Challenge of Removing Computer Security and Encouraging Ethical Teaching - Example

Accounting Information Systems Name: Institution: Date: Executive summary Licensing of software has created debate on whether ethical behavior alone is enough to encourage transfer of information without depriving the rights of the owner. This report provides some of the critical answers when it comes to software production and redistribution and what should be attributed to the owner or the end-user. The introduction opens up the discussion by giving an overview of the problem being discussed. The discussion tackles the issue regarding whether licensing is unethical. The following part looks at the challenge of removing computer security and encouraging ethical teaching. The subsequent part looks at whether removal of computer security systems and if it will result in reduction of fraud. The recommendations suggest the important steps that can be taken to encourage appropriate use of software considering licensing or free distribution. Table of contents Introduction 4 Discussion 4 Is software licensing antisocial? 4 Can computers security problems be solved by ethical teaching? 7 Removal of computer security measures result in fraud incidents reducing 9 Conclusion 9 Recommendations 10 References 11 Introduction Software licensing has elicited a lot of debate with some claiming that it makes the transaction process costly. Computer malpractices and increase in cyber crimes creates that need for proper rights that protects the owners from infringement. This report wades into the heart of challenges encompassing software licensing and further explores the ethical perspective held by some people. The question whether fraud can be reduced through removal of security measures has also been explored. Users and producers of software products have a role to play in the industry. Every industry players has to be included in the discussion. Discussion Is software licensing antisocial? Free software lobbyists base on the ability to develop, share, and improve software as a community effort. However, this practice can have adverse effect on business community that will hinder incentives for innovation and new product development. I do not agree with the Richard Stallman sentiments that software licensing is antisocial. This means that people have to share software without any restriction and no benefit being given to the owner in case of reproduction or redistribution (Quinn, 2011).  Open source community has the belief that the development model supported by enhanced collaboration by software liberty is better than the closed development model. Collaboration when it comes to software development can result in people just waiting on others to develop software and then they use and distribute them for free. Open source and free licensing aim to give minimal restrictions concerning how the software is redistributed as well as freedoms that offered to the users by making sure that other subsequent users get those rights. These are referred to copyleft licenses (MacKinnon, 2011). The General public license gives the user unchecked freedom to study, use as well as privately modify software so long as he sticks to the conditions of general public license. This includes freedom of modification or right to redistribute the software. Software licensing brings about complex issues linked to both the manner in which it is distributed and the nature of the software. Software does not belong exactly into the prevailing legal categories since it is both intangible and tangible, and both publicly distributable and privately owned. Whereas the intellectual property that makes up the underlying software code legally belongs to the software developer, the medium through which the software is carried can be freely be transferred by others (Yaman, 2007). Moreover, as opposed to tangible property, the code is subject to distribution and manipulation without the consent or knowledge of the owner. As compared to other intangible property like trademarks and secrets; software is usually available for purchase and can be sold of purchased to anyone who wants to buy it at a price. The cost of software will become irrelevant. When people opt to talk about free software, freedom is the first thing that crosses their mind and not money. Liberty and lack of cost sometimes are used interchangeably. Free software community has the belief that non-free software is antisocial. Software license refers to a legal instrument directing the redistribution and use of software (Bynum, 2006). Software is normally copyright-protected with the exemption of material in the public domain. A typical software license gives the end-user permission of using one or more copies of software in such a manner that it would be copyright infringement of the exclusive rights of the owner under the copyright law. Imposition of restrictions and granting of rights on software use give provisions which offer responsibility and liability between the parties who have entered a license agreement (Quinn, 2011).  In commercial and enterprise software transactions terms like warranties, limitations of liability and warranty disclaimer, as well as indemnity if the software if the software contravenes other people intellectual property rights. Software licensing is not in totality antisocial but seeks to protect the owner of the software by giving him exclusive rights to the copyright. Supporters of free software do not realize that they will kill the entrepreneurial spirit among innovators or software developers. Software licensing at least gives recognitions to the developers of software and any other third party has to seek permission from the owners in case of reproduction or redistribution (MacKinnon, 2011). Without silencing then the spirit in business with regard to software will die. The end-user cannot be credited with work that he or she has not innovatively come up with and distribute for free or modify it. The end user becomes an automatic owner of software. If a buyer software is allowed to use copies of legitimately acquired software at reduced price this makes the software producer go at a loss or lose an opportunity of making extra revenue. Hence free software distribution will kill the morale or producers and make the third parties to be lazy and wait for software to be produced so that they can distribute it at no cost (Godejord, 2008). Many software producers or developers are in the business to make profit; if the end users will be given exclusive rights to the software products as the owners then the owners will lose out on business. Software licensing seeks to curb the unethical nature of unscrupulous businessmen who will pry on software produced by other people for their own gain. The challenge faced by consumer goods manufacturers when it comes to crating a secondary market in goods that is much more accessible owing to the low barriers for Internet resellers, quick comparing of shopping on the Web, as well as existence of sites like Amazon and