Ethical and Moral Obligations of Computer Professional - Essay Example

?Discusses Ethical and Moral Obligations of Computer Professional (BSC of conduct or IEEE-CS ACM Software Engineering of Ethics and Professional Practice) The code of ethics was developed by the Joint Task force on Software Engineering Ethics and Professional Practices to address the need for “appropriate set(s) of standards for professional practice of Software Engineering upon which industrial decisions, professional certification, and educational curricula can be based" (Gotterbarn & Rogerson 1997, p. 89). The IEEE-CS/ACM Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice - often abbreviated as IEEE-CS/ACM SECEPP provides the basis for ethical and professional responsibility of software engineers (Gotterbarn & Rogerson 1997, p. 89). This paper will explore the day-to-day occupational framework for computer professional in the context of the IEEE-CS/ACM SECEPP. To put the discussion into perspective, we’ll use a case study involving a computer professional and a client requiring a personnel management database system. The client chooses the least secure security system from among the list of systems provided. The computer professional clearly clarifies to the customer the security loopholes associated with the system, notable, the risk of unauthorised access to the sensitive personnel information, which might lead to compromise of personnel information by hackers, but the client insists on using it. As Bittner & Hornecker (2002, p. 1) notes, the daily routine of computer professionals provides them with unique opportunities to “do the right thing” as well as numerous obstacles to achieving this. However, as Norman (1988, p. 2) puts it, the “...design of technological artefacts should minimise risk and consequences of error.” All professional are obliged to act in such a way as to be worthy of the clients’ trust (Bayles 1989) and to ensure social responsibility in all their duties (Durbin 1992). Martin (2011) adds to this by using the words “pride, honor and self-respect” to describe the ideal conduct of computer professionals. In deciding the way to go, the computer professional in this case study should consider the ethical and professional provisions of the IEEE-CS/ACM Software Engineering Code of Ethics and Professional Practice as it is generally accepted as a standard documentation of software engineers’ ethical and professional requirements and responsibilities. The code has eight principles which Gotterbarn (2000) says are not to be considered as completely exhaustive since there is no way of telling what moral concerns may emerge in the future. They should instead act as a broad framework for professional ethics. Gotterbarn, Miller & Rogerson (1997) reiterate this saying that he IEEE-CS/ACM SECEPP is “not intended to be all inclusive, nor is it intended that its individual parts be used in isolation to justify errors of omission or commission”. At the general scale, the IEEE-CS/ACM SECEPP stresses on the engineering profession’s obligation to the public whose health, welfare and safety should take precedence and indeed form the basis of the eight principles of the SECEPP. The “Public” principle is of particular relevance to our case study. Gotterbarn (1999) argues that computer professionals have substantial chances “…to do good or cause harm” and to aid and influence others to do the same. The principle of Public however requires software engineers to put the public interest first. Not only does this principle hold software engineers responsible for their decisions. In that context, they are required to balance the needs of all the parties (employer, customer, and themselves) with the welfare and safety of the public. This empowers the software engineers to disapprove any software or component of an IT system that might threaten privacy, degrade the environment, compromise the quality of human life and is especially critical in the manufacture of safety-critical software; computer software whose failure or error can cause directly life-threatening situations e.g. flight control systems (Bowyer 2001). As Buchanan (2001) puts it, professionals have a distinct differentiation from ordinary people in that they are experts in their fields which gives them a unique opportunity not afforded by ordinary persons (including other professionals outside of their profession). The activities of these professionals’ can influence the world negatively or positively. Buchanan (2001) goes on to say that the computer professionals, whom Buchanan refers to as “information professionals, can negatively impact on the continuously growing and expanding client base by not acting “responsibly, fairly, timely, and appropriately.” Another relevant principle in the context of this case study is that of Client and Employer which requires that the manner in which a software engineer conducts themselves be serving the interests of their customer as well as their employer, but at the same time putting everything into the context of the general public. This implies that employer/client convenience and concerns should not entirely prevail over the public interests. In that perspective, the computer professional in our case study is justified enough to disregard the customer’s choice of low security system. Although it serves the interests of the client who has moral right to choice of product, it is inconsistent with the interests of the public. This principle requires a software engineer to gather evidence and report to the customer accordingly should they feel that a project will, based on their professional judgment, is subject to noteworthy social concerns and could be problematic, which is likely the case in our case study above. The principle of product also requires computer professionals to check that the software they are working on and any of the software’s modifications are to the tune of the highest professional standards reasonable. In other words, the engineers are required to, as much as