Facing the Computer Ethics Dilemma
C. Dianne Martin and David H. Martin
Professional Codes of Ethics and Conduct
“When considering the issue of ethical… behavior in
the work setting… a basis for ethical behavior can be found in the context
of business as a social institution. Second, a rationale for ethical behavior
can be obtained from guidelines implied in the notion of professionalism (Truath,
1982, p.17).” To determine the ethical standards recognized by computer
professionals, the existing ethics codes of four major computer professional
associations were compared. The codes of ethics shown in Tables 1 – 4 (below)
are from the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM), which represents computer
scientists; the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE), which
represents computer engineers; the Data Processing Managers Association (DPMA),
which represents managers of computer systems and projects; and the Institute
for Certification of Computer Professionals (ICCP), which provides a voluntary
certification mechanism for computer professionals.
These ethics codes are not the only statements that the four professional societies
have made regarding professional practice. ACM has a set of Disciplinary Rules
corresponding to the Ethical Considerations under each Canon in Table 1. “The
Canons and Ethical Considerations are not, however, binding rules. Each Disciplinary
Rule is binding on each individual Member of ACM. Failure to observe the Disciplinary
Rules subjects the Member to admonition, suspension or expulsion from the Association…
(Weiss, 1982, p. 183).” IEEE publishes an Ethics Source Sheet (IEEE,1981)
outlining the procedures for disciplining members who are alleged to have violated
the Code of Ethics. DPMA has published Standards of Conduct that expand on the
Code of Ethics shown in Table 3 by providing specific statements of behavior
in support of each element of the Code (DPMA, 1989). Regarding these standards,
it is stated that “they are not objectives to be strived for, they are
rules that no true professional would violate. It is first of all expected that
an information processing professional will abide by the laws of their country
and community (p. 4).”
ICCP provides an interesting dimension to its ICCP Code of Ethics, Conduct and
Practice when it identifies the four essential elements relating to the conduct
of a professional. They are stated to be “a high standard of skill and
knowledge, a confidential relationship with people served, the public reliance
upon the standards of conduct and established practice, and the observance of
an ethical code (ICCP, p.1).” To strengthen the professional status of
certified computer professionals, ICCP presents what it calls a “fundamental”
Code of Conduct covering disclosure, social responsibility, expert opinions,
identification of personal qualifications, integrity, conflict of interest,
accountability and protection of privacy.
Comparison of the ethical codes of the ACM, IEEE, DPMA, and ICCP produce a number
of common themes that emerge as the core of ethical behavior for all computer
professionals. The themes shown in Table 5 are: (1) personal integrity / claim
of competence, (2) personal responsibility for work, (3) responsibility to employer/client,
(4) responsibility to profession, (5) confidentiality of information, (6) conflict
of interest, (7) dignity /worth of people, (8) public safety, health, and welfare,
(9) participation in professional societies, and (10) increase public knowledge
about technology. It is encouraging that in all of the ethics codes of the computer
professional societies there is an emphasis on the relationship and interaction
of the computer professional with other people, rather than with machines. This
properly places the focus of ethical behavior upon ethical or right dealings
with people, rather than upon the technology.
One reason that the four codes are not only similar to each other, but also
very similar to codes of non-computer professionals is that they take a generic
approach to ethics. With the exception of the concern raised about privacy and
the confidentiality of data, the codes could have been written to cover most
professions and do not fully reflect the unique ethical problems raised by computer
technology. Of the four codes, the ICCP code is most clearly geared to the computer
profession and deserves further discussion.
Because the main focus of ICCP is certification, the ICCP Code of Conduct is
primarily concerned with the competence and, therefore, the credibility of computer
professionals. Moreover it is heavily oriented toward an attempt to enforce
standards of competence and accountability. For instance, the Preamble to the
Code of Conduct confines its reach to “matters pertaining to personal actions
of individual certified computer professionals in situations for which they
can be held directly accountable without reasonable doubt (ICCP, p. 2),”
Such language is subject to several interpretations and thus will keep lawyers
in business for years. It then explains the obligations of certified computer
professional under sections that appear to encourage or prohibit certain conduct
in somewhat limited ways.
For example, being socially responsible is defined in section 2.2 as combating
ignorance about information processing technology. Integrity in section 2.5
is limited to not “knowingly” claiming competence one does not possess.
The prohibitions to conflict of interest in section 2.6 extend only to insuring
that independent advice is provided; if the advice provided is “potentially
influential to one’s personal benefit, then full disclosure is mandated.”
This section also includes the peculiarly pointed provision that one will not
denigrate the honesty or competency of another with intent to gain an unfair
advantage. When considering the total breadth of potential conflicts of interests
that could be mentioned or applied, these few provisions seem quite narrow.
The last two sections dealing with accountability and the protection of privacy
appropriately emphasize the unique features of computer professionals with regard
to information handling and use.
In addition the ICCP Code of Ethics provides a “Code of Good Practice that
is expected to be amended from time to time to accommodate changes in the social
environment and to keep up with the development of the computer profession (
p. 1).” The Code of Good Practice provides more detail regarding continuing
self education, personal conduct, competence, false statements, discretion,
conflict of interest and reporting violations. It returns to the traditional
notion of a conflict of interest by requiring full disclosure prior to taking
a position which is likely to conflict with one’s current duties. In an
attempt to establish a self-policing mechanism among computer professionals,the
last provision of the Code of Good Practice states that computer professionals
are expected to report violations of the Code, testify in ethical proceedings
where one has expert or firsthand knowledge and serve on panels to judge complaints
of violations of ethical conduct. ICCP has also established a procedure for
revoking certification based upon violations of the ethics code, similar to
procedures used by IEEE.
Go to: Proposed IFIP International Code of Ethics
Home > Research Resources > Computing and Privacy > Facing the Computer Ethics Dilemma
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