Excerpted from today's New York Times:

  Is the slight risk of contracting cancer from Alar too high a price to pay
for crisper apples?  Is the dramatic increase in milk production available
through genetically engineered growth hormones worth the unknown risk to
children's health?  If a few aging aircraft suffer explosive decompressions,
should all old airlines be grounded?

  Risks to health and safety and the complex questions of public policy they
create are seemingly everywhere these days.  And while there is little
statistical evidence that the hazards of daily life are on the rise, a wide
range of academic and business experts believe that American's perception of
increased peril is stifling technology, wasting billions of dollars, and,
ironically, making it more difficult to contain the most serious risks.

  ... by broad statistical measures, Americans have never been safer ...

  Even the high-profile threats have not changed the risks of untimely death or
injury.  The skies may be crowded, the planes aging and the pilots
inexperienced, but the trend in aircraft fatalities is downward. ...

  Life-saving medicines have been less dramatically affected, but even here,
the measures to compensate for risk can radically change the economic of
distribution ...

  The Environmental Protection Agency also regards itself as handicapped by
Congressional and public misperception of relative risk. ...

  What explains the public's decreasing tolerance of some risks and apparent
indifference to others? ... perceived risk is not always related to the
probability of injury.

  Easily tolerated risks include ones that people can choose to avoid (chain
saws, skiing), that are familiar to those exposed (smoking), or that have been
around for a long term (fireworks).  Poorly tolerated risks are involuntary
(exposure to nuclear waste), have long delayed effects (pesticides), or unknown
effects (genetic engineering).

  ... nuclear and chemical technologies fare especially badly in such
subjective rankings.  Indeed the general acceleration of technical change and
integration of new technology in products helps to explain the increase in
public anxiety about risk.  ...

Life's Risks ...

Today's New York Times (Monday 8 May) has a front-page article title "Life's
Risks:  Balancing Fear Against Reality of Statistics".  It's the first of two
articles on "risk and public policy".

The article is ... well worth reading.  Here's an interesting quotation:

  Peter W. Huber, and engineer, lawyer and author of "The Legal Revolution and
  its Consequences" notes that ... "safety taxes" [extra costs charged by
  suppliers to pay for potential lawsuits] are added to the price of thousands
  of ... goods and services, distorting production and reducing living
  standards.  By Mr. Huber's reckoning, the safety tax represents 30 percent of
  the cost of a step ladder, one-third the cost of a ride on a Long Island tour
  bus and $300 of the cost of giving birth in New York City.
                                        -- Jerry

Hear No Evil

On a recent flight, the cabin crew was a bit late in starting the in-flight
movie.  The flight took less time than expected, so the movie's climactic
showdown scene began just after plane touched down.  Many of the passengers
became noticeably irritated at the flight attendants pre- and post-landing
announcements which interrupted the movie's audio.  This was a tow-in gate
so the engines were shut down well before arriving at the gate.  Without
engine power, an APU supplies electrical power.  On the switch-over,
however, the power glitch reset the audio channel controllers to the default
channel (8) which is silent.  It is common on commercial aircraft to have
"unimportant" control systems (such as the individual seat lighting and
audio) reset on power glitches.  This is not a safety problem.  Is it?

When the audio went dead on this flight, most of the passengers didn't know
what happened and pushed their flight attendant call buttons.  Same of the
more irate passengers repeatedly pushed it, causing the alert tone to sound
almost continuously.  (This was what I could see in first class. I can only
imagine what was happening in the coach cabin where passengers had to
explicitly pay extra for headsets and where there were more passengers.)

I would suspect that the official justification for the flight attendant
call button system is to alert the crew to emergencies.  During this
incident, any signaling of an emergency would not have been noticed.  I also
suspect that a failure analysis of the audio system did not foresee the
implications of a power glitch reseting the channel.  This is an example of
the most common reason for safety problems; the designers don't see all the
possible circumstances that the design will face, particularly where people
are involved.

The fix to this problem is trivial; make the default channel one with some
material on it, preferably one of the movie channels (1 through 4).  I
wonder if the current design was to save some small amount of power.

Another disconcerting observation was that the cabin crew did not seem to
understand what had happened either.  They seemed unable to help the
passengers.  They made repeated visits to the passengers who contined to
re-press their call buttons.  All that had to be done was to switch the channel
back to where it had been.

