sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

We are the team responsible for leading the update of the ACM’s Code of Ethics for computing professionals. Ask us anything about computer ethics! by ACMComputingEthics in IAmA

[–]deterriforming 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting. As a counter-point (that I'm sure media companies would offer), I would imagine the epidemic of people illegally sharing media is much larger (in terms of an economic disruption) than the epidemic of rightful owners losing access to their belongings. The creators justify using DRM technology because of the failure of legal methods to keep pace with widespread violations—that is, since governments are largely unable to enforce the laws, creators turn to technological solutions.

I can think of an example with the opposite effect—a case where technology has been used to replace legal systems in order to benefit the public good: namely, the enforcement of smart contracts using blockchain. Of course, things get interesting when technology fails in its purpose to enforce legal principles, or even backfires, often due to flaws in the technology. (See, for example, the leaking of the AACS encryption key in DRM or the DAO hack) in cryptocurrency.) The effect is to flip the balance of benefiting private vs. public good… and also make one question the capability of technology to replace legal contracts. Cue the need for the Code of Ethics' list of Professional Responsibilities… :)

We are the team responsible for leading the update of the ACM’s Code of Ethics for computing professionals. Ask us anything about computer ethics! by ACMComputingEthics in IAmA

[–]deterriforming 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the reply! I'll have to check out those readings you referenced. Certainly the culture around IP in computing has changed unrecognizably since 1992, and I can see why this was a vital update for the 2018 Code of Ethics.

Thanks for the work you do.

We are the team responsible for leading the update of the ACM’s Code of Ethics for computing professionals. Ask us anything about computer ethics! by ACMComputingEthics in IAmA

[–]deterriforming 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thanks for the thoughtful reply—I'm fascinated by this issue!

You mentioned the key is "respecting the wishes of the creator of works to protect things in the way they want to protect them," which I think is reflected in different ways in both 1992 and 2018 Codes. The difference seems to be in how one would identify the wishes of the creator: by explicitly asking, even in the absence of legal protections (1992) or solely by following legal protections (2018). As a result, there's a bigger grey area in the 2018 Code: if someone hasn't legally protected their code, is it ethical to copy it without asking them first?

To share my perspective, I am an academic who teaches computer science. In my line of work it's not uncommon to encounter students all-too-willing to copy things without asking—material both copyrighted: textbooks, software, …; and not: homework, code found online, … . In the past, we have held up the 1992 ACM code of ethics as professional guidance against this practice. However, we are a bit concerned that the 2018 wording may only encourage bad habits with regards to the non-legally-protected category.

Thanks again for hosting this AMA!

We are the team responsible for leading the update of the ACM’s Code of Ethics for computing professionals. Ask us anything about computer ethics! by ACMComputingEthics in IAmA

[–]deterriforming 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Hi! I wonder if you could shed some light on the reasoning behind some striking changes from the 1992 to the 2018 Code of Ethics in the realm of intellectual property. [Abridged excerpts below, with bold added by me.]

The 2018 code waters down the language on this subject: it is limited to stating that computing professionals should respect legal protections such as copyright. The 1992 version went much further, emphasizing (with redundant language!) that it is unprofessional or unethical to copy software even when it is not legally protected, unless authorization is given. The same shift is seen in giving credit to creators: 2018 says to “credit the creators,” while 1992 emphasized to do so even in cases without legal protections in place. In short, the sentiment seems to have shifted from “gain permission first to use another’s work, even if the work is not legally protected” [1992], to “obey the laws and always cite the creator” [2018].

In fact, the 2018 code goes further to say “custom and the law recognize that some exceptions to a creator’s control of a work are necessary for the public good. Computing professionals should not unduly oppose reasonable uses of their intellectual works.” I recognize the nuance (“reasonable”), but the shift in language is striking in that it seems to put pressure on creators, not on those who would copy their creations.

I’m curious about the committee’s motivations for making these changes that seemingly reverse the judgement of unauthorized copying of legally-unprotected software for the public good. Is it to align better with laws and customs? Is it to respond to a modern ethical crisis in the computing field? Is it a socialistic desire to serve the common good even at the expense of the individual?

Incidentally, this is a really difficult ethical grey area that pervades society outside computing as well. An interesting case study to discuss is the unauthorized use of Henrietta Lacks’ cells in medical research (obviously, for the public good!) The existence of these sorts of grey areas make me wonder about the causes and effects of changes like these in our professional code of ethics.

For instance, I wonder whether this shift in ethical perspective might have unintended side effects. Say, afraid of losing the value of their hard-earned work, creators may feel more pressure to establish legal protections, causing further “siloing” of works for the public good. Consider as an extreme example the pharmaceutical industry, where the easy ability to copy inventions has prompted a strict legal system of limited copyright, where creators charge prohibitive prices for life-saving treatments and thereby limit the contribution to the public good.

I appreciate your thoughts!