CISC280 – Project 7
1.
Kalamazoo College requires that all computers connected to the campus network be running up-to-date antivirus
software. When a student’s computer is discovered to have a virus, its network connection is cut until a staff
member can remove the virus. If it turns out that the computer was not running up-to-date antivirus software,
the student is fined $100. Is this an ethically justifiable policy?
Yes it is, because the student not having up-to-date AV software put the entire campus network at risk.
If
ransomware is introduced to the network, everyone on the network will be affected regardless of whether or not
they have up-to-date AV software installed on their computers.
2.
Millions of American homes are equipped with wireless networks. If the network is not made secure, any nearby
computer with a wireless card can use the network. The range of home wireless networks often extends into
neighboring homes, particularly in apartment complexes. If your neighbor’s wireless network extends into your
home, is it wrong to use that network to get free Internet access?
No, I don’t believe it is wrong, but in doing so, you take on all the risks associated with using an unsecured
network, including having your information stolen (just as the owner of the unsecured network does).
3.
The University of Calgary offered a senior-level computer science course called “Computer Viruses and
Malware.” The course taught students how to write viruses, worms, and Trojan horses. It also discussed the
history of computer viruses and taught students how to block attacks. All course assignments were done on a
closed computer network isolated from the Internet. Some computer security experts criticized the University
for offering the course. One researcher said, “No one argues criminology students should commit a murder to
understand how a murderer thinks.” What is your position on whether the University of Calgary was right or
wrong to offer the course?
I believe they were right to offer the course.
Learning how to write malware helps tremendously in learning how
to block malware.
There is a huge difference between teaching someone that 1 + 1 = 2 and teaching them WHY
1 + 1 = 2.
Teaching the why provides the building blocks to apply the concept to other scenarios. To put learning
how to write malware on par with committing a murder is comparing apples and alternators.
4.
East Dakota has decided to allow its citizens to vote over the Web in the presidential election, if they so desire.
Thirty percent of the eligible voters choose to cast their ballots over the Web. The national election is so closely
contested that whoever wins the electoral votes of East Dakota will be the next president. After the election,
state elections officials report the vote tally and declare candidate X to be the winner. Two weeks after the
inauguration of President X, state officials uncover evidence of massive electoral fraud. Some voters were tricked
into connecting to a phony voting site. The organization running the phony site used the credentials provided by
the duped voters to connect to the actual voting site and cast a vote for candidate X. State officials conclude the
electoral fraud may have changed the outcome of the election, but they cannot say for sure. They have no
evidence that candidate X knew anything about this scheme to increase his vote tally. Discuss the proper
response to this revelation. For guidance, consult Article II, Section 1, and Amendment XII to the United States
Constitution (see copy at the end of the project).
The United States Constitution does not provide clear procedures for how to handle questions of legitimacy after
the fact — especially when those questions involve the presidency. The standard for invalidating an election
result and holding another vote is quite high.
According to University of Memphis law professor Steven Mulroy,
courts will usually entertain this option only if they determine a violation of rules that would change the election
outcome.
In this particular case, this would likely require proving tampering where the vote was close enough to
change the result in the Electoral College.
In that case, East Dakota would vote again, not the entire country. But
