LEGAL ASPECTS

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF COMPUTER ETHICS IN RELATION TO

THE APPROPRIATE PHILIPPINE LAWS

COMMANDMENTS APPLICABLE
PHILIPPINE LAWS
Commandments #1
Thou shalt not use a computer to harm other people. E-COMMERCE LAW
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8792 June 14, 2000
Commandments #2
Thou shalt not interfere with other people's computer work. ANTI-CYBERCRIME LAW
Republic Act No. 10175
Commandments #3
Thou shalt not snoop around in other people's computer files. ART.III SEC.III
Commandments #4 1987 CONSTITUTION (PRIVACY RIGHT)
Thou shalt not use a computer to steal.

Commandments #5 ACCESS DEVICE REGULATION ACT

Thou shalt not use a computer to bear false witness.
Republic Act No. 8484
Commandments #6
Thou shalt not copy or use proprietary software for which you have not
paid
INTELECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
Commandments #7 Republic Act No. 8293
Thou shalt not use other people's computer resources without
authorization or proper compensation.
CIVIL CODE
Commandments #8 Republic Act No. 386
Thou shalt not appropriate other people's intellectual output.
ANTI-WIRETAPPING LAW
Commandments #9 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4200
Thou shalt think about the social consequences of the program you
are writing or the system you are designing.
REVISED
REPUBLICPENAL
ACT NO.CODE
4200
ments #9
Commandments #10 Act No. 3815
Thou shalt always use a computer in ways that ensure consideration
and respect for your fellow humans. Philippine Legislature
8 December 1930

Part II deals with the legal aspects in computing. In selecting the appropriate Philippine Laws
to be included in this part, the authors considered the ten (10) commandments of computer ethics
designed by the Computer Ethics Institute. For example, Commandments # 6 states, “Thou shalt
not use or copy software for which you have not paid.” To address this problem, the Intellectual
Property Law was included in part II, etc. in the figure above, the intellectual property law includes
the Optical Media Act of 2003.
Problem in Computer Ethics

A typical problem in Computer Ethics arises because there is a policy vacuum about how
computer technology should be used. Computer provide us with new capabilities and these in turn
give us new choices for action. Often, either no policies for conduct in these situation exist or
existing policies seem inadequate. A central task of Computer Ethics is to determine what we
should do in such cases, that is, formulate policies to guide our actions… One difficulty is that
long with a policy vacuum there is often a conceptual vacuum. Although a problem in Computer
Ethics may seem clear initially, a little reflection reveals a conceptual muddle. What is needed in
such cases is an analysis that provides a coherent conceptual framework within which a policy for
action. (Moor 1985, p.266)

Moor said that computer technology is genuinely revolutionary because it is “logically

malleable”:

Computers are logically malleable in that they can be shaped and molded to do any activity that
can be characterized in terms of inputs, outputs and connecting logical operations. . . . Because
logic applies everywhere, the potential applications of computer technology appear limitless. The
compute is the nearest thing we have to a universal tool. Indeed, the limits of computer are largely
the limits of our own creativity.

According to Moor, the computer revolution occurs in two stages. The first stage is that of
“technological introduction” in which computer technology is developed and refined. This already
occurred during the first 40 years after the Second World War. The second stage – one that the
industrialized world has only recently entered – is that of “technological permeation” in which
technology gets integrated into everyday human activities and into social institutions, changing the
very meaning of fundamental concepts, such as “money,” “education,” “work,” and “fair
elections.” Moor’s way of defining computer ethics is very powerful and suggestive. It is broad
enough to be compatible with a wide range of philosophical theories and methodologies, and it is
rooted in a perceptive understanding of how technological revolutions proceed.

Moor argues that computer ethics is unique because computers have certain properties that raise
unique issues and, according to Moor there are three properties that make computers a special case:

Computers Special Case

Logical Invisibility factor Impact on

Malleability Society

Invisible abuse Invisible Invisible complex

programming calculation

Figure 1.0: Moor makes the case that characteristics of computer-based technologies are such that
they raise ethical issues that are somewhat unique. Others have suggested that computers no
different from any other branch of professional ethics.
Logical Malleability:

Computers can be shaped and molded to perform, any activity that can be characterized in terms
of inputs, outputs and connecting logical operations. This is contrast to the majority of
manufactured products. For example, a car, television or refrigerator has well-defined and quite
specific functions.

The logic of computers, however, can be shaped in infinite ways through changes in hardware
and software and in terms of their usage. This enables computer-based technologies to exhibit
tremendous flexibility. Moor writes:

Just as the power as steam engine was the raw resources of the Industrial Revolution so the
logic of a computer is a raw of the Information Revolution. Because the logic applies everywhere,
the potential applications of computer technology appear limitless. The computer is the nearest
thing we have to a universal tool. Indeed, the limits of computers are largely the limits of our own
creativity.

Impact on Society:

The extensive impact of computerization on society is clear. Naturally, in 1985, when wrote his
paper, relatively few could foresee the extent of that impact, nor did anyone envisage the Internet
and the World Wide Web. Moor did, however, foresee the changing workplace, and the nature of
work:

Computer have been used for years by business to expedite routine work, such as calculating
payrolls. However, as personal computers become widespread and allow executives to work at
home, as robots do more and more factory work, the emerging question will not be merely How
well do computers help us work? But what is the nature of this work?

Invisibility Factor:

An important fact about computers is that most of the time, and under most conditions, computer
operations are invisible. Moor identifies three kinds of invisibility that can be have ethical
significance:

1. Invisible Abuse: Moor describes this as: “the intentional use of the invisible operations of
a computer to engage in unethical conduct.” He cites an examples:

The programmer who realized he could steal excess from a bank. When interest on a
bank account is calculated, there is often a fraction of a cent left over after rounding off.
This programmer instructed a computer to deposit these fractions of a cent to his own
account.

The invasion of the property and privacy of others, computers can be programmed to
surreptitiously remove or alter confidential information.

2. Invisible Programming Values: these are values which, according to Moor, are embedded
into a computer program:

A programmer makes some value judgments about what is important and what is not.
These values become embedded in the final product and may be invisible to someone who
runs the program.

3. Invisible Complex Calculation: In this context, Moor writes:

 Computer today are capable of enormous calculations beyond human comprehension.
Even if a program is understood, it does not follow that the respective calculations are
understood. Computers today perform . . . calculations which are too complex for human
inspection and understanding.
He argues that the issue is how much should trust computer’s invisible calculation. This
become a significant issue as the consequences grow in importance.

For example:
Computers are used by the military in making decisions about launching nuclear
weapons. On the one hand, computers are fallible and there may not be time to confirm
their assessment of the situation. On the other hand, making decisions about launching
nuclear weapons without using computers may be even more fallible and more dangerous.
What should be our policy about trusting invisible calculation?