Case Analysis Module: Machado 1.2 2006/07/26 05:33:12 GMT-5 2007/03/02 08:18:02.485 US/Central William J. Frey wfrey@uprm.edu William J. Frey wfrey@uprm.edu Computer Ethics Problem Specification Socio-Technical Systems Value Conflict This module is founded on two insights: the analogy between problem-solving in ethics and design methodology and the effectiveness of case analysis for practicing skills in ethical problem-solving. Students will learn socio-technical system analysis and how to use this analysis to predict the problems likely to accompany the implementation of a new technology or computing system. This module has been developed to test networking potentialities of the EAC Toolkit and Connexions by linking to the materials posted at the Computing Cases website. This module is being developed as a part of an NSF-funded project, "Collaborative Development of Ethics Across the Curriculum Resources and Sharing of Best Practices," NSF SES 0551779. Computer Ethics Case Module Template: Machado Case By William J. Frey Module Abstract: This module, designed for the EAC Toolkit (NSF SES 0551779), will test the Toolkit and Connexion’s ability to network different online and offline sources for ethics across the curriculum. It consists of four components designed to provide tools for an in-depth analysis of the cases found at www.computingcases.org; it also makes substantial references to the draft manuscript of a textbook in computer ethics entitled Good Computing: A Virtue Approach to Computer Ethics under contract with Jones and Bartlett Publishing Company. (This book will consist of the cases displayed at Computing Cases—Therac-25, Machado, and Hughes Aircraft—and 7 additional cases all developed through NSF projects DUE-9972280 and DUE 9980768.) Module Introduction: This module as displayed in Connexions presents the case abstract and timeline both taken from Computing Cases. It then refers to the website where the following can be found by browsing: case narrative, case history, a teaching introduction which also provides a useful overview, an ethical analysis that can be accessed by clicking on the appropriate concept in the table displayed (clicking on safety will open a short document that discusses the safety implications of the case) a Socio-Technical Analysis which spells out the different components of the cases socio-technical system such as hardware, software, physical surroundings, people/groups/roles, procedures, laws, and data/data structures. supporting documents such as three RFCs (Request for Comments) on the Unix finger command, a profile of students at UCI, and an interview with Allen Schiano from the University of California at Irvine’s Office of Academic Computing. These materials all posted at www.computingcases.orgprovide the background information necessary for a detailed and exhaustive case analysis. (A suggestion: since you will be working in groups, divide these readings among your group members and take advantage of class time to report to one another on the contents of the links you have individually explored. Be sure to triangulate by assigning more than one member to each link. This will help to identify and solve problems in interpretation.) The case abstract and timeline in this module outline the case. The following decision point taken from the Machado case will provide the focus for an in-depth case analysis. You will respond to the decision-point by working through a four stage decision making procedure inspired by the standard Software Development cycle: problem specification, solution generation, solution testing, and… solution implementation. Module Activities: 1. Instructor introduces the case based on the abstract and timeline found at www.computingcases.org 2. Students read case abstract, timeline, case decision point, and case analysis exercises. 3. Students do further research into the case by consulting ComputingCases materials which include narratives, histories, supporting documents, and ethical analyses. 4. Students carry out the activities outlined in the accompanying case exercises by (a) specifying the problem raised in the decision point, (b) generating solutions, (c) testing solutions using ethics tests, and (d) developing plans for implementing the solution over situational constraints. 5. Students prepare their case analyses working in small groups. 6. These groups present their completed analysis to the class in a case-debriefing session. 7. The instructor concludes by discussing the problem-solving issues and intermediate moral concepts raised by the case. Machado Abstract: In September of 1996, 19 year-old Richard Machado sent email to 59 Asian students at his public college, threatening them with phrases like “I will personally make it my life’s career to hunt you down and kill you” and signed by “Asian Hater.” Several of these individuals reported this incident to the Office of Academic computing (OAC). One of the recipients was a student employee of the OAC. The administrators of the OAC were faced with a decision about how to respond to harassing and threatening email sent over their system to students of their University, using their facilities. Machado Timeline 11/16/95 Machado sends email threat to New University paper (UCI) via his roommate’s computer.The email is traced to the roommate’s computer.Roommate later said Machado had access to the computerMachado identified as sender. 11/21/95 Warrant for arrest is filed against Machado, issued by Irvine Police Department—the warrant is a “no bail felony warrant.”Machado consents to a property search.Case given up shortly after—Machado’s roommate took the blame so he “wouldn’t be bothered anymore.” (Between 1/1/96 and 9/20/96) Machado’s older brother murdered in armed robbery prior to following incident;Machado is doing poorly in school, getting pressure from family to uphold high expectations. 