Collaborative Discussion

Peer Response 1

Hi Amrol,

Thank you for your interesting post. Having picked the same topic, it was very interesting and informative to read a different perspective.

I believe Rogue Services raises several concerns regarding the ethical dimensions of the company’s operations. By advertising the “no matter what” tagline, they attracted clients who had less-than-honest intentions, to spread malware and spam. Notably, the company has shown a blatant disregard for its responsibility by refusing to engage with ISPs despite being aware that their services were being used for illicit activities, underscoring their lack of responsibility.

Your post does a great job of pinpointing the ethical problems associated with Rogue Services. The Association for Computing Machinery (2024) highlights that the company violated key ethical standards by allowing its services to be used for harmful purposes, particularly by failing to prevent harm to others (ACM, 2024). You highlighted this well.

The complexities surrounding legal and jurisdictional challenges in addressing cybercrime has been highlighted to us previously, with EnrcoChat, ethics in computing with generative AI and this recent sample, Rogue Services. These challenges are further complicated by the global nature of the internet and varying legal frameworks. For example, the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) has established that domain registrars have a duty of care to disconnect domains used for illegal activities, such as copyright infringement. This decision underscores the responsibility of intermediaries in curbing harmful online practices, even when jurisdictional conflicts arise (Kluweriplaw.com, 2021). By ensuring that registrars take proactive measures, such as disconnection or freezing domains to prevent re-registration with other providers, this ruling illustrates how judicial systems can address the misuse of web services while navigating complex legal landscapes. Such approaches provide a framework for holding entities accountable across borders, although enforcement remains a challenge due to differing national laws.

In summary, Rogue Services exemplifies significant ethical shortcomings in its operations. By prioritizing profit over responsibility, the company has contributed to a detrimental environment for cybersecurity.

References:

ACM Ethics. (2018). Case: Malware Disruption. [online] Available from: https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/using-the-code/case-malware-disruption/. [Accessed 5 February 2025].

Kluweriplaw.com. (2021). Kluwer Copyright Blog. Rogue We [online] Available from: https://copyrightblog.kluweriplaw.com/2021/02/15/rogue-websites-domain-registrars-have-a-duty-to-disconnect-says-german-bgh/ [Accessed 5 February 2025].

Peer Response 2

Hello Mohammed,

Thank you for informative and well-articulated post. It supports and highlights the analysis of the “Abusive Workplace Behavior” case study very well, commending its comprehensive ethical and legal evaluation. The analysis effectively highlights the ethical breaches by Max and Jean, referencing specific principles from the ACM Code of Ethics. It also points out violations of the British Computer Society (BCS) Code of Conduct, emphasizing the importance of upholding public interest, integrity and professional competence.

Max’s behavior demonstrates a pattern of bullying, including undermining others work, devaluing opinions and verbal abuse. Such actions foster a hostile environment. The British Computer Society (BCS) Code of Conduct also emphasizes public interest, integrity and competence (BCS, 2022). On the other hand, Jean, the team’s manager, also demonstrates failures in her responsibilities. By dismissing Diane’s concerns and normalizing Max’s behavior, Jean failed to provide a supportive and safe environment to address the abusive conduct. This inaction violates ethical guidelines that require support for the well-being and dignity of team members. Jean’s response also neglected her duty to uphold professional standards and protect employees from harm.

In these events, the company could face legal claims for harassment or creating a hostile work environment. Toxic work cultures lead to decreased employee morale, reduced productivity, and increased turnover, automatically having a negative impact on the company’s productivity, resulting in reputational and financial damage (Peek, 2024).

References:

Acm.org. (2024). Case Study: Abusive Workplace Behavior. [online] Available from: https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics/case-studies/abusive-workplace-behavior. [Accessed 6 February 2025].

Acm.org. (2019). Using the Code: Case Studies to help guide computing professionals in how to apply the Code to various real-world situations. [online] Available from: https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics/case-studies. [Accessed 6 February 2025].

BCS (2022). CODE OF CONDUCT FOR BCS MEMBERS. [online] Available at: https://www.bcs.org/media/2211/bcs-code-of-conduct.pdf. [Accessed 6 February 2025].

Peek, S. (2024). Why Does Power Abuse Persist? [online] business.com. Available from: https://www.business.com/articles/psychology-of-power-abuse/. [Accessed 6 February 2025].

Peer Response 3

Hello Christopher,

Thank you for this very interesting and informative post. Having picked a different topic, and briefly read this case study, I didn’t realize the risks and potential implications, until I read your analysis.

You successfully highlighted the strengths of the case study analysis by identifying key ethical concerns, including harm caused by autonomous weapons, privacy violations and whistleblower retaliation. By referencing ethical guidelines such as the ACM Code of Ethics (2018) and the BCS Code of Conduct (2022), the analysis provides a solid foundation for discussing these issues. However, the case also raises broader concerns regarding accountability, mass surveillance, and corporate ethics. I especially found your reference of Asimov’s First Law of Robotics (1950) an interesting perspective on the broader ethical expectations for autonomous systems.

The ethical issues highlighted—harm caused by autonomous systems, surveillance, and whistleblower suppression—are increasingly relevant in today’s technological landscape. As AI and robotics continue to develop, these concerns will become more pressing. Researchers such as Brundage et al. (2018) have warned about the potential misuse of AI in military and security applications, arguing that such technologies require strict ethical oversight. One of the biggest concerns with AI-driven weaponry is the issue of accountability. If an autonomous system causes harm, who is responsible? The developers or the machine? Scholars such as Sparrow (2007) argue that assigning responsibility in such cases is extremely difficult, raising concerns about ethical and legal loopholes. Moving forward in the future, especially with the development and implementation of new technologies, this is definitely an area to consider a good amount of focus on.

References:

Brundage, M. (2018). The Malicious Use of Artificial Intelligence: Forecasting, Prevention, and Mitigation. [online] Available from: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1802.07228. [Accessed 6 February 2025].

SPARROW, R. (2007). Killer Robots. Journal of Applied Philosophy, [online] 24(1), pp.62–77. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5930.2007.00346.x. [Accessed 6 February 2025]. Acm.org. (2024). Case Study: Abusive Workplace Behavior. [online] Available from: https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics/case-studies/abusive-workplace-behavior. [Accessed 6 February 2025].

Acm.org. (2019). Using the Code: Case Studies to help guide computing professionals in how to apply the Code to various real-world situations. [online] Available from: https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics/case-studies. [Accessed 6 February 2025].

BCS (2022). CODE OF CONDUCT FOR BCS MEMBERS. [online] Available at: https://www.bcs.org/media/2211/bcs-code-of-conduct.pdf. [Accessed 6 February 2025].