Listening to professional voices: draft 2 of the ACM code of ethics and professional conduct

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.For the first time since 1992, the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct (the Code) is being updated. The Code Update Task Force in conjunction with the Committee on Professional Ethics is seeking advice from ACM members on the update. We indicated many of the motivations for changing the Code when we shared Draft 1 of Code 2018 with the ACM membership in the December 2016 issue of CACMb and with others through email and the COPE website (ethics.acm.org). Since December, we have been collecting feedback and are vetting proposed changes. We have seen a broad range of concerns about responsible computing including bullying in social media, cyber security, and autonomous machines making ethically significant decisions. The Task Force appreciates the many serious and thoughtful comments it has received. In response, the Task Force has proposed changes that are reflected in Draft 2 of the Code. There are a number of substantial changes that require some explanation. In this article, we discuss these, and we explain why we did not include other requested changes in Draft 2. We look forward to receiving your comments on these suggested changes and your requests for additional changes as we work on Draft 3 of the Code. We have provided opportunities for your comments and an open discussion of Draft 2 at the ACM Code 2018 Discussion website [http://code2018.acm.org/discuss]. Comments can also be contributed at the COPE website https://ethics.acm.org, and by direct emails to [email protected]

Dynamic Technology Challenges Static Codes of Ethics

Open access journalWe describe the process of changing and the changes being suggested for the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct. In addition to addressing the technical and ethical basis for the proposed changes, we identify suggestions that commenters made in response to the first draft. We invite feedback on the proposed changes and on the suggestions that commenters made

The Complexities of Developing a Personal Code of Ethics for Learning Analytics Practitioners: Implications for Institutions and the Field

In this paper we explore the potential role, value and utility of a personal code of ethics (COE) for learning analytics practitioners, and in particular we consider whether such a COE might usefully mediate individual actions and choices in relation to a more abstract institutional COE. While several institutional COEs now exist, little attention has been paid to detailing the ethical responsibilities of individual practitioners. To investigate the problems associated with developing and implementing a personal COE, we drafted an LA Practitioner COE based on other professional codes, and invited feedback from a range of learning analytics stakeholders and practitioners: ethicists, students, researchers and technology executives. Three main themes emerged from their reflections: 1. A need to balance real world demands with abstract principles, 2. The limits to individual accountability within the learning analytics space, and 3. The continuing value of debate around an aspirational code of ethics within the field of learning analytics

Ethical Issues in Empirical Studies of Software Engineering

The popularity of empirical methods in software engineering research is on the rise. Surveys, experiments, metrics, case studies, and field studies are examples of empirical methods used to investigate both software engineering processes and products. The increased application of empirical methods has also brought about an increase in discussions about adapting these methods to the peculiarities of software engineering. In contrast, the ethical issues raised by empirical methods have received little, if any, attention in the software engineering literature. This article is intended to introduce the ethical issues raised by empirical research to the software engineering research community, and to stimulate discussion of how best to deal with these ethical issues. Through a review of the ethical codes of several fields that commonly employ humans and artifacts as research subjects, we have identified major ethical issues relevant to empirical studies of software engineering. These issues are illustrated with real empirical studies of software engineering

