We have begun wrapping up our initial background research component for this research and have begun examining the different viewpoints we have synthesized from other sources combined with our own opinions. Through extensive discussion and debate between me and Sohini, we decided to settle upon these three viewpoints/arguments:
Viewpoint I
Code, just like writing, is a form of free speech, an inalienable right everyone is entitled to. While some may argue that social engineers (or "hackers") who create malware is a form of coercion, or a duress crime to force their victims to give up their information, this is most of the time, not the case. Especially with phishing, users themselves have to give up their own information by typing it into some sort of web-based interface. This is no different than a stranger walking up to someone, request their bank account information, and have the victim comply, but of course, in a more concealed manner. Despite the fact that most social engineers try to make their platforms be as similar as possible to the interface they are trying to recreate, the responsibility still lies with the user, as falling victim to phishing (or any sort of malware requiring the victim from intervening) is the result of his or her negligence. This same principle applies to malware that does not require human intervention. Just like in the real world, users in the virtual world must always be on the alert for threats, especially since the user is knowledgeable of these threats through pre-installed anti-virus systems, and constant reminders for security on the Internet, such as changing your password every so often.
Viewpoint II
Users of the technology argue that the malicious intent to harm is what is bad as the initial purpose of the internet was solely to transmit research data, no one expected it to be infected with malware on a closed internet. Today, the Internet plays a prominent role is social globalization and thus rely on in for trade, education, socialization, entertainment, among many other important aspects of human life. Unless one is browsing the Internet for the purpose of becoming infected with malware, people tend to assume they are immune to attacks. After all, most computers today come pre-installed with anti-virus systems. Should a user be affected by malware, it is the extensive work of a social engineer to break through existing security systems. As a result, users affected by malware would place all fault on the creator, as they were the ones who knowingly committed a crime. Many parallels can be drawn from this perspective. For example, if someone was hit by a stray bullet on the road, the person who shot it is at fault because they are aware that carelessly shooting may result in dire consequences whereas the person shot would have assumed the road is safe and constantly monitored by law enforcement.
Viewpoint III
The manufacturers themselves are at fault. For example, iOS is only manufactured by the company Apple, which has a tight focus on security. If there’s “a malware threat to iPhones and iPads, Apple can blast out an update and, in theory, that’s the end of it” (Beres). Similarly, “if something goes wrong on Android, Google has to identify the problem and deliver a fix to manufacturers, and then those manufacturers have to beam that update to their customers” (Beres). The manufacturers may also be held accountable for educating users in malware prevention. Often, they do put in place firewalls and employ other cybersecurity and cryptography techniques to prevent specific attacks directly to the system.
From these three viewpoints, we see that Viewpoint I is most valid (despite it being ethically controversial :/). In the digital age that we live in today, it is with no doubt that people are knowledgeable of the destruction that malware can bring to a computer, or even a whole networking system, as we are constantly kept current through the media and new security updates/patches on mobile devices and web applications. Of course, our perspective may also be the result of a biased lens from living in the Silicon Valley. Our next step is to examine this issue and each of our perspectives from a philosophical lens, such as through Nietzsche or Pyrrho, specifically on the ideas of good versus evil. From a closer analysis from the perspective of these classical philosophers, we hope to bring new light on this topic that has constantly debated amongst the consumer electronics markets.
-James
Viewpoint I
Code, just like writing, is a form of free speech, an inalienable right everyone is entitled to. While some may argue that social engineers (or "hackers") who create malware is a form of coercion, or a duress crime to force their victims to give up their information, this is most of the time, not the case. Especially with phishing, users themselves have to give up their own information by typing it into some sort of web-based interface. This is no different than a stranger walking up to someone, request their bank account information, and have the victim comply, but of course, in a more concealed manner. Despite the fact that most social engineers try to make their platforms be as similar as possible to the interface they are trying to recreate, the responsibility still lies with the user, as falling victim to phishing (or any sort of malware requiring the victim from intervening) is the result of his or her negligence. This same principle applies to malware that does not require human intervention. Just like in the real world, users in the virtual world must always be on the alert for threats, especially since the user is knowledgeable of these threats through pre-installed anti-virus systems, and constant reminders for security on the Internet, such as changing your password every so often.
Viewpoint II
Users of the technology argue that the malicious intent to harm is what is bad as the initial purpose of the internet was solely to transmit research data, no one expected it to be infected with malware on a closed internet. Today, the Internet plays a prominent role is social globalization and thus rely on in for trade, education, socialization, entertainment, among many other important aspects of human life. Unless one is browsing the Internet for the purpose of becoming infected with malware, people tend to assume they are immune to attacks. After all, most computers today come pre-installed with anti-virus systems. Should a user be affected by malware, it is the extensive work of a social engineer to break through existing security systems. As a result, users affected by malware would place all fault on the creator, as they were the ones who knowingly committed a crime. Many parallels can be drawn from this perspective. For example, if someone was hit by a stray bullet on the road, the person who shot it is at fault because they are aware that carelessly shooting may result in dire consequences whereas the person shot would have assumed the road is safe and constantly monitored by law enforcement.
Viewpoint III
The manufacturers themselves are at fault. For example, iOS is only manufactured by the company Apple, which has a tight focus on security. If there’s “a malware threat to iPhones and iPads, Apple can blast out an update and, in theory, that’s the end of it” (Beres). Similarly, “if something goes wrong on Android, Google has to identify the problem and deliver a fix to manufacturers, and then those manufacturers have to beam that update to their customers” (Beres). The manufacturers may also be held accountable for educating users in malware prevention. Often, they do put in place firewalls and employ other cybersecurity and cryptography techniques to prevent specific attacks directly to the system.
From these three viewpoints, we see that Viewpoint I is most valid (despite it being ethically controversial :/). In the digital age that we live in today, it is with no doubt that people are knowledgeable of the destruction that malware can bring to a computer, or even a whole networking system, as we are constantly kept current through the media and new security updates/patches on mobile devices and web applications. Of course, our perspective may also be the result of a biased lens from living in the Silicon Valley. Our next step is to examine this issue and each of our perspectives from a philosophical lens, such as through Nietzsche or Pyrrho, specifically on the ideas of good versus evil. From a closer analysis from the perspective of these classical philosophers, we hope to bring new light on this topic that has constantly debated amongst the consumer electronics markets.
-James
No comments:
Post a Comment