Case Analysis and Presentation: Machado1.22006/08/21 14:24:42 GMT-52007/03/02 09:28:42.195 US/CentralWilliamJ.Freywfrey@uprm.eduWilliamJ.Freywfrey@uprm.eduComputersEthicsSocio-technical systemsThis module contains the Machado case analysis exercises already published in CNX under the title "Case Analysis Module: Machado" by the same author. In addition, this version includes a Powerpoint presention. 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 EthicsCase Module Template: Machado CaseBy William J. FreyModule 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.org2. 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
11/16/95Machado 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.11/21/95Warrant 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.9/21/96Director 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.9/26/96Retrieval of surveillance video confirmed Machado as the
sender.Irving City Police notified and involved in case.9/27/96Registrar’s office helps police locate Machado’s address and
phone number.9/28/96An 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.11/14/96A 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.11/18/96FBI 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 12.11/21/96FBI agent phones Machado’s roommate for confirmation of
stolen car/info on Machado’s disappearance.11/22/96Roommate interviewed.11/23/96Tammy 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.2/6/97Machado 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.9/16/97Machado 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.11/12/97Trial 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.11/18/97Jury deadlocked 9 to 3 in favor of acquittal.Case said to
have national importance by federal prosecutors, so a second trial
was set for 1/27/98.2/13/98Richard 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 incidentScenario #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 AnalysisHardwareSoftwarePhysical SurroundingsPeople, Groups, & RolesProceduresLaws & RegulationsData & 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/ValueSafety (freedom from harm)Justice (Equity & Access)PrivacyPropertyFree SpeechHardware/softwarePhysical SurroundingsPeople, Groups, & RolesProceduresLawsData & Data Structures
3. Develop a general solution strategy and
then brainstorm specific solutions:
Problem / Solution StrategyDisagreementValue ConflictSituational ConstraintsFactualConceptualIntegrate?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 / TestReversibilityValue: JusticeValue: ResponsibilityValue: RespectHarmCodeA #1A #2A #3
5. Implement solution over feasibility
constraints
Alternative ConstraintResourceInterestTechnicalTimeCostIndividualOrganizationLegal/ SocialAvailable Techno-logyManufacturability#1#2#3