from laws of retribution to payment for goods and services

Although not considered ethical today, Hammurabi's Code included many physical punishments from the removal of a hand for a thief to demanding various body parts for one's misdeeds.

Although more a system of laws than ethics, it was the first system that actually attempted to tell people how they should and should not act.

The Code of Hammurabi was found in 1901 when French engineer Jacques de Morgan excavated an ancient kingdom in Persia.

According to those who have studied it, The Code of Hammurabi bares a striking resemblance to laws outlined in the Old Testament

It can now be found in the Louvre in Paris, on display for all to see.

Four questions to ask about the case are:

Although some of the practices in The Code of Hammurabi may seem barbaric to us (ex: A doctor who kills a rich patient gets his hands cut off), they may have been the best code of laws that could have been created at the time. Would you consider them ethical?

Being the earliest written code of laws, did it really influence other codified systems of laws that came after it?

If you were to be Hammurabi in that time period, how would you have changed the Code of Hammurabi given the chance?

Is there anything from the Code of Hammurabi that could be applied to the punishments of those who use computers in bad ways?

Three additional standard questions:

What does virtue ethics say about this case?

What does utilitarianism say about this case?

What does deontology say about this case?

Gaming Code of Ethics:

Thou Shalt Not Cheat
Thou Shall treat all online with kindness and respect
Thou Shalt not be disrespectful towards other players
Thou Shalt Not Trash Talk
Thou Shall say 'GG' at the end of a match
Thou Shalt not use slurs

Sources:
https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/china-ministry-orders-38-apps-rectify-excessive-collection-personal-data-2021-11-03/

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/08/tencent-wechat-surveillance-help-censorship-in-china.html

Background:

Cheating in video games is prevalent in many genres and from low levels of play all the way to professional leagues. Each video game has their own way of combating the problem, some better than others. FPS games in particular have been plagued due to their ease of coding and the many ways to get past cheat detection software. Valorant is an FPS game made by Riot Games who is owned by Tencent, a chinese company, that introduced a unique anti-cheat program called Vanguard. Vanguard works differently than other anti-cheats in the way it operates. Most anti-cheat programs are ran when you start the game and will continue to run until it is closed. Vanguard works differently because it is running from the moment you start your computer until the moment you shut it off. It works this way because it requires something called kernel-level access to your computer. This allows it to have full control over all the processes and data your computer handles. It has had a surprising amount of success. Whereas other FPS games are still plagued by cheaters daily, any who wish to befoul the competitive or casual scene in Valorant are caught nearly immediately. There have been many instances in which a player will decide to start cheating in a match and get caught and permanently banned by the end of it. Counter-Strike is Valorants leading competitor in the market and it is a night and day difference in the presence of cheaters. Seeing somebody hack in Counter-Strike is almost expected and not a surprise to any, but in Valorant it is such a rare occurrence that you could easily play 100 matches or more without encountering a single one. While it clearly has it's pros it has its cons as well. The fact that it has such a high level of access to your computer is scary to many computer science experts who know the extent of control it has. It's made all the more scary when looked at the history Tencent has with data collection in their other apps. They were ordered by the Chinese government on Nov 3 2021 (Horwitz, 1) to "rectify what it called the excessive collection of personal information"(Horwitz, 1). An investigation by a research company showed that they surveil foreign users on their messaging app WeChat which has over 1 billion users globally and is the largest messaging app in China where Tencent operates (Kharpal, 2). The investigation found that when "politically sensitive content which was sent exclusively between non-China-registered accounts was identified as politically sensitive and subsequently censored when transmitted between China-registered accounts, without having previously been sent to, or between, China-registered accounts,"(Kharpal, 11). Seeing what kind of actions they take in their other programs it's not hard to imagine what they might be doing with unprecedented access to 22.5 million active monthly players.

What do you think of the ten commandments of computer ethics?

What kind of ethics does the Rabbit Ridge Mountain Bike Trail guidelines follow?

What character traits would work in this example?

How would you redesign this code of ethics to be more utilitarian, deontological or humean virtue based?

How can laws or required rules in the ACM not be ethics based?

“lex iniusta non est lex” Can you guess any words?

What type of ethics explains the latin phrase?

How could the same thing be coded using a different type?

Which works better?

How can you tell?

Answer:

The facts of the case.

