"Computer technology is particularly powerful due to its potential to change how we think about ourselves as human beings, how we make decisions in governance and social policy, and how we save and pass on knowledge..."

["Integrated Social Impact and Ethical Issues Across the Computer Science Curriculum" [Holz, Martin 92]]

In 1992, experts in the field of Information Technology found one of the most pressing needs facing students in computer-related fields was a lack of understanding of the social and ethical implications of computerization. They agreed that technical issues are best understood in their social context. However, there was a well-documented problem.

As a result, in a lot of cases, computer science was being taught with little insight into the impact some of the associated phenomena could have in the real world, and ethics classes were being taught with no measure of the ethical implications of using these very important computing technologies for something potentially harmful, like virus distribution. There were some groups, such as the International Federation of Information Processing, which were interested, and which were actively producing useful materials - but these groups were few and far between. A few universities, such as MIT, offered coursework which had some mention of viruses within the framework of ethics, but they were the exception rather than the rule. Rob Slade, a well-known computer virus educator, had written a paper on "viral morality," and I had written a few papers on computer ethics as well, but overall, there was not very much focus on the topic of ethical computing.

In 1995, Indiana University provided me with the opportunity to research the topic of computer ethics in an information age. I had brought the topic of ethical computing up several times at group meetings. I still remember the group meeting during which the others said they saw nothing wrong with making viruses available on the Web. The argument was a familiar one: the viruses won't hurt anyone unless the people use them incorrectly. Josh, my mentor and CS guru, was keen on hearing more about the issues, and the conversations resulted in a research grant.

The purpose of the study was to identify the concepts and issues related to a broad range of topics in Information Technology. In addition to receiving an exciting trip to Capetown, South Africa in 1995, to present the paper, I had the opportunity to discuss these topics with people from all over the world. There were some pretty interesting perceptions by educators and students about computer viruses. I thought it might be appropriate to take a retrospective look at how far we, as a globally connected community, have come since 1995 in the area of ethics and viruses.

Traditionally ethics are viewed as how we behave in our interaction with other people, or in our behaviors which affect people. There are some basic rules, based on principles (which are based on theories):

• Don't lie (to other people)
• Don't steal (from other people)
• Don't hurt (other people)

One of the problems of electronic communication is that we can forget that there are people involved. Some people who wrote viruses claimed their viruses hurt only computers, not people. Sometimes students felt that making viruses available was a way to further education about viruses. The reasoning was that viruses are, after all, simply computer programs. Yet others claimed that a virus' use of computer resources was stealing, but a form of stealing which was OK as long as it was "only" computer resources: computer time, data, and other things which were not "real." No one was getting hurt.

In my dialogues with educators and students about viruses, I found there were a number of issues related to viruses and that these issues were not very clearly defined. Moreover, when they were discussed, the discussions seemed to have in common the fact that they left people out of the equations. That was in 1995.

Now it's 1997. Things have gotten better.

Well, the truth is I am not really sure. There are a lot of possible reasons. Maybe one of the reasons that educators are talking more about viruses in the classroom is that people are generally now just more aware that viruses exist. People are becoming more educated about technology in general and those technologies are finding their way into many aspects of our lives. This has made ethical use of the technology much more of a hot topic.

Terms that were once unfamiliar are now very much common place. Web and FTP are now familiar topics in business and education. Maybe the fact that information about viruses is no longer viewed as "too dangerous" or "too complicated" for the common person to understand has helped open the door for dialogue in the non-computer science based classroom. Many of the technologies which were once mysteries are now pretty commonplace, and as these technologies have blossomed, they have not only become integrated into how we live, learn and work, people have begun to ask some questions about related issues.

Since 1995, two other very positive changes have occurred. First, a number of commercial sites have made it a policy to disallow virus distribution. This is a good thing. Secondly, and probably more importantly, universities are beginning to offer courses in ethical computing which include sections on computer viruses as part of their computer science curricula.

Sometimes, the media has shone a bright light on some of the goings-on in the virus world, and (in some cases), has actually sent out the message that viruses are not good things, that virus distribution causes problems, and that virus writers are not cool (at least not for their virus writing).

All of these reasons are speculation. I can't say for certain why the concepts have become more solidified and the issues more clearly defined, but they have. And this is a good thing.