Tim Mullen penned a guest article for The Register a few days back. He’s writing about software that would enable the killing of rogue processes on other people’s machines.
For example, my machine is infected by a worm. The idea is that someone else can, remotely, kill the rogue process without my knowledge or direct participation. This, of course, has stirred up some criticism.
Tim’s answer is straight-forward:
Since the owner of a system has no responsibility for the actions of a worm, or any malicious process, that runs without their knowledge, I submit that they also have no rights to the process. No responsibility means no rights.
…
If parents don’t vaccinate their children, the state takes them out of school. If a dog consistently attacks people, the authorities put it down. If someone commits three felonies, they are put away for life. This is because the rights of the many outweigh the rights of the one.
I have often found one critical problem with instructional theory: it “involves telling people how to teach.” This was how it was put to me, flat out, in a meeting regarding a curricular suggestion I had made.
Well, yes. If you don’t want to make an effort to teach in a way consistent with the type of learning outcomes we want from our students, then I say you loose the right to teach. If you don’t want to acknowledge that lecture is about as far from appropriate for teaching most of maths and computing as you can get, please, leave the lectern behind and find a job as a consultant somewhere in the backwaters of industry. Get out of the way, and bring someone in who at least is willing to make mistakes in an attempt to improve the situation.
Our students deserve the best education we can give them. If you think you have more right to remain stuck in your ways than they have to the best we can offer, then make way.
Now, all we need is a way for the students to issue a ‘shutdown’ request from the lecture hall…