The Code

This Code may be published without permission as long as it is not changed in any way and it carries the copyright notice. Copyright (c) 2018 by the Association for Computing Machinery.Computing professionals' actions change the world. To act responsibly, they should reflect upon the wider impacts of their work, consistently supporting the public good. The ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct ("the Code") expresses the conscience of the profession. The Code is designed to inspire and guide the ethical conduct of all computing professionals, including current and aspiring practitioners, instructors, students, influencers, and anyone who uses computing technology in an impactful way. Additionally, the Code serves as a basis for remediation when violations occur. The Code includes principles formulated as statements of responsibility, based on the understanding that the public good is always the primary consideration. Each principle is supplemented by guidelines, which provide explanations to assist computing professionals in understanding and applying the principle

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

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]

On malfunctioning software

Artefacts do not always do what they are supposed to, due to a variety of reasons, including manufacturing problems, poor maintenance, and normal wear-and-tear. Since software is an artefact, it should be subject to malfunctioning in the same sense in which other artefacts can malfunction. Yet, whether software is on a par with other artefacts when it comes to malfunctioning crucially depends on the abstraction used in the analysis. We distinguish between “negative” and “positive” notions of malfunction. A negative malfunction, or dysfunction, occurs when an artefact token either does not (sometimes) or cannot (ever) do what it is supposed to. A positive malfunction, or misfunction, occurs when an artefact token may do what is supposed to but, at least occasionally, it also yields some unintended and undesirable effects. We argue that software, understood as type, may misfunction in some limited sense, but cannot dysfunction. Accordingly, one should distinguish software from other technical artefacts, in view of their design that makes dysfunction impossible for the former, while possible for the latter

Exact Bayesian curve fitting and signal segmentation.

We consider regression models where the underlying functional relationship between the response and the explanatory variable is modeled as independent linear regressions on disjoint segments. We present an algorithm for perfect simulation from the posterior distribution of such a model, even allowing for an unknown number of segments and an unknown model order for the linear regressions within each segment. The algorithm is simple, can scale well to large data sets, and avoids the problem of diagnosing convergence that is present with Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) approaches to this problem. We demonstrate our algorithm on standard denoising problems, on a piecewise constant AR model, and on a speech segmentation problem

Reducing software failures: addressing the ethical risks of the software development lifecycle

A narrow approach to risk analysis and understanding the scope of a software project has contributed to significant software failures. A novel process is presented which expands the concept of software risk to include social, professional, and ethical risks that lead to software failure. Using an expanded risk analysis will enlarge the project scope considered by software developers. This process also is incorporated into a software development life cycle. This paper was reprinted in Readings in CyberEthics, Second Edition (2004) edited by Spinello and Tavani

ICT governance and what to do about the toothless tiger(s): professional organizations and codes of ethics

ICT has had numerous unfortunate incidents in planning, development, and delivery. A typical response to these incidents is to both complain about the toothless tiger of unenforced and unenforceable technical and professional standards and to also advocate the development and implementation of strong government regulations – licensing and legislation. These regulations constitute one form of what has been called “ICT governance”. Unfortunately, there are significant limitations to both the constraining regulations approach and the vague toothless tiger approach to ICT governance. There is an approach to ICT governance which takes advantage of and strengthens some roles of professional organisations and avoids the dangers of giving government malformed regulatory teeth which limit the positive potentials of ICT and introduce overt harms. The purpose of this paper is to define strategies for professional organisations to meet their responsibilities to the ICT profession and ICT professional; a strategy which moves toward regulation without curtailing ICT potential with ineffective sanctions. Professional organisations need a strategy for reducing negative incidents and improving professional responsibility without simply introducing sanctions on a narrow range of practitioners who happen to be members of that organisation. There are ways in which the toothless tiger(s) can have a significant positive influence

The ethics of video games: Mayhem, death, and the training of the next generation

There is a significant and previously unidentified ethics problem with many e-games; many of them are designed in such a way that they encourage and train game players to follow a narrow and dangerous model of decision making. It is argued that extending this model of decision making beyond an e-game’s virtual reality has significant negative societal consequences. Unfortunately most e-game courses focus primarily on game engine design and other technical issues. E-game curricula and e-game designers need to follow standards which recognize this ethical concern and recognize that their work is not independent from the societal impacts of the technology they develop. Modifying design approaches can reduce the problems caused by the ethical decision making model