A Rationale for the Proposed Revision of the Association for Computing Machinery’s Code of Professional Conduct - Remaining Issues - The Research Center on Computing & Society

Text-only Version

Ronald E. Anderson

Remaining Issues

(1)	Audience. An exhaustive code is impossible, and some feel that a series of specific codes should be developed by ACM for specific audiences, e.g., students, researchers. Members of the ACM Council were asked “Should ACM develop different ethical codes for different audiences or a single one?” A majority responded that it should be a single audience, however, several members expressed a desire for a separate code for students. Several items in the draft mention students, but we still need to be convinced that the development of a special code (or section of the code) for students is necessary. A number of ACM members expressed an interest in ethical codes for organizations. This need has been addressed in section three of the revised Code, which includes a set of ethical principles for individuals who are in “decision-making roles in an organization.” Thus while the entire code is written from the point of view of individual persons, the principles in section three, deal explicitly with those ethical problems that are organizational issues.
(2)	Ongoing Maintenance of the Code. A code of ethics must evolve and contemporary issues emerge or change. Many ACM members expressed a desire to have ACM establish a mechanism whereby ethical and social guide lines or “opinions” are regularly issued, redrafted, and reissued. The American Medical Association provides an example of such a mechanism; their Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs annually releases its Current Opinions, which includes the “Principles of Medical Ethics” as well as more detailed “Opinions on Social Policy Issues.” ACM needs a revised organizational structure for an ongoing review, reformulation, interpretation, and application of its Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. As part of the project to review and revise the ACM Code, this question will be investigated carefully and some specific proposals will be made to the ACM Council.
(3)	Enforcement. The issue of appropriate sanctions and enforcement of the Code has been a statement for the ACM Code of Professional Conduct. So much attention has been placed upon these issues, that the content and general use of the Code has been neglected. We found considerable disagreement on how to deal with the enforcement issue. Some recommended that the Code be written for the purpose of stating and clarifying the ethical standards of the majority of members of the Association. Consistent with this goal is for the Code to provide a model for other associations and organizations of all types to use to formulate their own ethical criteria. Others still believe that for ACM’s Code of Professional Conduct to be worth while it must have “teeth” and the ability to sanction those who violate it. The dilemma is that the more enforceable the code, the greater the potential liability. In the past, ACM has not been willing to incur any serious amount of legal liability in administering its Code of Professional Conduct. The question for the ACM is whether or not to continue that policy. The ACM Council, in response to the question “Should ACM attempt to establish a more enforceable or a less enforceable code of professional conduct?” did not agree on enforceability. It should be noted that in the discussion before the survey, it was brought to the attention of the Council that the ACM Constitution (Article 6, Section 8) states that the ACM Council “shall adopt, maintain, enforce and conspicuously publish and display to all members and the public a code of professional ethics which shall be binding on all members.”
(4)	Administration and Education. An ethical code generates administrative responsibilities over and above enforcement procedures. One of the major functions of the ACM Committee on Professional Standards and Practices has been its information services or “ombudsman” role for individual ACM members who face ethical problems. These problems often have involved whistle-blowing dilemmas, employment contract questions, and product liability issues. Perhaps these information needs should be handled by another membership services unit within ACM, but it would appear that the need is greater than has been recognized in the past. The question is how can ACM organize to deal with these membership needs more effectively.
(5)	Development of Positive Incentives. The Task Force working on the revision of the ACM Code has been asked by the ACM President, John White, to develop recommendations to the ACM for establishing positive incentives for ethical behavior. For instance, the ACM could institutionalize an annual award for “ethical computing.” The Task Force will make its recommendation to the ACM in 1992.

Back to the top

Go to: Conclusion

Home > Research Resources > Computing and Privacy > A Rational for the Proposed Revision of the Association for Computing Machinery’s Code of Professional Conduct

The Research Center on Computing & Society
at Southern Connecticut State University
501 Crescent Street • New Haven, CT 06515
Director: (203) 392-6790 • e-mail: webmaster@computerethics.org

© 2000 – 2007 – Research Center on Computing & Society