Record Sentence for Computer Sabotage - Essay Example

Record sentence for computer sabotage Introduction Where there are several s that the article touches on, the primary issue being discussed here are the punishments that can be given for cybercrime. Beyond cybercrime, the article also raises some questions about trust issues and access issues concerning what information should be allowed to be handled by which individuals and how control over certain systems can put a person in a position of power in a company. Himowitz (2008) discusses the same topic of sabotage in a wider context concerning the control which companies such as Apple Inc. might have with regard to what computer systems their software runs on and what computer systems it does not through sabotaging the Max OS X operating system. Article Analysis The situation with Apple is more complex and deserves a more concrete explanation. Apple produces an operating system which is supposed to only run on machines which are made by Apple. In recent times, Apple moved to the Intel processors and along with this move, it left the door open for other companies to use the same motherboard and chips to provide Mac clones. One such company is Psystar, which has produced computers running Mac OS X at rates which are much cheaper than comparative Apple computers. The exclusivity of Mac OS X running on Apple made machines is therefore under threat and it is likely that Apple would want to put a stop to this. At the same time, there have been court rulings which hold “that a software publisher cant require you to run an operating system on a specific type of hardware (Himowitz, 2008, Pg. 1)”. However, there is nothing stopping Apple from releasing an update to its Mac OS X system which stops the computer from running if an ‘unauthorized’ system is detected. Essentially, Apple “can always sabotage the usurper by issuing updates that wont run on the alien machine, or that disable it (Himowitz, 2008, Pg. 1)”. Here, sabotage may be entirely legal and the only result of the sabotage would be that a lot of the people using Psystar created Apple computers could be left holding the bag. Apple has done the same in the past with its iPhone devices which were hacked to run on wireless carriers other than the ones licensed by Apple. The laws and the ethics concerning this topic need to be defined further since once a buyer has purchased a device or has bought a piece of software it should be permissible for them to use it any way they like. Apple should not be able to sabotage an iPhone which is not being used in the manner Apple would like to see it being used. If Apple chooses to sabotage the device, it would certainly be doing something unethical if not illegal. On the other hand, Yung-Hsun Lin also engaged in the act of sabotage as he went about sabotaging the computer systems of his employer in the hope that he would get to keep his job. In this instance, Medco Health Solutions was able to detect how their systems were being sabotaged and that saved them from the malicious code which had been entered into their systems (The Age, 2008). The employee of the company was found guilty and then punished for the act of sabotage. However, the same act of sabotage may not lead to legal action against a corporation such as Apple simply because they have a EULA and a team of lawyers which can help Apple get what it wants (Himowitz, 2008). Of course there is no justification for what Yung-Hsun Lin did to his employer but Apple can justify its actions since it makes the users of the Mac OS X and the buyers of the iPhone sign an agreement by which they give up certain rights and the ability to modify the code which comes with the product. When it comes to modifying code, even a patch made by Apple could be overturned with a new patch coming Psystar and a battle between hackers and patchers could easily ensue. The only losers in the battle would be the consumers who would have to wait for patches before they could use their unlicensed computers. Both Apple and Lin act as saboteurs and both of them seem to be following the dictates of ethical egoism. Lin did what he thought to be in his best interest and had he not been caught by the company he might still have his job at Medco Health Solutions Inc. where he would be fixing the problems he had created in the first place. For Apple, not allowing other manufacturers to use its operating system on their devices means more sales for the MacBook and the iMac as well as other computers made by the company. In the 1990’s, Apple did use outside hardware makers who “made perfectly good Mac clones and sold them much cheaper than Apples machines, which didnt do much for Apples bottom line. When Jobs rejoined the outfit in 1997, he put a stop to that - and Apples profits soared (Himowitz, 2008, Pg. 1)”. Undoubtedly, a large part of the soaring profits came from the ingenious leadership of Steve Jobs and the manner in which Apple was able to produce highly desirable computers and electronic devices. However, Apple was also helped by the fact that it had a complete monopoly on the Macintosh system which no other producer could replicate. Even Psystar is using the dictates of ethical egoism as it has done what it think is best for the company by producing Apple clones at rates far lower than the market. In the past, anyone who wished to experiment with the Mac would have to go for the cheapest Apple system available i.e. the Mac Mini. Today, the same person can go for a Psystar created system which costs less and does more (Himowitz, 2008). In fact, this issue of Psystar behaving with ethical egoism connects deeply with the topics discussed by Grodzinsky (2000) who suggests that the behavior of companies and individuals with regard to ethics “have assumed additional complexity in the global environment (Grodzinsky, 2000, Pg. 3)”. What may be seen as perfectly ethical behavior by a company may be seen as violation of the EULA given by another. At the same time, the EULA of one company may be seen as the violation of the basic rights of the consumer by a government or another entity. On the other hand, the act of sabotage done by Lin can not be condoned in any shape or form since there are no ethical grey areas here. Lin did what he did since he thought he would not be discovered and his job would thus be protected. He was only looking out for his interest but because he was apprehended, he lost his job, lost a lot of money and is facing a prison sentence for his crime (Himowitz, 2008). His acts are completely against the ethical methods of operation suggested by the Australian Computer Society (ACS)and the first value given by the ACS which reads, “I must act with professional responsibility and integrity in my dealings with the community and clients, employers, employees and students (ACS, 2008, Pg. 1)”. Conclusion Lin did not show professionalism, he did not show responsibility toward his clients and he certainly did not show integrity since he was only worried about himself in the short term and could not see how this would affect him in the long term. His acts were punished since what he did was unethical as well as illegal. Considering the case of Apple, if Apple disables phones which have been hacked or makes it impossible to run the OS X on computers that have not been created by Apple, the law could be on the side of Apple even though the ethics of the matter might not be. Apple is supposed to act with responsibility and integrity which means they should not seek to damage the computers which are running their operating system even if they have not been produced by the company. However, they could and they might while there is no legally binding method to stop them from doing so. Argument in Standard Form Premise 1: Sabotaging a Computer System is wrong Premise 2: Saboteurs will and should be punished for their unethical acts Premise 3: The agreement under which a computer is used may make it legal for an entity to sabotage it Premise 4: Even though there is an agreement on the conditions a computer system may be used, companies may be behaving unethically if they sabotage it. Conclusion: Ethically speaking, companies should not sabotage the computers of those who have bought them legally. Word Count: 1,518 Works Cited Australian Computer Society (ACS). 2008, ‘Code of Ethics’, [Online] Available at: http://www.acs.org.au/ictcareers/index.cfm?action=show&conID=coe Grodzinsky, F. 2000, ‘The development of the ethical ICT professional: and the vision of an ethical on-line society: how far have we come and where are we going?’, Computers and Society, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 3 – 7. Himowitz, M. 2008, ‘Personal Tech: New computer runs like a Mac -- at a discount’, [Online] Available at: http://www.newsday.com/business/yourmoney/ny-kdfeeltx5661485apr27,0,318735.story The Age. 2008, ‘Record sentence for computer sabotage’, [Online] Available at: http://www.theage.com.au/news/security/record-sentence-for-computer-sabotage/2008/01/09/1199554704107.html Read More