eBay, that bring sellers and buyers together and thus reducing the costs of transacting as well as the need for intermediaries. If the internet prompts other businesses to reconsider their business model, then it enhances entrepreneurialism and innovation. If restriction of a program that is already developed is harmful to the overall society, then an ethical software developer will automatically reject the chance of doing so (Namlu & Odabasi, 2007). The right to redistribution and modification has to be distributed to the owner of the software. The most importance of licensing is that the ownership of the software belongs to the software producer and the user has the obligation of accepting it. Software licensing comes with a list of functions that are restricted in the use of particular software. Licensing should not be just terms as antisocial without giving alternative to the software producers to gain something from their innovation. Can computers security problems be solved by ethical teaching? Security problems in computer cannot be totally solved by ethical teaching. Ethical teaching is good but there is no guarantee that people will adhere to the teachings after they have been taught. In every society there are people who are evil and malicious and despite there being laws or absence of laws they will do what their hearts guide them to do. Ethical teaching cannot be a long lasting solution to computer security challenges (Bynum, 2006). There are unscrupulous people who despite being taught good values will go ahead and do the opposite and take advantage of other people who are trying to live an ethical life. It is hard to tell what is going on in the mind of someone and software producers will be at the mercy of third parties whom they will pray that will stick to the ethical guidelines. Ethical teaching has to involve compliance to security policies and laws in many cases. Ethical education can be incorporated into the education systems alongside the licensing in order to encourage learners to respect copyright rights and licensed products. Cyber crimes are not only encouraged by problems of software but also other challenges hacking into banks securities to alter figures or swindle money. Computer security problems cannot be removed by ethical teaching. The dilemma faced by developers in the software industry is not whether software should be sold or given for free but the manner in which software developers can adjust to a business model in a setting where the distribution is often cheap and efficiency of transactions is guaranteed. Technology which threatens current industry or business may offer unexpected revenue streams for the business or the industry. The cost of transactions has to come down. So long as other people consider software as expensive, they will look for unethical ways of getting the same products and redistributing it at a lesser cost (MacKinnon, 2011). Religion would have played that part if at all people could set their eyes in behaving ethically. However, in every society there are evil men who are unscrupulous and want to take advantage of other people. Removal of computer security measures result in fraud incidents reducing I do not think that removal of computer security measures will result into reduction of cases of computer fraud. Some people will take advantage of the removal of security measures to redistribute and modify others people software without permission of the owner owing to the free window. Individuals who engage in fraud bypass security that has been created for the program in order to perform other functions that are not even related to the software (Floridi, 2006). Whether there are no security measures or not, there would be people who will want to do something unethical without other people realizing. Hacking to get security details is just part of the process that fraudsters engage in, but they do not stop at only bypassing the security, they go on to do other things that propelled them to engage in the act. Computer frauds will be there despite removal of security measures since there are numerous functions that can be performed on a computer. Fraudsters engage in a number of unethical activities that go beyond software licensing that computer security measures seek to protect (MacKinnon, 2011). Consequently removal of computer security measures will not curb incidents of fraud but they may instead increase as the unscrupulous people will have a field day. Conclusion Property rights infringement calls for the need of licensing to protect the original producer of software products. Innovation and new product development will be hurt if licensing is branded as being antisocial since there are people who will take advantage and benefit from other persons’ sweat. Despite the challenges of redistribution, there is need to have control on the use and modification of software products to give advantage to the owners. The dilemma of licensing or not to license falls in the hand of producers who want to encourage distribution as well as remain with the exclusive rights of the software products. All in all, the stakeholders involved have to be considered and consulted with regard to the part they play. Recommendations There is need to come up with ways that will ensure the entrepreneurial and innovative spirit is not killed through advocating for free software. Liberty should not be interpreted to mean cost free. Software producers have a right to enjoy the fruits by their labor by getting revenue through sale of software. Not licensing software can give fraudsters a field day to redistribute and modify software without the consent of the owner as well as perform other unscrupulous functions. It is important to develop ways in which the owners can track the distribution of software and have something to gain from their effort. The innovative spirit in producers has to be encouraged and an ethical behavior cultivated in the society of respecting property rights. Freedom may come with its own share of challenges that may be difficult to deal with. References Bynum, T. (2006), Flourishing Ethics, Ethics and Information Technology, 8(4): 157-173. Floridi, L. (2006a), Information Ethics: Its Nature and Scope, Computers and Society, 36(3): 21-36. Godejord, P.A. (2008). Getting Involved: Perspectives on the Use of True Projects as Tools for Developing Ethical Thinking in Computer Science Students," International Journal of Technology and Human Interaction 4, (2): 22-34. MacKinnon, B. (2011). Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues, 7th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Namlu, A. G., & Odabasi, F. (2007). Unethical computer using behavior scale: A study of reliability and validity on Turkish university students, Computers and Education, 48: 205-215. Quinn, M.J. (2011). Ethics for the Information Age, 4th ed. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley. Yaman, M. (2007). The competence of physical education teachers in computer use, 6(4), Journal of Educational Technology, 6(4), 79-87. Read More