In my opinion, Sandia Laboratories should not try to hide the case, or pretend the one never existed. Sandia claims to be leaders in global security, so most probably they know what are the consequences of such a big threat as espionage. Personally, I believe that they did not want their reputation to be run-down. At the end, they are experts in nuclear weapon systems, defence & assessments systems, energy & climate systems and finally, in global security and yet, they have been compromised. However, just alike Carpenter, the management had more choices to solve this out.
As soon as they learned about the espionage, they should investigate it with or without Carpenter and authorities should be notified by Sandia immediately. Instead of firing …show more content…
Since section 2 is not as ambiguous as section 1, and summaries deliberations precisely, I have decided to compare principles of section 2 with actions taken by Carpenter. Section 3 deals mostly with businesses and management and I will compare these principles with steps Sandia has taken.
Shawn Carpenter
Following the case of Shawn Carpenter, it is clear to me that it was impossible for him to follow all principles of the ACM code if he wanted to protect the U.S. nation from hackers. Therefore, he has broken some principles by adhering others. In the Table 1.1 Adhered and broken ACM principles, adhered and broken principles of the ACM code by Carpenter can be seen.
Adhered Principles of ACM Broken principles of ACM
2.1 Strive to achieve the highest quality, effectiveness and dignity in both the process and products of professional work 2.3 Know and respect existing law pertaining to professional work
2.2 Acquire and maintain professional competence 2.8 Access computing and communication resources only when authorized to do so
2.5 Give comprehensive and thorough evaluations of computer systems and their impacts, including analysis of possible …show more content…
As this principle confirms, everybody needs approval before he can access computer or network systems, ports, files or other computing resources. Unfortunately, Carpenter did not obtain the permission from Sandia, nor from FBI. In fact, FBI were aware of this requirement, however, they did not apply for the permission, too. Moreover, they supported Carpenter through his investigation.
Sandia Laboratories
Section 3 of ACM Code of Ethics deals with ethics in businesses, management and international interests. Certainly, Sandia did not follow the principle 3.1 Articulate social responsibilities of members of an organizational unit and encourage full acceptance of those responsibilities. This principle confirms, that organizations must minimize harm to society and accept obligations towards society.
Following the case of Shawn Carpenter, it is obvious, that Sandia Lab was not very interested in the society, nor in the national security of the U.S. Perhaps the reason to ‘hide’ the case was driven by shame or fear. Since they are experts in global security, they should protect their network systems
As soon as they learned about the espionage, they should investigate it with or without Carpenter and authorities should be notified by Sandia immediately. Instead of firing …show more content…
Since section 2 is not as ambiguous as section 1, and summaries deliberations precisely, I have decided to compare principles of section 2 with actions taken by Carpenter. Section 3 deals mostly with businesses and management and I will compare these principles with steps Sandia has taken.
Shawn Carpenter
Following the case of Shawn Carpenter, it is clear to me that it was impossible for him to follow all principles of the ACM code if he wanted to protect the U.S. nation from hackers. Therefore, he has broken some principles by adhering others. In the Table 1.1 Adhered and broken ACM principles, adhered and broken principles of the ACM code by Carpenter can be seen.
Adhered Principles of ACM Broken principles of ACM
2.1 Strive to achieve the highest quality, effectiveness and dignity in both the process and products of professional work 2.3 Know and respect existing law pertaining to professional work
2.2 Acquire and maintain professional competence 2.8 Access computing and communication resources only when authorized to do so
2.5 Give comprehensive and thorough evaluations of computer systems and their impacts, including analysis of possible …show more content…
As this principle confirms, everybody needs approval before he can access computer or network systems, ports, files or other computing resources. Unfortunately, Carpenter did not obtain the permission from Sandia, nor from FBI. In fact, FBI were aware of this requirement, however, they did not apply for the permission, too. Moreover, they supported Carpenter through his investigation.
Sandia Laboratories
Section 3 of ACM Code of Ethics deals with ethics in businesses, management and international interests. Certainly, Sandia did not follow the principle 3.1 Articulate social responsibilities of members of an organizational unit and encourage full acceptance of those responsibilities. This principle confirms, that organizations must minimize harm to society and accept obligations towards society.
Following the case of Shawn Carpenter, it is obvious, that Sandia Lab was not very interested in the society, nor in the national security of the U.S. Perhaps the reason to ‘hide’ the case was driven by shame or fear. Since they are experts in global security, they should protect their network systems