Towards a Life Sciences Code: Countering the Threats from Biological Weapons

Ye

PRECEPT:a framework for ethical digital forensics investigations

Purpose: Cyber-enabled crimes are on the increase, and law enforcement has had to expand many of their detecting activities into the digital domain. As such, the field of digital forensics has become far more sophisticated over the years and is now able to uncover even more evidence that can be used to support prosecution of cyber criminals in a court of law. Governments, too, have embraced the ability to track suspicious individuals in the online world. Forensics investigators are driven to gather data exhaustively, being under pressure to provide law enforcement with sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. Yet, there are concerns about the ethics and justice of untrammeled investigations on a number of levels. On an organizational level, unconstrained investigations could interfere with, and damage, the organization’s right to control the disclosure of their intellectual capital. On an individual level, those being investigated could easily have their legal privacy rights violated by forensics investigations. On a societal level, there might be a sense of injustice at the perceived inequality of current practice in this domain. This paper argues the need for a practical, ethically-grounded approach to digital forensic investigations, one that acknowledges and respects the privacy rights of individuals and the intellectual capital disclosure rights of organisations, as well as acknowledging the needs of law enforcement. We derive a set of ethical guidelines, then map these onto a forensics investigation framework. We subjected the framework to expert review in two stages, refining the framework after each stage. We conclude by proposing the refined ethically-grounded digital forensics investigation framework. Our treatise is primarily UK based, but the concepts presented here have international relevance and applicability.Design methodology: In this paper, the lens of justice theory is used to explore the tension that exists between the needs of digital forensic investigations into cybercrimes on the one hand, and, on the other, individuals’ rights to privacy and organizations’ rights to control intellectual capital disclosure.Findings: The investigation revealed a potential inequality between the practices of digital forensics investigators and the rights of other stakeholders. That being so, the need for a more ethically-informed approach to digital forensics investigations, as a remedy, is highlighted, and a framework proposed to provide this.Practical Implications: Our proposed ethically-informed framework for guiding digital forensics investigations suggest a way of re-establishing the equality of the stakeholders in this arena, and ensuring that the potential for a sense of injustice is reduced.Originality/value: Justice theory is used to highlight the difficulties in squaring the circle between the rights and expectations of all stakeholders in the digital forensics arena. The outcome is the forensics investigation guideline, PRECEpt: Privacy-Respecting EthiCal framEwork, which provides the basis for a re-aligning of the balance between the requirements and expectations of digital forensic investigators on the one hand, and individual and organizational expectations and rights, on the other

A Code of Ethics For Robotics Engineers

This project developed a draft code of ethics for professional robotics engineers by researching into the fields of robotics, ethics and roboethics to develop the necessary understanding. The code was drafted and presented to students, professors and professionals for feedback and revision. The code is now hosted at the Illinois Institute of Technology\u27s Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions website (ethics.iit.edu), and is open for discussion at (rbethics.lefora.com. It is being proposed for adoption to the WPI Robotics Program faculty and the WPI Robotics Engineering Honors Fraternity, Rho Beta Epsilon

PRECEPT: A Framework for Ethical Digital Forensics Investigations.

The file attached to this record is the author's final peer reviewed version. The Publisher's final version can be found by following the DOI link.Cyber-enabled crimes are on the increase, and law enforcement has had to expand many of their detecting activities into the digital domain. As such, the field of digital forensics has become far more sophisticated over the years and is now able to uncover even more evidence that can be used to support prosecution of cyber criminals in a court of law. Governments, too, have embraced the ability to track suspicious individuals in the online world. Forensics investigators are driven to gather data exhaustively, being under pressure to provide law enforcement with sufficient evidence to secure a conviction. Yet, there are concerns about the ethics and justice of untrammeled investigations on a number of levels. On an organizational level, unconstrained investigations could interfere with, and damage, the organization’s right to control the disclosure of their intellectual capital. On an individual level, those being investigated could easily have their legal privacy rights violated by forensics investigations. On a societal level, there might be a sense of injustice at the perceived inequality of current practice in this domain. This paper argues the need for a practical, ethically-grounded approach to digital forensic investigations, one that acknowledges and respects the privacy rights of individuals and the intellectual capital disclosure rights of organisations, as well as acknowledging the needs of law enforcement. We derive a set of ethical guidelines, then map these onto a forensics investigation framework. We subjected the framework to expert review in two stages, refining the framework after each stage. We conclude by proposing the refined ethically-grounded digital forensics investigation framework. Our treatise is primarily UK based, but the concepts presented here have international relevance and applicability. In this paper, the lens of justice theory is used to explore the tension that exists between the needs of digital forensic investigations into cybercrimes on the one hand, and, on the other, individuals’ rights to privacy and organizations’ rights to control intellectual capital disclosure. The investigation revealed a potential inequality between the practices of digital forensics investigators and the rights of other stakeholders. That being so, the need for a more ethically-informed approach to digital forensics investigations, as a remedy, is highlighted, and a framework proposed to provide this. Our proposed ethically-informed framework for guiding digital forensics investigations suggest a way of re-establishing the equality of the stakeholders in this arena, and ensuring that the potential for a sense of injustice is reduced. Justice theory is used to highlight the difficulties in squaring the circle between the rights and expectations of all stakeholders in the digital forensics arena. The outcome is the forensics investigation guideline, PRECEpt: Privacy-Respecting EthiCal framEwork, which provides the basis for a re-aligning of the balance between the requirements and expectations of digital forensic investigators on the one hand, and individual and organizational expectations and rights, on the other