A researcher by the name of Dr. Andrew R. Cullinane engaged in research misconduct in two papers and one manuscript. He falsified data, figures, and images in published papers. After he was discovered he was punished by having his research supervised for the next three years as well as having to make retractions to his papers and manuscript. Additionally, any institution that hired him had to certify that any research he was involved in was accurate and not manipulated.

Analysis.

The Utilitarian perspective on this case would look at what was the result of him falsifying data, and that result is misinformation being spread which could lead to others wasting their time if they based their research on his findings. This is not ethical and therefore utilitarian ethics would say the result of his actions is 'bad'. Deontological ethics would examine his actions which was the falsification/manipulation of his data. I cannot imagine how manipulating data could lead to a positive outcome for humanity, it seems to be bad no matter how I look at it. It didn't help anybody but him which is self-serving so therefore his actions would be considered 'bad' as well. Examining the case through the lens of virtue ethics does not paint him positively either. The manipulation of data in science is inherently a selfish act so his character in this case would be considered 'bad' as well.

Conclusions.

This case did not result in any serious harm to anyone so the punishment of having his research supervised seems adequate. It is my hope that it gives the researcher a chance to examine his actions and reflect in a way that will keep him from repeating them. If he were to commit research misconduct again then I believe he should be barred from research entirely.

Future Environment.

My vision of a future that would prevent this kind of scenario is one in which computers used for research are more tightly locked than current computers. I mean locked in the sense that the researchers who use them are limited in their ability to interact with the data after it's been recorded. If any changes are necessary then they can be observed by a third party that has on stakes in the research to supervise them in order to prevent research misconduct from happening in the first place.

Future scenario.

In my future environment lets say for instance John Smith is researching a cure for cancer but his experiments aren't leading to anything promising. If he doesn't come up with some results then his funding will be taken away. In order to secure his funding he goes to the computer in the lab to manipulate some of the data to make it look more favorable and noteworthy. As he attempts to change the data it locks and is reported by the computer system alerting someone that changes are being made. A third party quickly comes in and investigates to see what's going on. He asks what new experiments were being made and if the cameras in the lab or any lab assistants can corroborate his revised experiment. Alas, he cannot because he was attempting to manipulate data and hadn't preformed any new experiments so he has been caught.

Q1. Prepare case notes on an ethics case related to ethics in research. Online students: post your notes to your blog. Your notes should include the following.

A link or other citation to the case you are using, or if it is from personal experience, point that out.
A list of 8 or more important facts about the case. These could help you tell your group members or anyone or remind yourself what the case is all about.
A list of questions (4 or more) about the case.
A 5th discussion question about how computer security relates to or could relate to the case.

Answer: The source of my case is http://ethicsinresearch.org/interestingcase.html.

Eight important facts are:

In a case about genetics study it was alleged that Dr. Andrew R. Cullinane engaged in research misconduct

They reported that he either falsified or fabricated data in two papers and a manuscript

In Paper #1 he falsified or fabricated a figure misrepresenting "PLDN in fibroblasts and melanocytes"

In Paper #2 he removed a band in a blot image that was present in the original

In Manuscript #1 he fabricated the results in a section of blot data by "reuse and relabeling, duplication, and/or manipulation" in multiple tables and did the same for centrifuge tubes to "represent different experiments"

As a result he was punished by having his research be supervised for the next 3 years.

Any institution that hired him when applying for PHS funds had to certify that all research he was involved in was legitimate and accurate

Additionally he had to exclude himself from any advisory position and retract/make corrections to his papers.

Four questions to ask about the case are:

Considering some of the more minute changes that were made, what are some ways you could prevent falsifications of data like he made in his papers?

Were the punishments made harsh enough and secure enough to prevent further research misconduct?

What kind of oversight could be put in place to catch these events before they occur?

Could any changes be made to the research computers used to prevent manipulation of data like this from occuring?

Three additional standard questions:

What does virtue ethics say about this case?
What does utilitarianism say about this case?
What does deontology say about this case?

Interactive Lab Part 2

I played as Beth Ridgley

I decided to send the email to get people familiarized with and thinking about research integrity.

In the decision of was research misconduct committed, I chose No because Liam didn't have sufficient evidence that misconduct occurred or sufficient motive that the researcher would have committed it.

In the second case of research misconduct I asked the student to come to my office immediately to make her feel comfortable and so that she feels I really care about her problem.