9/20/96(Friday, 10:54 am) Machado sends hate Asians/threat email to about 59 UCI studentsMachado sent message a second time shortly after, when he did not receive replies to the first email.Incident brought to the attention of Assoc. Director of The Academic Computing Center, by her employees.Machado identified in computer lab and was asked to leave by Core Services manager. 9/21/96 Director of OAC reads Machado’s email and decides that it is a police matter. 9/24/96(Monday) The incident is reported to University Police DepartmentAn officer is assigned to the case. 9/26/96 Retrieval of surveillance video confirmed Machado as the sender.Irving City Police notified and involved in case. 9/27/96 Registrar’s office helps police locate Machado’s address and phone number. 9/28/96 An officer phones Machado’s residence and leaves messageMachado calls back and agrees to meet with an officer that afternoon at 5pm.Two charges filed after meeting: Machado (1) knowingly and without permission uses computer services and (2) makes telephone calls with intent to annoy. 11/14/96 A stolen vehicle report is filed for Machado’s second roommate’s car.Machado had told one roommate he was borrowing his other roommate’s car.Machado did not have permission to borrow car. 11/18/96 FBI attempts investigation.An agent goes to Machado’s residence; Machado is not there and hasn’t been seen there since 11/13.Machado allegedly left with Young’s keys on 11/14.Other suspicions: $80 missing from roommate’s coin jar; $154 visa charges to roommate’s card, $54 of which were unauthorized; calls on 11/10, 11, and 12. 11/21/96 FBI agent phones Machado’s roommate for confirmation of stolen car/info on Machado’s disappearance. 11/22/96 Roommate interviewed. 11/23/96 Tammy Machado (Machado’s sister) interviewed and said Machado had disappeared on the day his brother called him to inquire about Machado’s name appearing in newspaper regarding Asian hate mails.Machado denied the reports in the paper to his brother; claimed it to be someone else.Tammy is informed that court date is set for 11/25 and if Richard doesn’t show, they would issue a warrant for his arrest. 2/6/97 Machado is arrested when attempting to enter US from Mexico—caught by US Immigration Inspector.Machado is reported as looking homeless, having no possessions, looking for construction work in Mexico. 9/16/97 Machado is charged with 10 counts of interfering with a federally protected activity—in this case, students attending a university.Machado is told he will face up to 10 years if convicted. 11/12/97 Trial takes place and on this date a recess is granted when new information is uncovered/presented.Questionnaires were revealed in which 9 of the students who got the messages said they were not overtly bothered by Machado’s email. 11/18/97 Jury deadlocked 9 to 3 in favor of acquittal.Case said to have national importance by federal prosecutors, so a second trial was set for 1/27/98. 2/13/98 Richard Machado is found guilty on 2 counts of civil rights violations.Took only 3 weeks of trial to reach verdict.Following conviction, Machado is released on a $10,000 bond from custody but is turned over to Irvine police on impending auto theft charges.Sentencing is postponed until 4/10/98.Possible maximum time Machado could serve would be 1 yr.Machado has already spent 1 yr. in jail awaiting trials, tec.Machado is recommended for anger & racial tolerance counseling, not allowed on UCI campus, and prohibited from having any contact with victims. Scenario #1: You are a systems administrator at the Office of Academic Computing at the University of California at Irvine and have been asked to modify the Unix system to prevent the reoccurrence of the Machado incident Scenario #2: You are a systems administrator at the Office of Academic Computing at the University of California at Irvine and have been asked to develop an orientation program for students who will use university computing laboratories and facilities. Special emphasis is put on preventing a reoccurrence of the Machado incident. 1. Identify key components of the STS Part/Level of Analysis Hardware Software Physical Surroundings People, Groups, & Roles Procedures Laws & Regulations Data & Data Structures 2. Specify the problem: 2a. Is the problem a disagreement on facts? What are the facts? What are cost and time constraints on uncovering and communicating these facts? 2b. Is the problem a disagreement on a critical concept? What is the concept? Can agreement be reached by consulting legal or regulatory information on the concept? (For example, if the concept in question is safety, can disputants consult engineering codes, legal precedents, or ethical literature that helps provide consensus? Can disputants agree on positive and negative paradigm cases so the concept disagreement can be resolved through line-drawing methods? 2c. Use the table to identify and locate value conflicts within the STS. Can the problem be specified as a mismatch between a technology and the existing STS, a mismatch within the STS exacerbated by the introduction of the technology, or by overlooked results? STS/Value Safety (freedom from harm) Justice (Equity & Access) Privacy Property Free Speech Hardware/software Physical Surroundings People, Groups, & Roles Procedures Laws Data & Data Structures 3. Develop a general solution strategy and then brainstorm specific solutions: Problem / Solution Strategy Disagreement Value Conflict Situational Constraints Factual Conceptual Integrate? Tradeoff? Resource?Technical?Interest 3a. Is problem one of integrating values, resolving disagreements, or responding to situational constraints? 3b. If the conflict comes from a value mismatch, then can it be solved by modifying one or more of the components of the STS? Which one? 4. Test solutions: Alternative / Test Reversibility Value: Justice Value: Responsibility Value: Respect Harm Code A #1 A #2 A #3 5. Implement solution over feasibility constraints Alternative Constraint Resource Interest Technical Time Cost Individual Organization Legal/ Social Available Techno-logy Manufacturability #1 #2 #3