Computer ethics is a rich topic that affects all of us in our interconnected world. To build good ethical judgment capabilities, Bynum and Rogerson (1) suggest applying a multi-staged approach to case study analysis where these stages are defined as: (1) detailing the case study, (2) identifying key ethical principles and specific ethical issues raised by the case, (3) calling on your experience and skills for evaluation, and (4) applying a systematic analysis technique. In this assignment, you will perform the first three of these steps for a case study.
Examine the ethical considerations and dilemmas of a diverse and interconnected world.
This course requires the use of Strayer Writing Standards (SWS). The library is your home for SWS assistance, including citations and formatting. Please refer to the Library site for all supports. Check with your professor for any additional instructions.
Instructions
Write a 3- to 5-page paper in which you analyze a computer ethics cases.
Read the article entitled, “Your Botnet is My Botnet: Analysis of a Botnet Takeover,” about a team of researchers who reverse engineered the Torpig botnet, controlled it, and captured data.
Describe the nature and details of the case, including the persons, organizations, and stakeholders involved.
Describe ethical principles both supporting the actions of the principal actors (such as minimizing harm or damage to targets of the attacks) in a computer ethics case and contradicting the actions of the principal actors, citing specific, credible sources that support one’s assertions and conclusions.
Explain why you agree or disagree with the actions of the principal actors in the case, citing specific, credible sources that support your position from an ethical perspective.
Justify your position from an ethical perspective.
Dante Alighieri played a critical role in the literature world through his poem Divine Comedy that was written in the 14th century. The poem contains Inferno, Purgatorio, and Paradiso. The Inferno is a description of the nine circles of torment that are found on the earth. It depicts the realms of the people that have gone against the spiritual values and who, instead, have chosen bestial appetite, violence, or fraud and malice. The nine circles of hell are limbo, lust, gluttony, greed and wrath. Others are heresy, violence, fraud, and treachery. The purpose of this paper is to examine the Dante’s Inferno in the perspective of its portrayal of God’s image and the justification of hell.
In this epic poem, God is portrayed as a super being guilty of multiple weaknesses including being egotistic, unjust, and hypocritical. Dante, in this poem, depicts God as being more human than divine by challenging God’s omnipotence. Additionally, the manner in which Dante describes Hell is in full contradiction to the morals of God as written in the Bible. When god arranges Hell to flatter Himself, He commits egotism, a sin that is common among human beings (Cheney, 2016). The weakness is depicted in Limbo and on the Gate of Hell where, for instance, God sends those who do not worship Him to Hell. This implies that failure to worship Him is a sin.
God is also depicted as lacking justice in His actions thus removing the godly image. The injustice is portrayed by the manner in which the sodomites and opportunists are treated. The opportunists are subjected to banner chasing in their lives after death followed by being stung by insects and maggots. They are known to having done neither good nor bad during their lifetimes and, therefore, justice could have demanded that they be granted a neutral punishment having lived a neutral life. The sodomites are also punished unfairly by God when Brunetto Lattini is condemned to hell despite being a good leader (Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). While he commited sodomy, God chooses to ignore all the other good deeds that Brunetto did.
Finally, God is also portrayed as being hypocritical in His actions, a sin that further diminishes His godliness and makes Him more human. A case in point is when God condemns the sin of egotism and goes ahead to commit it repeatedly. Proverbs 29:23 states that “arrogance will bring your downfall, but if you are humble, you will be respected.” When Slattery condemns Dante’s human state as being weak, doubtful, and limited, he is proving God’s hypocrisy because He is also human (Verdicchio, 2015). The actions of God in Hell as portrayed by Dante are inconsistent with the Biblical literature. Both Dante and God are prone to making mistakes, something common among human beings thus making God more human.
To wrap it up, Dante portrays God is more human since He commits the same sins that humans commit: egotism, hypocrisy, and injustice. Hell is justified as being a destination for victims of the mistakes committed by God. The Hell is presented as being a totally different place as compared to what is written about it in the Bible. As a result, reading through the text gives an image of God who is prone to the very mistakes common to humans thus ripping Him off His lofty status of divine and, instead, making Him a mere human. Whether or not Dante did it intentionally is subject to debate but one thing is clear in the poem: the misconstrued notion of God is revealed to future generations.
References
Babor, T. F., McGovern, T., & Robaina, K. (2017). Dante’s inferno: Seven deadly sins in scientific publishing and how to avoid them. Addiction Science: A Guide for the Perplexed, 267.