Disclaimer:  I don't represent Honeywell, neither should Don Dodgen.

Kevin R. Driscoll, Principal Research Scientist  (612) 782-7263  FAX: -7438
POST:  Honeywell M/S MN65-2500; 3660 Technology Drive; Mpls, MN 55418-1006

Computer Ethics Course/Resource Volunteers Wanted

Two drafts of the following course were previously printed in RISKS digests.
These brought a host of suggestions from readers. Almost all these suggestions
were incorporated into the final version below. Volunteers are now being sought
to participate in the course this Fall (see Section 3. b. 2. below). These
volunteers could contribute items relating to computer ethics for posting on the
class bulletin board, correspond by e-mail with individual students on course
topics, and/or comment on students' postings on the class bulletin board.
The course will run from late August to early December. No money is presently
available as compensation for this service, but I will gladly contribute
letters of appropriate recognition for those who participate as resource persons
in all or part of the course. If interested, send a brief "vita" to Bob Barger
at CFRNB@ECNCDC.BITNET.


                          SENIOR SEMINAR
                   EASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY

1.  Catalog Description

   a. Course Number: EIU 4050

   b. Title: Computer Ethics

   c. Credit: 2-0-2    [2 hrs per week/one semester]

   d. Term to be offered: On Demand

   e. Short title: Computer Ethics

   f. Course Description: The course will investigate current
ethical issues involving computers.  While it is not a "computer
course," students will make frequent use of postings on the
electronic bulletin board of the ECN mainframe computer to
research and discuss ethical issues.

   g. Prerequisites: 75 Semester Hours and previous experience
with computers. [Class size limit = 15 students for Fall, 1989,
semester].

   h. Exclusions: None.

2.  Outline of topics :

    Week        Topic

     1         Orientation to the course (introduction,
               explanation of course content, class procedures,
               and evaluation methodology). Consideration of
               ethical theory: examination of the metaphysical
               bases and resultant ethical norms of the idealist
               and naturalist theories.

     2         Consideration of ethical theory (continued):
               examination of the metaphysical bases and
               resultant ethical norms of the consequentialist
               and existentialist theories.

     3         On-line reading of the "Discussion of Ethics in
               Computing" list, the "Forum on Risks to the Public
               in Computers and Related Systems" digest, and the
               "Computers and Society" list (all are available on
               the ECN bulletin board); written reactions to
               these readings, and written commentary on other
               students' reactions. [The instructor will insure
               that these activities equate to the activities of
               a traditional two hour class meeting].

     4         Consideration of professional ethics:
               responsibilities between employer/employee,
               client/professional, professional/peer, and
               professional/society.

     5         On-line reading of the "Discussion of Ethics in
               Computing" list, the "Forum on Risks to the Public
               in Computers and Related Systems" digest, and the
               "Computers and Society" list (all are available on
               the ECN bulletin board); written reactions to
               these readings, and written commentary on other
               students' reactions. [The instructor will insure
               that these activities equate to the activities of
               a traditional two hour class meeting].

     6         Consideration of liability for software design,
               manufacture, and use: legal liability; truth-in-
               advertising; contracts; warranties; software as
               product or service?

     7         On-line reading of the "Discussion of Ethics in
               Computing" list, the "Forum on Risks to the Public
               in Computers and Related Systems" digest, and the
               "Computers and Society" list (all are available on
               the ECN bulletin board); written reactions to
               these readings, and written commentary on other
               students' reactions. [The instructor will insure
               that these activities equate to the activities of
               a traditional two hour class meeting].

     8         Consideration of privacy issues: individual
               privacy rights; institutional "right-to-know"
               concerns; system security concerns; data-banking
               concerns.

     9         On-line reading of the "Discussion of Ethics in
               Computing" list, the "Forum on Risks to the Public
               in Computers and Related Systems" digest, and the
               "Computers and Society" list (all are available on
               the ECN bulletin board); written reactions to
               these readings, and written commentary on other
               students' reactions. [The instructor will insure
               that these activities equate to the activities of
               a traditional two hour class meeting].

