Question no.

1 (A) The term whistle blowing has its origins in the factory or industrial whistle that sounds when a hazardous condition arises. Its current use has been motivated by the need for a neutral or even positive term to characterize the activity of employees who go public without authorization concerning what they believe to be compromises to the public interest emanating from the workplace UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, IF ANY, IS WHISTLE BLOWING JUSTIFIED? The frequent effect of blowing the whistle is to create significant disruption within an organization. In one way or another organization is likely to lose control of its affairs as it is subjected to external inquiries and constraints. Indeed, it may find itself crippled by costs or other restrictions, and many within it who are little more than innocent bystanders may also suffer. Whistle blowing , therefore, will be justified only if several conditions are satisfied. (i) Last resort. The disruption likely to be caused by blowing the whistle can be justified only if other avenues for warning, protest, or rectification, have proven ineffective. As a publicly supported practice, whistle blowing needs to conform to the principle of the least restrictive alternative. Sometimes, of course, the risks confronting whistle blowers may make less extreme forms of reporting impracticable (or risky). Although whistle blowers might be expected to demonstrate good faith, their martyrdom cannot be demanded. (ii) Well grounded. Once again, the costs for organizations against whom the whistle is blown require that whistle blowers have good reasons for believing that their organizations are perpetrating the wrongs of which they are accused. By virtue of their going public whistle blowers will need rea sons for their claims that would hold up in a public forum. (iii) Sufficiently serious. In determining whether the costly option of whistle blowing is called for, the potential whistle blower needs to consider the seriousness (including the reversibility) of the setback that is at issue, and its imminence. In many cases, responses to setbacks or wrongdoing should probably take other forms -- confrontation, ostracism, transfer, and so on -- in which costs to the organization are not likely to be disproportionate to the costs of the setback. The whistle blower must be more than a tattle tale. (iv) Role-related. Although it might be argued that any member of an organization who becomes aware of tolerated wrongdoing has an obligation to take some action, it is also true that the burden of response falls more heavily on some than on others. Those whose roles include supervision may have a greater responsibility for the legitimacy of the organizations behaviour than those whose role is essentially that of subordinates and who might not be privy to the larger context within

which the organizations acts are to be understood. (v) Effective. The point of blowing the whistle is to change the status quo -- to avert some threat to others or to rectify a damaging situation that has been brought about. If blowing the whistle is unlikely to accomplish any public good, the damage it causes is likely to outweigh any other values it may have. (vi) Appropriately motivated. Although it is not necessary for justifiable whistle blowing that whistle blowers be themselves motivated by a concern for the public interest (or some analogue), whistle blowers are unlikely to be seen as having acted praiseworthily unless they are so motivated. Whistle blowing -- even when justified by circumstances -- may nevertheless by motivated by revenge, the desire for promotion or ingratiation, self-protection or penance, and it is common for those against whom the whistle is blown to attempt to undermine whistle blower credibility. Although, strictly, such attacks are beside the point, they may, like defence attorney attacks on the credibility of witnesses, serve to cast doubt on the credibility of whistle blowers without addressing the substance of their claims. The point, then, is not that the morally compromised are exempted from blowing the whistle but (a) they may not garner moral praise for doing so, and (b) doubt may be cast on their credibility.

(B) IS HACKING INTO A COMPUTER SYSTEM JUST TO LOOK AROUND IS ETHICALLY ACCEPTABLE?
Hacking into a computer system is not ethical behavior, no matter what a hacker may believe As our society becomes smaller through increased technology, privacy becomes more important. An individual's right to privacy is more important than another individual's right to know. Things have changed dramatically in society over the past ten years. We are now living in an era where anyone can find out virtually any information about anyone else with a few clicks of a computer mouse. Unfortunately, lawmakers are still weighing the issues involved with computer crime and computer privacy. Therefore, it is up to individuals to respect the rights of their fellow man.

ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES DO SOFTWARE DESIGNERS HAVE FOR ENSURING THAT HACKING IS MINIMIZED Do not use a computer in ways that may harm other people.
It is unethical to use a computer to harm another user. It is not limited to physical injury. It includes harming or corrupting other users' data or files. It is wrong to use a computer to steal someone's personal information. Manipulating or destroying files of other users is ethically wrong. It is unethical to write programs, which on execution lead to stealing, copying or gaining

unauthorized access to other users' data. Being involved in practices like hacking, spamming, phishing or cyber bullying does not conform to computer ethics.

Do not spy on another person's computer data.

We know it is wrong to read someone's personal letters. On the same lines, it is wrong to read someone else's email messages or files. Obtaining data from another person's private files is nothing less than breaking into someone's room. Snooping around in another person's files or reading someone else's personal messages is the invasion of his privacy. There are exceptions to this. For example, spying is necessary and cannot be called unethical when it is done against illegitimate use of computers. For example, intelligence agencies working on cybercrime cases need to spy on the internet activity of suspects.

Do not use someone else's computer resources unless authorized to.

Multi-user systems have user specific passwords. Breaking into some other user's password, thus intruding his private space is unethical. It is not ethical to hack passwords for gaining unauthorized access to a password-protected computer system. Accessing data that you are not authorized to access or gaining access to another user's computer without his permission is not ethical.

Do not use computer technology to steal information.

Stealing sensitive information or leaking confidential information is as good as robbery. It is wrong to acquire personal information of employees from an employee database or patient history from a hospital database or other such information that is meant to be confidential. Similarly, breaking into a bank account to collect information about the account or account holder is wrong. Illegal electronic transfer of funds is a type of fraud. With the use of technology, stealing of information is much easier. Computers can be used to store stolen information. One should not forget though, that doing so is unethical.

Do not contribute to the spread of misinformation using computer technology.

Spread of information has become viral today, because of the Internet. This also means that false news or rumors can spread speedily through social networking sites or emails. Being involved in the circulation of incorrect information is unethical. Mails and pop-ups are commonly used to spread the wrong information or give false alerts with the only intent of selling products. Mails from untrusted sources advertising certain products or spreading some hard-to-believe information, are not uncommon. Direct or indirect involvement in the circulation of false information is ethically wrong.