I let her speak so that she can get her story out there before I tell her about how the process works

I chose not to drop the investigation just because there may be some relationship drama in the allegation

I'm new on the job so I chose to call the old RIO to get his advice

I chose to use a backup team just in-case I need help

I also chose to grab the data immediately to not give him time to hide anything

I talked to the PI to get the situation under control to solve things peacefully

Q3. Write up your case on your blog with the following subheadings:

“The facts of the case.” Here is where you describe the case in your own words.

“Analysis.” Examine the case in terms of the (i) consequentialist, (ii) deontological, and (iii) Humean (or more generally the virtue ethics) approaches. Also mention any example of a “sleazy rhetorical device” used in connection with the case that you noticed on the web or in your group discussion.

“Conclusions.”

“Future environment.” Describe your vision of a future in which technology is more advanced than today, or society has changed in some significant way.

“Future scenario.” Describe how this ethical case (or an analogous one) would or should play out in the environment of the future, and give your opinions about it.

Answer:

The facts of the case

Women at Blizzard alleged that they were sexually harassed and discriminated against in many ways. It was also alleged that the executives abused their power to get HR to hide any complaints against them and reassign or fire any who filed them. It was said that they fostered a 'bro' culture that made the men at the company feel comfortable taking these actions. The outcome of the case was a settlement of $18 million as well as a pay decrease for the CEO, but that is all.

Analysis

Dentological Ethics Perspective

As a settlement was reached that implies that at least some if not all of the actions they were accused of took place. The actions taken by those who perpetrated these crimes would be seen as immoral and unethical, and those who supported them and assisted them in hiding their crimes would share in that immorality. During the course of the case the company attempted to downplay or outright deny the allegations which proved to be false leaving the company itself with a stain on its ethical well-being. Deontological ethics would see the actions taken during this case as unethical.

Utilitarian Ethics Perspective

Viewing the result of the actions taken as well as the results of the case show us that it did not end ethically as well. The result of the actions taken against the women in the company was much hardship and suffering with no recourse against those who committed them. The results of the case against them was not ethical either. Although a settlement was paid, the company itself was still able to escape much repercussion and the CEO who allowed it to happen remains in his office. Therefore, utilitarian ethics would say the result of this case was unethical.

Virtue Ethics Perspective

Examining the ethical character of those involved does not paint a pretty picture either. To be able to commit such actions and cover them up as well is an unethical act. Even in the result of the case many were not punished and no repentance for their crimes was had. Therefore virtue ethics would say that those involved are ethically corrupt.

Conclusion

The conclusion I have come to about this case is that the ruling on the case was insufficient for the crimes committed. Too many remain unpunished, but since the company has attempted to put in place provisions that would prevent such acts from reoccurring so the result is not all bad.

Future Environment

In the future I imagine the technology that allows people to govern what actions get taken against employees is more independent from those with power in the company. An independent system that cannot be bribed or used against the good of all.

Future Scenario

In the future I imagine any such transgressions that took place like the one in the present would have been punished before the need for it to come to a lawsuit. Those in place to deal with the complaints that employees have would not be subject to so much influence from those whose actions resulted in the complaints.

For your ethics-related term project (see “Course Information” tab for details): Let us continue to develop it step by step over the semester so that it will be manageable rather than a crunch at the end, as follows. Write up an outline or plan of 200 words or more (per person if a group project) if your progress involved developing content (for example, for a paper or a website) for your project. This can involve steps to take, structure of the paper, website or other creative product, or whatever is needed. Put this in your blog, labeling it consistently as in this example.

Answer:

The goal is to write a paper about the ethics of an Anti-Cheat used by the game Valorant.

Steps Needed to Complete

The first step is to gather information about what it's function is and how it acts differently from other's like it.

Step number two is to find discussions about what each side argues and what the main points that drive them are.

Step number three is to gather what the different kind of ethics would say about how it operates and whether it's better to use it or not.

Structure of the paper

The first paragraph will be used to define the background of the paper and what will be discussed.
- Additionally, I'll give a brief description of what the two sides' cases are.

The second paragraph will be used to give a technical perspective of the Anti-Cheat and how it operates differently from others.
- This information will be used to explain why the argument exists for whether or not to use it the first place.

