Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 14:42 GMT
From: "Thomas J. Klotzbach" <
[email protected]>
Subject: File 3--Another View of Bellcore vs. 2600
To many, the crux of the controversy seems to be whether or not
the internal Bellcore document was legally published in 2600 Magazine.
To me, the issue is one far more basic.
Mr. Goldstein states that he published the article because it was
of "public importance". But were there other goals as well? To
embarrass Bellcore? To protect the phone system from degradation
caused by inappropriate use? Which goal or goals were the most
important? In his response to Mr. Suchyta, he states that "...as
journalists, we have a certain obligation that cannot be cast
aside...". What is that obligation? Is "...readers, who have a keen
interest in this subject matter..." enough of a justification? Or
should there be any justification?
I believe that Bellcore should be allowed to discover, document
and correct the problem internally. If Bellcore was negligent/refused
in correcting a known deficiency, that perhaps disclosure of the
problem would bring pressure to bear on Bellcore to correct the
deficiency. But this was not the case. Bellcore discovered,
documented and took steps to correct the problem it would seem, in a
timely manner. Also, the problem that Bellcore documents does not
appear to be caused as the result of a deliberate, planned action to
provide for a "trapdoor".
I would ask Mr. Goldstein:
- did you verify the source of the document?
- did you ascertain how the document was obtained?
- did the document contain any markings indicating that it was an
internal Bellcore document?
- did you weigh the needs of publishing the article versus not
publishing the article?
I tried to apply an ethical code or standard that would govern MY
conduct if I was the person who published a similar article relating
to my profession. I referred to the newly proposed revision to the
ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (CACM May '92). I
concluded after review with my attorney that a disclosure of a similar
type by me would probably be in violation of the ACM Code sections 1.2
(Avoid harm to others), 1.5 (Honor property rights including
copyrights and patents - this also deals with unauthorized duplication
of materials), 4.1 (Uphold and promote the principals of this Code)
and possibly 2.3 (Know and respect existing laws pertaining to
professional work).
This issue is not solely about computers and technology. It is
about "doing the right thing". It's about balancing the need for
information versus how that the information is obtained and
disseminated. It's about having an ethical standard that treats
disclosure for the sake of disclosure and not ensuring that the
information is obtained in a method consistent with high ethical
standards as deserving of skepticism by the reader.
There are those who liken this series of events to "Just one more
case of Goliath tromping on those ill equipped to defend themselves".
I would respond that if those who are "ill-equipped" to defend
themselves publish a document which may have been obtained in an
unethical manner and which may infringe on another party's rights,
then they should be prepared to face a possible challenge. And as far
as "the chilling effect of their (Bellcore's) letter threatening to
trample on a free press as well", I would add that we not only need a
free press, but a free and RESPONSIBLE press as well. The end does
not always justify the means.
The First Amendment provides for certain guarantees of freedoms as
they relate to assembly, press and speech. It does not unfortunately
guarantee common sense and a thorough review of all possible
reactions/results of exercising that freedom. Many cloak themselves
in the First Amendment words - fewer still cloak themselves in ethical
standards that bring credibility to their work and to the causes that
they advocate. The Computer Underground must win
respect/understanding in all phases of society or it will relegated to
a niche in that society.
Downloaded From P-80 International Information Systems 304-744-2253
