These are sample questions from previous exams made available to study.
1. (3 pts) For some hackers, the motive is the intellectual
challenge of breaking in to an unauthorized computer system. A
hacker who views no personal data, alters nothing, and has no
destructive intent claims that his hacking is harmless. Write a
rebuttal to this claim, explaining the harm caused even when no data is
accessed, stolen, modified, or destroyed.
(Poor answer) The issue here is that hackers are accessing
sites without authorization. This makes it a crime.
Regardless of whether or not they modify or steal any data, they have
somehow bypassed the site's security to gain access. It's just
like trespassing. It doesn't matter if they took anything, they
were trespassing and that is a violation of computer crime laws. They
should be punished. (The question didn't ask if it was a crime, it
asked to explain the harm caused. )
(Weak answer) A hacker who steals and alters nothing has still
violated your privacy rights. Even though they have no
destructive intent, the hacker is being intrusive. If I knew
someone had looked through my computer which contains personal photos,
email, etc. I would definitely feel intruded upon. The hacker has
no right to do that. (While "invasion of privacy" could be
considered a "harm" there are many more direct and more damaging
consequences this answer failed to mention. )
(Good answer) Even with no harmful intent, a hacker may
inadvertently change something that causes damage. For example,
hackers usually try to erase evidence of their snooping, and he might
erase the wrong thing. The victim will have to spend money to
figure out where their security had a hole and fix it. Companies
that rely on their data will have to have someone make sure nothing was
changed; they can't just take the hacker's word for it. In
California, companies have to inform their customers if their data has
been victim of hacking, so they have to send out letters. The
hacker may brag to other hackers about his "conquest" thus making the
site a target for malicious hackers.
Note: The textbook discusses this issue on page 289.
2. Three of the photos below are well know examples of digital
manipulation. The fourth is legitimate. Which is it?
Kerry & Fonda
Rumsfeld & Saddam
National Geographic Pyramids
O.J. Simpson
3. Prepare a written response to this
scenario:
An individual set up a 24-hour webcam, similar to this beach cam,
on an island on the Atlantic coast.
The camera was aimed at a ferry dock frequented by both local
people using the ferry and tourists. People could visit
his web site to check on weather conditions to determine if ferry
service were likely to be cancelled.
Some people complained that the webcam violated their privacy.
If you were the webcam operator, how would you justify
your position?
Suppose you were asked to mediate this situation.
Has the webcam operator violated any laws?
Can you suggest a solution to the dilemma? 4. Think of a
rationalization you may have heard others (or yourself) use to justify
illegally downloading or copying music. Describe the rationalization,
then
discuss the counter-argument.
(Poor answer)
Rationalization: "I won't get caught."
Counterargument: "Why take the risk?" (The counter argument
is too brief, and even if elaborated, fails to address the underlying
ethical issue).
(Good answer)
Rationalization: "I won't get caught."
Counterargument: Just because you may escape enforcement of a law
doesn't release you from any ethical obligation to society. Laws
are just society's way of making tangible its deeper moral codes.
If no one believed in the underlying moral code, the police by
themselves wouldn't have the power to preserve order in society.
If the only moral compass people have is the fear of punishment, then
even law enforcement isn't enough to prevent total anarchy.
Consider this analogy: "I hate my professor because he gave me an F on
my term paper. I think I'll go kill him. I'm sure I can do
it in a way that I won't get caught." Does escaping punishment
make it acceptable to murder someone? Most people would say no.
The deeper issue with music downloading is theft of intellectual
property. A rationalization that doesn't justify why stealing is
acceptable in this situation won't convince anyone.