The third paragraph will be what the side for it argues, their viewpoints, its benefits, and why despite its drawbacks they still believe it worth using.

The fourth paragraph will be the opposing side's argument and why its drawbacks don't merit its use.

The fifth paragraph will discuss each of the ethical principles views on the usage of the Anti-Cheat.

The sixth and final paragraph will function as the conclusion, giving a final statement on the ethics of the Anti-Cheat and whether the implementation and usage is ethical.

Q1. Prepare case notes on an ethics case related to ethics in the workplace. Online students: post your notes to your blog. Your notes should include the following.

A link or other citation to the case you are using, or if it is from personal experience, point that out.
A list of 8 or more important facts about the case. These could help you tell your group members or anyone or remind yourself what the case is all about.
A list of questions (3 or more) about the case.
A 4th discussion question about how computer security relates to or could relate to the case.

Answer: The source of my case is https://time.com/6086010/activision-blizzard-california-lawsuit-sexual-harassment/

Eight important facts are:

The lawsuit alleges that gender discrimination and sexual harassment was taking place against women in the workplace.

Gender discrimination was rampant in just about all things. The court documents list "compensation, assignment, promotion, termination, constructive discharge and retaliation." all as ways that women were discriminated against.

In regards to sexual harassment women reported unwanted comments on their appearance, groping, as well as male supervisors flirting and pursuing the female employees under them.

One woman killed herself after allegedly being sexually harassed on a work trip with colleagues.

Those who came forward to HR about being subjected to such things reportedly experienced little to no help or retribution.

Any complaints that did come forward were kept confidential and those who complained were transferred, fired, or removed from important projects.

Women in the workplace asserted that those in high positions fostered such a culture at the company which made others feel more comfortable in taking part.

Those executives also covered for each other. Of those who participated, only two were named in the lawsuit, one of which being the President of the company.

The lawsuit ended with the CEO of the company still at the head, albeit with a paycut, and the company cleared of any wrongdoing, although were forced to pay an $18 million settlement. They asserted that such cases were the victim of "unfortunate circumstances" and were isolated "substantiated instances of gender harassment".

Four questions to ask about the case are:

In this case, who would be most likely to experience moral injury in the coverup of the female employees' allegations?

What is your opinion on the resolution of this case? Was the outcome ethical?

If you were a supervisor, a member of HR, an executive, or even the President of the company, in what different ways would you respond/combat the problems in the company?

In what ways could the men who were partaking in the discrimination and sexual harassment have used the internal computer systems to prevent these complains from coming out like they did? And how would you fix these problems so they couldn't be repeated?

Three additional standard questions:

What does virtue ethics say about this case?

What does utilitarianism say about this case?

What does deontology say about this case?

How do you speak effectively at rallies?

To effectively speak at rallies you have to be able to relate to your audience, give rational arguments, and non logical ones to appeal to their emotions because emotions aren't always logical.

What is a logical fallacy?

A logical fallacy is a statement that's logic is undermined by some failure in reasoning.

The animal experiments case was a fallacy, why?

It was an ad hominem attack because it insinuated that the whole study was wrong and should be dismissed because it might have had poor experiment design. The entire experiment should not have been dismissed for that reason.

Joshua Nash's Nobel Prize, logical fallacy?

Yes, just because he has schizophrenia doesn't invalidate his work.

Amy Winehouse 27 Club, logical fallacy?

Yes, the club someone is in does not determine the quality of their music.

Jimi Hendrix 27 Club, logical fallacy?

Yes, the club someone is in does not determine the quality of their music.

Irving's Project Idea, logical fallacy?

Yes, the degree of someone's coolness doesn't determine the quality of one's idea.

Parent smoking, logical fallacy?

Yes there's a logical fallacy there. Just because someone asserts something they don't practice doesn't mean that what they're asserting can't be true.

Al Gore's house, argument against global warming?

No, it's not an argument against global warming. Just because Al Gore's house isn't energy efficient doesn't mean that his assertions that global warming is real are false.

Al Gore's house, argument against reducing CO2 output?

No, it's not an argument against reducing CO2 output, the fact that Al Gore's house isn't energy efficient doesn't negate the need for CO2 reduction.

Scenario 1a, logically okay or logical fallacy?

Logically okay, someone being paid to defend or argue against someone should be viewed with some skepticism, it could mean that they are giving false arguments but it's not okay to dismiss them entirely.