possible, make sure that the product is useful to the public and its quality is acceptable not only to the customer, end user and the employer, but also to the public. It should as well be created or installed at realistic cost and without error. To achieve this, the principle of product specifically requires all professionals to ensure proper management for all projects they undertake with appropriate procedures in place to promote quality while reducing risk (Gotterbarn & Rogerson 1997, p. 90). Moreover, the principle requires the computer professional to aim at the development of software and associated products in a way that respects the privacy of those people who will be exposed to those particular products. With regard to risk “reduction” and “respect for privacy”, the system chosen by the customer in our case study fall short as it leaves the database exposed to risk of unauthorized access by hackers. The computer professional is thus justified to refuse working on the project as directed by the client, if he/she so decides, citing this as his/her reason of refusal. The principle also gives authority to software professionals to look out for and define any ethical, socio-cultural, environmental, economic and legal issues pertaining to the development or installation of any given software product and address them appropriately. In our case study there is the ethical and socio-cultural issue of data privacy which could have serious legal implications to the client (end user organization). For instance, they might face legal suits in the future from personnel whose information have been compromised. The same principle also recommends the promotion of the highest quality and making any tradeoff involved understood to all parties (Australian Computer Society 1970). This the professional has already done by letting the client know the security concerns associated with the chosen system. But since the client is adamant to use that particular system, the computer professional can decide to either go ahead with the client accepting full disclaimer, or completely refuse to work as requested. The principle of judgment is as well very relevant to this case analysis. This requires computer professionals to uphold integrity in their professional judgments and to exercise a degree of independence. The principle in particular requires them to have human values -- the principle of Public elaborates more on human values -- as the informing criteria for all their technical judgments. They are also to uphold professional objectivity when evaluating any software. The computer professional in our case study exercises professional objectivity and puts the interests of the human values first by pointing out the possible flaws of the security system chosen by the client which might lead to unauthorized access or compromise of personnel information by hackers. The principle of judgment gives the computer professional moral authority and justification if the nature of the situation makes him decide to refuse to install the system. Lastly, the principles of self require software engineers to not only engage themselves in lifelong learning. They also are required to uphold ethics in their professional their day-to-day activities, and the closely related principle of Profession, which requires computer professionals to spearhead the integrity and reputation of the profession as a whole in the context of public interests (Gotterbarn & Rogerson 1997, p. 92), cannot be more relevant. In the light of these principles, the computer professional in our case study can choose to refuse to accept the request of the customer. The database will be used to store sensitive personnel data and if the computer professional gives in to the demands of the customer to use the least secure security system, even when he/she is strongly convinced otherwise, the information could end up being compromised by a hacker. This equates to knowingly disgracing the software engineering profession, in contradiction to the requirement above. Software engineers and other computer professionals involved in design and implementation of software and related products can choose to do harm or leave allowances for such harm, or to ensure the general good of the public. It is in the light of this that The IEEE-CS/ACM SECEPP gives the ethical requirement and obligations of computer professionals particularly the software engineers. This paper has reviewed how the various principles of the SECEPP can be applied in the daily context of computer professionals based on our case analysis. We have particularly seen how computer professionals can base their justifications for professional decisions on these principles. References Australian Computer Society. (1970). Code of professional conduct. Crows Nest, N.S.W., Australian Computer Society. Bayles, M. D. (1989). Professional Ethics. Belmont, CA, Wadsworth Publishers. Bittner, P. & Hornecker, E. (2002). Responsibility and the Work of IT-Professionals, viewed 7th November 2013, Boyer, K. (2001). Ethics and Computing: Living Responsibly in a Computerised World. New York, IEEE Press. Buchanan, E. A. (2001). “Ethical Consdierations for the information professionals”. In R. A. Spinello and H. T. Tavani (eds.), Readings in CyberEthics. Sudbury, MA, Jones and Bartlett Publishers, pp. 523-534 Durbin, P. T. (1992). Social responsibility in science, technology, and medicine. Bethlehem, Lehigh University Press. Gotterbarn, D., Miller, K. & Rogerson, S. (1997). Software Engineering Code of Ethics, Version 3.0, New York, IEEE Press. Gotterbarn, D. (1999). The ethical Software Engineer. New York, IEEE Institute. Gotterbarn D. (2000). “Computer Professionals and YOUR Responsibilities”, In D. Langford (ed.) Internet Ethics, New York, St. Martin’s Press, pp. 200-219. Martin, R. C. (2011). The clean coder: a code of conduct for professional programmers. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall. Norman, D. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York, Basic Books Read More