A Rationale for the Proposed Revision of the Association for Computing Machinery’s Code of Professional Conduct
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. |
Home > Research Resources > Computing and Privacy > A Rationale for the Proposed Revision of the Association for Computing Machinery’s Code of Professional Conduct
HOME | IN
THE NEWS | RESEARCH
RESOURCES
TEACHING RESOURCES | STUDENT
RESOURCES | LINKS
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