Introduction
The Cold War was a period in which the world saw many advanced and technologies emerging. The point to note about these technological marvels is that the amount of money involved in them is enormous (sometimes outrageous).
Take the SAGE perimeter defense system for example. 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.
Risks involved in Electronic Voting
Electronic voting machines can easily be hacked into and tampered with. The biggest flaw in EVMs is that it introduces a third party into the picture, and there is no way in which a voter can verify that his vote has really been cast. This practice of handing over ballot paper to an intermediate is simly 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.
Responsibilites
Where there is a risk, there is a corresponding responsibility associated with the maker of the technology. 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.
Coming back to the context of Cold War, in the case of the SAGE defense system, the government 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, the question of the boundary between ethical and unethical comes into picture.
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
The Cold War was a period in which the world saw many advanced and technologies emerging. The point to note about these technological marvels is that the amount of money involved in them is enormous (sometimes outrageous).
Take the SAGE perimeter defense system for example. 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.
Risks involved in Electronic Voting
 |
| Can we trust these? |
Responsibilites
Where there is a risk, there is a corresponding responsibility associated with the maker of the technology. 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.
Coming back to the context of Cold War, in the case of the SAGE defense system, the government 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, the question of the boundary between ethical and unethical comes into picture.
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
- The Risks Digest
- From “Impact” to Social Process: Computers in Society and Culture by Paul Edwards
- An Unforseen Revolution: Computers and Expectations, 1935 - 1985 by Paul Ceruzzi
No comments:
Post a Comment