Ethics education in cybersecurity often fails to move students beyond simplistic “black hat vs. white hat” distinctions toward nuanced professional reasoning. This paper introduces Jury Duty, an interactive mock-jury activity designed to provide early-career students with a structured ethical framework for analyzing ambiguous cybersecurity scenarios. Grounded in experiential learning, the activity engages students in collaborative deliberation using a five-point framework (authorization, intent, methods, disclosure, and legality), followed by individual reflection.
Across multiple implementations of Jury Duty, students demonstrated a shift from intuitive judgments to structured ethical reasoning, increasingly using professional terminology and articulating decisions across competing ethical and legal dimensions. Students also showed evidence of independent moral agency, frequently maintaining positions that diverged from group consensus while justifying their reasoning.
By transforming ethics instruction into an active, participatory process, Jury Duty helps students reconceptualize cybersecurity as a disciplined professional practice grounded in accountability and ethical responsibility.
Are you a researcher? Would you like to cite this paper? Visit the ASEE document repository at peer.asee.org for more tools and easy citations.