1. In Section 6.3.1, we examined some issues surrounding a ″hacker code of ethics.″ We also saw why this code, containing the six principles described by Steven Levy, has been controversial. Is it possible to establish an appropriate set of guidelines for a hacker code of ethics, i.e. for non-malicious hackers, without becoming a moral relativist? You may want to revisit our discussion on moral relativism in Chapter 2 in deciding your answer to this question. 2. Recall Eugene Spafford′s argument as to why computer break-ins can be justified under extraordinary circumstances. Apply Spafford′s rationale to the following case. Imagine that you will have to break into a neighbor′s car in order to drive a friend, who will otherwise die, to the hospital. You are morally obligated to save a person′s life when it is in your power to do so. You are also obligated to obey the law, which forbids breaking into someone′s motor vehicle. How would your decision in this case be similar to or different from the one Spafford uses when determining whether to break into the computer database containing the medical information needed to save someone′s life? Book referenced in question #1 Ethics and Technology: Controversies, Questions, and Strategies for Ethical Computing, 4th Edition
