21–30 of 140 posts
Ethics was a required 2 credit course in my university computer science studies. It isn't some new idea, but I guess it isn't an industry standard yet. I'd agree anywhere the opportunity to do harm exists there should be clear ethical standards established.
Doctors protect life, and lawyers keep you out of jail. I guess software engineers can take an oath not to kill people or put people in jail, but after that it's your morals vs. mine, no? And if I work for the Department of Defense making missile guidance software, then it's OK to kill people, I suppose...
I think this is an oversimplification. A lot of doctors deal with non-life threatening diseases and ailments, and some even deal with purely cosmetic stuff (e.g. plastic surgeons). Similarly, a lot of lawyers deal with issues that don't directly carry a risk of a jail sentence, e.g. workers compensation.
For every ethical software developer, there are 10 who will work for Cambridge Analytica and there is nothing you can do about it. It's a fools errand; at most serving the purpose of 'feeling good about yourself' rather than any societal impact
I don't want ethics exams and accreditation requirements to constrain software development to people with traditional software backgrounds. The cost of a traditional college education in the United States is easily five or six figures, and socioeconomic forces means that black people face systemic barriers to getting access to that education (versus whites, indians, asians, etc.). I want there to be more YCs, more Startup Schools, more Lambda Schools, and I want them open to immigrants and non-US-citizens, too.
I also don't want ethics exams to constrain supply. A lot of software withers on the vine because there's no "business case" for it, but if there was a way to divorce the need to put dinner on the table from how much people (or advertisers, or...) are willing to pay for software, then there's a lot of software that is yet to be written that could make the world better (say, enabling the creation of more art and music, or something).
Doctors protect life, and lawyers keep you out of jail. I guess software engineers can take an oath not to kill people or put people in jail, but after that it's your morals vs. mine, no? And if I work for the Department of Defense making missile guidance software, then it's OK to kill people, I suppose...
So professional ethics can run counter to what a polite member of society would normally wish to do.
No we shouldn't. Obey your personal codes and follow the laws. Tech is fun. Let's keep it that way.
That's actually a good demonstration of why we do need a code of ethics.
Doctors protect life, and lawyers keep you out of jail. I guess software engineers can take an oath not to kill people or put people in jail, but after that it's your morals vs. mine, no? And if I work for the Department of Defense making missile guidance software, then it's OK to kill people, I suppose...
Some people will think creating weapons for defense is an ethical thing to do. I prefer not to do that but I think the point is valid and there is no clear way to determine what’s ethical and what isn't.
There is a distinction between personal ethics and professional ethics. In my opinion, that position crosses the line and lands squarely in the realm of personal ethics.
Programmers/technologist often work for those who only work money... ethics generally do not work in such places...
I actually had the exact same thought on different lines. A software code of ethics will be toothless without a financial code of ethics. But a financial CoE is antithetical to finance's goals. Edit: to be clear that doesn't mean we shouldn't have one!
Here are the main points:
1. GENERAL MORAL IMPERATIVES.
As an ACM member I will
1.1 Contribute to society and human well-being.
1.2 Avoid harm to others.
1.3 Be honest and trustworthy.
1.4 Be fair and take action not to discriminate.
1.5 Honor property rights including copyrights and patent.
1.6 Give proper credit for intellectual property.
1.7 Respect the privacy of others.
1.8 Honor confidentiality.
2. MORE SPECIFIC PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.
As an ACM computing professional I will
2.1 Strive to achieve the highest quality, effectiveness
and dignity in both the process and products of
professional work.
2.2 Acquire and maintain professional competence.
2.3 Know and respect existing laws pertaining to
professional work.
2.4 Accept and provide appropriate professional review.
2.5 Give comprehensive and thorough evaluations of computer
systems and their impacts, including analysis of
possible risks.
2.6 Honor contracts, agreements, and assigned
responsibilities.
2.7 Improve public understanding of computing and its
consequences.
2.8 Access computing and communication resources only when
authorized to do so.
3. ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP IMPERATIVES.
As an ACM member and an organizational leader, I will
3.1 Articulate social responsibilities of members of an
organizational unit and encourage full acceptance of
those responsibilities.
3.2 Manage personnel and resources to design and build
information systems that enhance the quality of working
life.
3.3 Acknowledge and support proper and authorized uses of
an organization’s computing and communication
resources.
3.4 Ensure that users and those who will be affected by a
system have their needs clearly articulated during the
assessment and design of requirements; later the system
must be validated to meet requirements.
3.5 Articulate and support policies that protect the
dignity of users and others affected by a computing
system.
3.6 Create opportunities for members of the organization to
learn the principles and limitations of computer
systems.
4. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE.
As an ACM member I will
4.1 Uphold and promote the principles of this Code.
4.2 Treat violations of this code as inconsistent with
membership in the ACM.Doctors protect life, and lawyers keep you out of jail. I guess software engineers can take an oath not to kill people or put people in jail, but after that it's your morals vs. mine, no? And if I work for the Department of Defense making missile guidance software, then it's OK to kill people, I suppose...
Some people will think creating weapons for defense is an ethical thing to do. I prefer not to do that but I think the point is valid and there is no clear way to determine what’s ethical and what isn't.