Cheney, L. D. G. (2016). Illustrations for Dante’s Inferno: A Comparative Study of Sandro Botticelli, Giovanni Stradano, and Federico Zuccaro. Cultural and Religious Studies, 4(8), 487.
Verdicchio, M. (2015). Irony and Desire in Dante’s” Inferno” 27. Italica, 285-297.
To effectively address this prompt, I need to analyze the “Your Botnet is My Botnet: Analysis of a Botnet Takeover” article, detailing the case, identifying ethical principles for and against the researchers’ actions, and then justifying my own position. Since I cannot directly access external articles, I will base my analysis on the common understanding and publicly available summaries of the Torpig botnet takeover by a team of academic researchers.
Ethical Quandaries in Cybersecurity: The Torpig Botnet Takeover
The increasingly interconnected digital world brings with it complex ethical dilemmas, particularly in the realm of cybersecurity. The case of the Torpig botnet takeover by a team of researchers from the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) and the University of California, Berkeley, presents a compelling scenario to examine the fine line between proactive defense and potentially problematic intervention. This paper will detail the Torpig botnet case, explore the ethical principles supporting and contradicting the researchers’ actions, and finally, justify a personal stance on their conduct.
The Nature and Details of the Case: Torpig Botnet Takeover
The Torpig (also known as Sinowal or Anserin) botnet was a highly sophisticated and dangerous piece of malware that emerged in the late 2000s. Its primary function was to steal sensitive financial information, including online banking credentials, credit card numbers, and other personal data, from infected computers. It achieved this through various means, such as keylogging, form grabbing, and sniffing network traffic, all while maintaining a stealthy presence on compromised systems. The botnet was estimated to have infected hundreds of thousands of computers worldwide, causing significant financial losses to individuals and institutions.
To effectively address this prompt, I need to analyze the “Your Botnet is My Botnet: Analysis of a Botnet Takeover” article, detailing the case, identifying ethical principles for and against the researchers’ actions, and then justifying my own position. Since I cannot directly access external articles, I will base my analysis on the common understanding and publicly available summaries of the Torpig botnet takeover by a team of academic researchers.
Ethical Quandaries in Cybersecurity: The Torpig Botnet Takeover
The increasingly interconnected digital world brings with it complex ethical dilemmas, particularly in the realm of cybersecurity. The case of the Torpig botnet takeover by a team of researchers from the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) and the University of California, Berkeley, presents a compelling scenario to examine the fine line between proactive defense and potentially problematic intervention. This paper will detail the Torpig botnet case, explore the ethical principles supporting and contradicting the researchers’ actions, and finally, justify a personal stance on their conduct.
The Nature and Details of the Case: Torpig Botnet Takeover
The Torpig (also known as Sinowal or Anserin) botnet was a highly sophisticated and dangerous piece of malware that emerged in the late 2000s. Its primary function was to steal sensitive financial information, including online banking credentials, credit card numbers, and other personal data, from infected computers. It achieved this through various means, such as keylogging, form grabbing, and sniffing network traffic, all while maintaining a stealthy presence on compromised systems. The botnet was estimated to have infected hundreds of thousands of computers worldwide, causing significant financial losses to individuals and institutions.
To effectively address this prompt, I need to analyze the “Your Botnet is My Botnet: Analysis of a Botnet Takeover” article, detailing the case, identifying ethical principles for and against the researchers’ actions, and then justifying my own position. Since I cannot directly access external articles, I will base my analysis on the common understanding and publicly available summaries of the Torpig botnet takeover by a team of academic researchers.
Ethical Quandaries in Cybersecurity: The Torpig Botnet Takeover
The increasingly interconnected digital world brings with it complex ethical dilemmas, particularly in the realm of cybersecurity. The case of the Torpig botnet takeover by a team of researchers from the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) and the University of California, Berkeley, presents a compelling scenario to examine the fine line between proactive defense and potentially problematic intervention. This paper will detail the Torpig botnet case, explore the ethical principles supporting and contradicting the researchers’ actions, and finally, justify a personal stance on their conduct.
The Nature and Details of the Case: Torpig Botnet Takeover
The Torpig (also known as Sinowal or Anserin) botnet was a highly sophisticated and dangerous piece of malware that emerged in the late 2000s. Its primary function was to steal sensitive financial information, including online banking credentials, credit card numbers, and other personal data, from infected computers. It achieved this through various means, such as keylogging, form grabbing, and sniffing network traffic, all while maintaining a stealthy presence on compromised systems. The botnet was estimated to have infected hundreds of thousands of computers worldwide, causing significant financial losses to individuals and institutions.
