COMMON FALLACIES OF THE COMPUTER GENERATION

The lack of early, computer-oriented, childhood rearing and conditioning has led to several pervasive fallacies that generally (and loosely) apply to nearly all computer and digital information users. The generation of computer users includes those from 7 to 70 years old who use computing and other information technologies. Like all fallacies, some people are heavily influenced by them, and some are less so. There are clearly more fallacies than those described here, but these are probably the most important. Most ethical problems that surface in discussions show roots in one or more of these fallacies.

The Computer Game Fallacy

Computer games like solitaire and game computers like those made by Nintendo and Sega do not generally let the user cheat. So it is hardly surprising for computer users to think, at least subliminally, that computers in general will prevent them from cheating and, by extension, from otherwise doing wrong.

This fallacy also probably has roots in the very binary nature of computers. Programmers in particular are used to the precise nature that all instructions must have before a program will work. An error in syntax, a misplaced comma, improper capitalization, and transposed characters in a program will almost certainly prevent it from compiling or running correctly once compiled. Even non-programming computer users are introduced to the powerful message that everything about computers is exact and that the computer will not allow even the tiniest transgression. DOS commands, batch file commands, configuration parameters, macro commands, spreadsheet formulas, and even file names used for word processing must have precisely the right format and syntax, or they will not work.

To most users, computers seem entirely black and white — sometimes frustratingly so. By extension, what people do with computers seems to take on a black-and-white quality. But what users often misunderstand while using computers is that although the computer operates with a very strict set of inviolable rules, most of what people do with computers is just as gray as all other human interactions.

It is a common defense for malicious hackers to say something like “If they didn’t want people to break into their computer at the [defense contractor], they should have used better security.” Eric Corley, the publisher of the hacker’s 2600 Magazine, testified at hearings for the House Telecommunications and Finance Subcommittee (June 1993) that he and others like him were providing a service to computer and telecommunication system operators when they explored computer systems, found faults and weaknesses in the security systems, and then published how to break these systems in his magazine. He even had the audacity while testifying before Congress to use his handle, Emanuel Goldstein (a character from the book 1984), never mentioning that his real name was Eric Corley.

He, and others like him, were effectively saying “If you don’t want me to break in, make it impossible to do so. If there is a way to get around your security, then I should get around it in order to expose the problem.”

These malicious hackers would never consider jumping over the four-foot fence into their neighbor’s backyard, entering the kitchen through an open kitchen window, sitting in the living room, reading the mail, making a few phone calls, watching television, and leaving. They would not brag or publish that their neighbor’s home was not secure enough, that they found a problem or loophole, or that it was permissible to go in because it was possible to do so. However, using a computer to perform analogous activities makes perfect sense to them.

The computer game fallacy also affects the rest of the members of the computer-user generation in ways that are a good deal more subtle. The computer provides a powerful one-way mirror behind which people can hide. Computer uses can be voyeurs without being caught. And if what is being done is not permissible, the thinking is that the system would somehow prevent them from doing it.

The Law-Abiding Citizen Fallacy

Recognizing that computers can’t prevent everything that would be wrong, many users understand that laws will provide some guidance. But many (perhaps most) users sometimes confuse what is legal, which defines the minimum standard about which all can be justly judged, with what is reasonable behavior, which clearly calls for individual judgment. Sarah Gordon, one of the leaders of the worldwide hobbyist network FidoNet said, “In most places, it is legal to pluck the feathers off of a live bird, but that doesn’t make it right to do it.”

Similarly, people confuse things that they have a right to do with things that are right to do. Computer virus writers do this all the time. They say: “The First Amendment gives me the constitutional right to write anything I want, including computer viruses. Since computer viruses are an expression, and a form of writing, the constitution also protects the distribution of them, the talking about them, and the promotion of them as free speech.”

Some people clearly take their First Amendment rights too far. Mark Ludwig has written two how-to books on creating computer viruses. He also writes a quarterly newsletter on the finer details of computer virus authors and runs a computer virus exchange bulletin board with thousands of computer viruses for the user’s downloading pleasure. The bulletin board includes source code, source analysis, and tool kits to create nasty features like stealthing, encryption, and polymorphism. He even distributes a computer virus CD with thousands of computer viruses, a source code, and some commentary.

Nearly anyone living in the United States would agree that in most of the western world, people have the right to write almost anything they want. However, they also have the responsibility to consider the ramifications of their actions and to behave accordingly. Some speech, of course, is not protected by the constitution — like yelling “fire” in a crowded theater or telling someone with a gun to shoot a person. One would hope that writing viruses will become nonprotected speech in the future. But for now, society has not decided whether virus writing, distribution, and promotion should be violently abhorred or tolerated as one of the costs of other freedoms.