In weighing up the good verses the bad consequences of an action, the distinction must be made between ‘act utilitarians and ‘rule utilitarians’. Baase (2003) gives the explanation that “rule utilitarianism, applies the utility principle not to individual actions but to general ethical rules.” (p.406). In evaluating this case study, it would be difficult to agree that computer hacking is always okay, as this is an invasion of privacy therefore creates much unhappiness. However an argument for applying this as a general rule may be given, as hacking large, private and ungoverned organisations such as the army navy or NASA would ultimately lead to them being more truthful and open about matters. Being honest and encouraging others to be truthful is something that a rule utilitarian would certainly agree with. This argument is of course independent of the allegations that McKinnon caused damage in his apparent search for secrets. The long term effects, in rule utillitarian’s perspective, could be that hacking prestigious governmental networks may cause panic amongst other network administrators or individuals which wish to have their data kept secure. It could likely lead those responsible in this case to lose their jobs. Knowing that data is not private and may be scrutinised can lead to individuals acting differently than they would otherwise; perhaps to the extent that inhibits them from doing their job as well as they otherwise would (Johnson, 2001). Allowing hacking to be justified in all cases may even lead to questioning if electronic data can be kept securely at all! Alternatively, had McKinnon uncovered evidence of UFO technology, the happiness generated would perhaps be greater than unhappiness, and may then be justifiable.