     10        Consideration of power/control issues: the
               computer as agent of centralization or
               decentralization? the computer as agent of
               conservation or change? the computer as agent of
               alienation?

     11        On-line reading of the "Discussion of Ethics in
               Computing" list, the "Forum on Risks to the Public
               in Computers and Related Systems" digest, and the
               "Computers and Society" list (all are available on
               the ECN bulletin board); written reactions to
               these readings, and written commentary on other
               students' reactions. [The instructor will insure
               that these activities equate to the activities of
               a traditional two hour class meeting].

     12        Consideration of ownership and theft issues:
               copyrights; fair usage; patents; trade secrecy and
               competition; considerations unique to the computer
               market.

     13        On-line reading of the "Discussion of Ethics in
               Computing" list, the "Forum on Risks to the Public
               in Computers and Related Systems" digest, and the
               "Computers and Society" list (all are available on
               the ECN bulletin board); written reactions to
               these readings, and written commentary on other
               students' reactions. [The instructor will insure
               that these activities equate to the activities of
               a traditional two hour class meeting].

     14        On-line reading of the "Discussion of Ethics in
               Computing" list, the "Forum on Risks to the Public
               in Computers and Related Systems" digest, and the
               "Computers and Society" list (all are available on
               the ECN bulletin board); written reactions to
               these readings, and written commentary on other
               students' reactions. [The instructor will insure
               that these activities equate to the activities of
               a traditional two hour class meeting].

     15        Seminar members will reconvene as a group for the
               last meeting to allow for group reflection on the
               seminar experience and course evaluation.

   Exam week   Final examination

    Writing component

   Students will type thirteen 30-to-50 line (i.e., one-to-two
   page) reactions to the on-line electronic bulletin board
   readings. Students will "post" these reactions (i.e.,
   electronically send them to the mainframe computer bulletin
   board set aside for members of this seminar). In their
   reactions, students will: 1) identify the particular
   publication or publications to which they are reacting, 2)
   identify the particular issue or issues raised in the
   publication(s), 3) identify the ethical implications of the
   issue or issues, 4) identify the ethical paradigm used by the
   author, 5) add their own reasons for agreement or disagreement
   with the viewpoint of the publication's author, 6) and,
   finally, offer an alternative solution or viewpoint to that
   presented by the author, or present other appropriate
   considerations not raised by the author or covered in their
   own (i.e., the student's own) previous comments. The
   instructor will send weekly, by confidential electronic mail,
   a grade on the student's posted reaction, together with
   whatever comments the instructor thinks helpful. The student's
   original posted reaction will also be open to public comment
   by the other students in the seminar [this is accomplished by
   posting notes to the bulletin board, referencing the original
   posted reaction]. These latter comments by the other students
   in the seminar will be considered along with classroom
   discussion in computing the "participation" factor of the
   student's semester grade.

    Evaluation

   Each student's semester grade for the seminar will be
   calculated according to the following weighted formula:

      - 13 posted reactions (at 5% each)    = 65%

      - Participation (based on class
        discussion and posted comments
        on other students' reactions)       = 20%

      - Final Exam                          = 15%

3.  Implementation :

   a. This course will be taught by: Robert N. Barger, Ph.D.

   b. Materials in the course will include:

      1) Texts:
         a) Deborah Johnson,  Computer Ethics  (Englewood
            Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1985)
         b) Notes on Systematic Philosophies from Dr. Barger's
            Philosophy 1800 class (furnished without charge to
            seminar members)
         c) Postings on the above-mentioned ECN electronic
            bulletin board lists.

      2) Resource people: Computer professionals (e.g.,
      administrators, systems analysts, programmers, etc.) will
      be utilized as guest contributors to the class. This will
      be accomplished by personal appearances, as well as by
      electronically mediated conferencing (e.g., postings, e-
      mail, relay round-tables, etc.).

   c. Exceptional costs: None, unless the student wishes to use a
      modem to access the computer. In this case the student will
      be responsible for any personal equipment costs and/or long
      distance phone charges.

   d. Effective date: Fall, 1989.


 Date approved by Senior Seminar Committee:  February 24, 1989.

 Date approved by Council on Academic Affairs:  April 20, 1989.

Search RISKS using swish-e 

Report problems with the web pages to the maintainer