Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
M. Manion, A. Goodrum (2000)
Terrorism or civil disobedience: toward a hacktivist ethicSIGCAS Comput. Soc., 30
M. Otsuka (1994)
Killing the Innocent in Self‐DefensePhilosophy & Public Affairs, 23
Private persons and entities are increasingly adopting aggressive active defense measures i.e., hack back against Internetbased attacks that can infringe the rights of innocent persons. In this paper, I argue that aggressive active defense cannot be justified by the Necessity Principle, which defines a moral liberty to infringe the right of an innocent person if necessary to achieve a significantly greater moral good. It is a necessary condition for justifiably acting under an ethical principle that we have adequate reason to believe its applicationconditions are satisfied. Since, absent special knowledge, the victim of a hacker attack will not be able to reliably predict the direct or indirect consequences of aggressive countermeasures, she lacks adequate reason to think that those measures will achieve a good that significantly outweighs the evil that is done to innocent parties.
Journal of Information Communication and Ethics in Society – Emerald Publishing
Published: Feb 29, 2004
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.