Introduction:
The Cold War was a period of military tension, mistrust and general paranoia in both the USA and the USSR. An arms race resulted in the stocking up of nuclear warheads and the threat of "mutually assured destruction" was guaranteed by both sides. As a result, the American Government funded Project Whirlwind in the MIT and created the SAGE perimeter defense system. According to Paul Edwards in his essay on 'Computers and Society', the value of the SAGE project was almost entirely imaginary and ideological. Though its military potential was minimal, it helped create a sense of active defense to assuage some of the helpless passivity of nuclear fear. Such justifications were also common during this period in collaborations between scientists at various educational institutions and the military. In a process of 'mutual orientation', engineers constructed visions of military uses of computers they wanted to build in order to justify grant applications. We notice that in both the above examples, the entire truth was not let out. Does something 'smell' here?
Through a glimpse into the process of possible electoral fraud, I will try to explain some of the risks and responsibilities associated with such justifications.
Electronic Voting - A Look at the Risks:
Most people consider electronic voting to be simply an automated process where votes can easily be processed and counted to produce a result. In this naive view, electronic voting, or e-voting, is simply a faster and more accurate method of traditional voting. This view however, is flawed, and electronic voting machines can easily be hacked into and tampered with. According to some, e-voting unnecessarily introduces a third party into the picture, a separation where the voter cannot directly see whether the vote he has provided has been recorded. Several voters consider this practice of handing over their ballot paper to an intermediate as unacceptable, since it violates the very nature of the 'secret ballot'. An electronic voting system can be involved in any one of a number of steps in the setup, distributing, voting, collecting, and counting of ballots. Possible electronic or algorithmic errors at any of these stages may be a weakness for a hacker to exploit. What's worse, under a secret ballot system, there is no known input, nor any expected output with which to compare electoral results. Hence, electronic electoral results and thus the accuracy, honesty and security of the entire electronic system cannot be verified by humans.
Responsibilities and Professional Ethics:
If there is a risk associated with the usage of a particular technology, there is a corresponding responsiblity associated with its engineer or manufacturer. Producers of electronic voting machines in the US, however, continue to make defective machines, resulting in several electoral frauds in the USA - most notably in the 2000 presidential elections. Here, both the producers and the government are guilty of violating their professional ethics in popularizing such voting machines. In the case of the SAGE defense system, the governement did not let out the whole truth and misled its citizens. Obviously, this was done for their 'greater good', since revealing their objective would spoil the effectiveness of the program. Here, we see that there are shades of grey separating the ethical from the unethical.
Conclusion:
The process for computerized warfare developed in result of a perceived threat to security during the Cold War period. Several new technologies emerged such as digital computers, hydrogen bombs, and automated defense systems. With great power however, comes great responsibility and the creators of such technology have responsibilities to its users. A professional must have his or her own self enforced code of ethics which they will follow at all times. As a thumb rule, we may use some of the tests suggested in class - to not do anything that makes us uncomfortable or 'smells'.
References:
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_voting
[2] http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/risks
[3] Article by Paul Edwards titled 'Computers and Society'
No comments:
Post a Comment