For the most part, hackers are very educated and bright individuals, primarily teenagers, who are fascinated with the technology that comes their way.  Their primary reason would be to test their own limits and capabilities rather than knowing they are harming others.  For example, according to El Diablo, a highly intelligent Philadelphia-based hacker who has successfully hacked into the whitehouse.gov host address, his primary reason was to prove to himself that he was

able to hack into the government's computer systems.The fact of the matter is, regardless of what the reason might be, virus-creating hackers are given strict punishment for their federal offenses.  The government is now taking extreme measures to catch foul play in the cyber world.

According to IT managers across the globe, corporations are installing cyber watchers for the control of viruses and critical information. Unfortunately, cyber watchers provide a lot more than just virus control. According to Computer Economics, a Carlsbad, CA based research firm, companies lost an estimated $5.3 billion to recreational web surfing at work in 1999. Of course $5.3 billion is a lot of money for corporations to lose. Is it worth saving $5.3 billion dollars if it means destroying people´s privacy while at their workplace? This ethical dilemma comes from the abuse of viruses because now companies are installing services into their networks that serve two purposes: (1) protecting their networks from hacker attacks (2) Helping the companies gather personal information of their employees

internet surfing characteristics for their own self-benefit.The headline of CNN.com reads, "House Panel OK´s Stiffer Cyber-crime Penalties".  Although this title might seem like a positive thing to our communities from protection against cyber-crime, the subheading to the articles brings about a more complicated ethical issue, "Opponents Say Bill Will Further Erode Online Privacy".  According to CNN´s article, the creator of the "Melissa" virus, which had a final chaos of $1.2 billion, was sentenced to 20 months of prison and a $5,000 fine.  Under the newly developed bill, legislators can now give cyber criminals life imprisonment if human lives were at risk directly or indirectly.  The problem arises when this same bill allows Internet Service Providers to randomly scan their subscriber´s Internet usage to help find foul play.  The ethical issue to see here is, Are ISPs using their internet traffic scanning for the sole purpose of discovering foul play through their network or is it for self-benefiting purposes such as recording visited websites to provide corresponding advertisements?  Will John Doe be criticized if he runs for office in the future and his cyber watch history reads that he frequently visited pornographic sites in the past?  How about when John Doe loses his opportunity for office and tries suing the ISP for releasing the personal information to the media, will he win his lawsuit?  Of course not, the bill protects ISPs against lawsuits for their cyber scanning.  This is where hackers and viruses have taken the laws in respect to cyber patrol.

Pros and Cons of Virus Control Methods

pros

·Reducing IT security spending

·Saving money when avoiding harmful and financially burdening virus attacks

·Saving money when employees are working rather than surfing the Internet

·Improving cyber-communication tracking for National Security

·Help Enforce punishment for cyber criminals

cons

·Allowing ISPs to scan customer Internet exploring behaviors for self-benefiting reasons

·Invading human privacy in regards to web site preferences

·Destroying personal web surfer autonomy

·Developing tensions between employees and employers

·Increasing number of lawsuits and legal issues due to cyber watch information

COMMENTS

So I  can conclude that,ethical issues will arise when comparing the outcome of a cyber watch approach to virus control compared to the effect it might have on individuals when their privacy is being obstructed.  

        From the Kantian perspective, it is difficult to make a clear decision because the investigating party and the party being investigated can´t take the same approach to satisfy each other.  These two parties are on opposite ends!  The Kantian perspective promotes treating people the way you want to be treated.  In the Big Brother approach to cyber patrol and virus control, there is only one Big Brother and the person being monitored.  The Kantian approach cannot be applied to this situation.

        From the Utilitarian perspective, the ethical action lies on the one that produces the greatest benefit overall to those that are directly affected by it.  Since not every person in this world is infected with computer viruses, it makes sense to consider the ethical decision to avoid the cyber watch approach for virus control.  Cyber watch is applied to all employees of companies and all subscribers to Internet service while the prevention of viruses only benefits those that are in very vulnerable situations.  Therefore, taking a cyber watch approach will cause the greatest harm to those directly affected by it when it obstructs their privacy in different ways.

        From the Fairness/Justice perspective, the issue of treating people in different ways according to moral standards and differences arises.  Here you can ask whether or not cyber watch should be applied to corporate employees only and not household ISP customers, or the other way around.  It is not fair when employees are being monitored during their web surfing.  It is also not fair that a personal subscription to Internet service is being monitored especially if it is being paid for.  Household customers are paying for the Internet access that is being monitored while employees at companies are being paid while they surf the Internet.

        From the Rights perspective, an ethical decision is made when it obeys and follows all fundamental rights that relate to personal human dignity and autonomy.  This is relatively easy to understand that a cyber watch approach destroys any possible way of personal autonomy to those being monitored.  Not only does it eliminate the possibility of personal autonomy, it also abuses the human right of privacy.  Internet users are not given the opportunity to self-govern their web surfing habits.  Instead, they are being forced to act a certain way while online only because they know they are being watched.

        Finally, from the virtue perspective, an action is considered ethical if it promotes the most individual and social moral virtues.  This might be one of the only perspectives that might make cyber watching an ethical decision.  Under the close watch of cyber monitoring, employees will know to get work done rather than play on the internet all day, ISP customers will avoid going to pornographic sites, hate-crime sites, etc. because they know that ISPs are keeping a close watch, and society as a whole will reduce traffic to offensive sites and will get more work done in the office.Thats all..thank you....

refferences:
http://www.windowsecurity.com/articles/Ethical-Issues-IT-Security-Professionals.html

http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/wp/crime/viruses.htm

http://csrc.nist.gov/nissc/1998/proceedings/paperD7.pdf