Computer Security Ethics Scenarios E* and F

JavaScript isn't enabled in your browser, so this file can't be opened. Enable and reload.

Computer Security Ethics Scenarios E* and F

This survey corresponds to scenarios in the paper "Ethical Frameworks and Computer Security Trolley Problems" by Tadayoshi Kohno (University of Washington), Yasemin Acar (George Washington University), and Wulf Loh (Universität Tübingen). The paper and more information are available online at https://securityethics.cs.washington.edu/.

FOR SCENARIOS A, B, AND C: https://forms.gle/GYyXqUvXHbd8sUbZ9

FOR SCENARIOS D*: https://forms.gle/MUsjkTJgjUAdsKkm6

NOTE: This is an anonymous form. Google will require authentication, but we will not see who fills this out.

NOTE: Limit one response per Google account.

NOTE: Once you submit your answers, you won't be able to edit your response.

NOTE: Once you submit your answers, you can see how others respond.

NOTE: Please answer for yourself, without first learning how others respond.

NOTE: It is possible for the answers to be manipulated if someone fills out the form with multiple Google accounts. So, please use discretion when interpreting the responses to the survey.

A Classic Dilemma: The Trolley Problem

Do nothing

Make the trolley take the alternate set of tracks

Clear selection

Computer Security Scenario E1: Submission Raises Ethical Concerns (Base Case)

Reject the paper

Accept the paper without any required modifications; authors receive reviews and can choose how to revise their paper

Clear selection

Computer Security Scenario E2: Submission Raises Ethical Concerns (Reject, Accept, Remove)

Reject the paper

Accept the paper without any required modifications; authors receive reviews and can choose how to revise their paper

Accept the paper under the condition that the authors agree to remove Section 9.3

Clear selection

Computer Security Scenario E3: Submission Raises Ethical Concerns (Reject, Accept, Remove, Note)

Reject the paper

Accept the paper without any required modifications; authors receive reviews and can choose how to revise their paper

Accept the paper under the condition that the authors agree to remove Section 9.3

Accept the paper under the condition that the authors agree to add a clearly visible note to the first page, written by the program committee; the note will describe the ethical concern and the program committee’s belief that the work in Section 9.3 should not have been done

Clear selection

Computer Security Scenario E4: Submission Raises Ethical Concerns (Extensive Author Testing)

Reject the paper

Accept the paper without any required modifications; authors receive reviews and can choose how to revise their paper

Accept the paper under the condition that the authors agree to remove Section 9.3

Accept the paper under the condition that the authors agree to add a clearly visible note to the first page, written by the program committee; the note will describe the ethical concern and the program committee’s belief that the work in Section 9.3 should not have been done

Clear selection

Computer Security Scenario E5: Submission Raises Ethical Concerns (Known Risk and Moral Responsibility)

Reject the paper

Accept the paper without any required modifications; authors receive reviews and can choose how to revise their paper

Accept the paper under the condition that the authors agree to remove Section 9.3

Accept the paper under the condition that the authors agree to add a clearly visible note to the first page, written by the program committee; the note will describe the ethical concern and the program committee’s belief that the work in Section 9.3 should not have been done

Clear selection

Computer Security Scenario E6: Submission Raises Ethical Concerns (Authors Ignored Risks)

Reject the paper

Accept the paper without any required modifications; authors receive reviews and can choose how to revise their paper

Accept the paper under the condition that the authors agree to remove Section 9.3

Accept the paper under the condition that the authors agree to add a clearly visible note to the first page, written by the program committee; the note will describe the ethical concern and the program committee’s belief that the work in Section 9.3 should not have been done

Clear selection

Computer Security Scenario E7: Submission Raises Ethical Concerns (Authors Ignored Risks, Luck Prevents Crashes)

Reject the paper

Accept the paper without any required modifications; authors receive reviews and can choose how to revise their paper

Accept the paper under the condition that the authors agree to remove Section 9.3

Accept the paper under the condition that the authors agree to add a clearly visible note to the first page, written by the program committee; the note will describe the ethical concern and the program committee’s belief that the work in Section 9.3 should not have been done

Clear selection

Computer Security Scenario E8: Submission Raises Ethical Concerns (Authors Ignored Risks, Section 9.3 Results Critical)

Reject the paper

Accept the paper without any required modifications; authors receive reviews and can choose how to revise their paper

Accept the paper under the condition that the authors agree to remove Section 9.3

Accept the paper under the condition that the authors agree to add a clearly visible note to the first page, written by the program committee; the note will describe the ethical concern and the program committee’s belief that the work in Section 9.3 should not have been done

Clear selection

Computer Security Scenario E9: Submission Raises Ethical Concerns (Authors Ignored Risks, Moral Implications Not Realized)

Reject the paper

Accept the paper without any required modifications; authors receive reviews and can choose how to revise their paper

Accept the paper under the condition that the authors agree to remove Section 9.3

Accept the paper under the condition that the authors agree to add a clearly visible note to the first page, written by the program committee; the note will describe the ethical concern and the program committee’s belief that the work in Section 9.3 should not have been done

Clear selection

Computer Security Scenario F: Response to Submission Rejection

Stop working on the paper/project and not submit to any other conference

Submit the paper without modification to a different conference with an entirely different program committee

Remove Section 9.3 and submit to a different conference with an entirely different program committee

Add a discussion to Section 9.3 that explains their initial oversights and the fact that their network scans should not have been done and submit to a different conference with an entirely different program committee

Clear selection

Submit

Clear form

This form was created inside of UW Computer Science & Engineering. Report Abuse