Scenario 1a pt. 2, logically okay or logical fallacy?

Logical fallacy, dismissing someone's argument entirely because they're being paid to do a job is an ad hominem attack. Being paid to defend someone doesn't make their argument entirely dismissable.

Scenario 1b, logically okay or logical fallacy?

pt.1 is logically okay for the same reason as Scenario 1a pt.1, it's okay to argue that someone's argument should be viewed with healthy skepticism as money is a motivator to not tell the complete truth.

pt.2 is a logical fallacy for the same reason as Scenario 1a pt.2, it's not fair to dismiss someone's argument entirely due to them being paid to do a job.

Scenario 2, logically okay or logical fallacy?

Pt.1: Logically okay, it is understandable to view someone's defense of a company they got paid by with skepticism.

Pt.2: This is a logical fallacy because they're asserting that their defense of the company is entirely false due to them getting paid by the company.

Is using an ad hominem attack in your argument ethical?

No, it's not ethical because your argument is not based in logic and reason. If there is not a way to make your argument without an ad hominem attack then is it a fair argument?

Women giving opinion on football/sports, logical flaw?

The logical flaw is determining the woman's opinion as false simply because she is a woman.

Is it ethical?

No, saying that a woman's opinion is invalid simply because of gender is not logical. One's gender does not determine the validity of their opinions.

Ad feminam, scenario 1:

Yes this is a logical fallacy. Arguing that a woman's opinion is wrong about football because she doesn't know football is an invalid argument. Just because someone doesn't know everything about a subject doesn't mean that they can't have insight into it.

Ad feminam, scenario 2:

No, this is logically okay. If someone doesn't know anything about a subject then it is logically okay to determine that their idea could be false.

Ad feminam, scenario 3:

This is a logical fallacy, someone's experience in the sport no matter how vast does not instantly determine that their argument is right or wrong.

Ad feminam, scenario 4:

This is a logically okay argument. Having experience in a field does give your argument more weight.

PR Spin, to the man?

Yes this is an ad hominem attack.

Is it logically fallacious?

Yes it is. Just because he's paid to say something doesn't mean that everything he says is false.

Does the adversarial approach affect believability of an argument?

Yes it does. It incentivizes politicians to argue what their side believes regardless of fact.

Can you think of a better method?

Yes, if people were to honestly argue their ideals regardless of what they think people will vote for then it would lead to more rational arguments.

We should not reduce troops, logical fallacy?

Iran wanting us to reduce troops does not mean that we should or should not do it.

So your argument is traitorous, logical fallacy?

Yes this is a logical fallacy. Just because you want to or don't want to reduce troops does not mean that you're a traitor. There are many reasons to want both options.

So your argument is wrong, logical fallacy?

Yes this is a logical fallacy. What Iran wants us to do does not determine what we should do.

Q3. Write up your case on your blog with the following subheadings:

“The facts of the case.” Here is where you describe the case in your own words.

“Analysis.” Examine the case in terms of the consequentialist and deontological approaches.

“Conclusions.”

“Future environment.” Describe your vision of a future in which technology is more advanced than today, or society has changed in some significant way.

“Future scenario.” Describe how this ethical case (or an analogous one) would or should play out in the environment of the future, and give your opinions about it.

The facts of the case

Analysis

Conclusions

Future Environment

Future Scenario

Profile

Will

November 2022

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30

Syndicate

Page Summary

Style Credit

Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by timeasmymeasure

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Page generated Aug. 16th, 2025 03:34 am

Recent Entries

Answer:

The facts of the case.

Analysis.

Conclusions.

Future Environment.

Future scenario.

Eight important facts are:

Four questions to ask about the case are:

Answer:

The facts of the case.

Analysis.

Conclusions.

Future Environment.

Future scenario.

Q1. Prepare case notes on an ethics case related to ethics in research. Online students: post your notes to your blog. Your notes should include the following.

Interactive Lab Part 2

The facts of the case

Analysis

Dentological Ethics Perspective

Utilitarian Ethics Perspective

Virtue Ethics Perspective

Conclusion

Future Environment

Future Scenario

Eight important facts are:

Four questions to ask about the case are:

Three additional standard questions:

The facts of the case

Analysis

Conclusions

Future Environment

Future Scenario

Syndicate

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags