Introduction
The advancement in computing technologies has been accompanied by increased exposure of the users to ethical violations including software threats, immorality, legal issues, confidentiality, and trust. The use of computers affects people’s decisions as well as how they make them. Computers persuade, facilitate, and enable various human cognitive processes, attitudes or processes while inhibiting and discouraging others. For example, while performing an internet search, internet search engines usually prioritize and provide information in a given order. As such, they influence what internet users see. These technological artifacts become “active mediators” because they shape people’s actions and perceptions, existence, experience as well as character. As such, software developers and other computer scientists have a moral responsibility to provide content that produces positive character and behavioral outcomes for the users. Similarly, computer scientists are faced with the ethical issues on matters related to privacy and confidentiality. They should prioritize the security of the users’ personal data to prevent it getting into the wrong hands or simply getting lost. They also have to respect the law and not expose the users to legal problems in the process of enjoying the technology. Also, computer scientists have a moral duty to educate the user. This paper provides the advantages of holding computer scientists individually responsible for the applications of their work from an ethical standpoint.
Holding individual computer scientists (software developers and computer engineers) ethically responsible helps reduce the likelihood of software threats. Computer scientists such as software engineers should employ system security measures against software threats such as virus attacks and malware (Moody, 2009; Kim et al., 2016). Penetrability through software attacks should be minimized as much as possible. It is the responsibility of the software engineers to ensure that the software they provide for use in various applications is secure. Virus and malware attacks may expose computer systems to larger attacks of a criminal nature such as hacking (Moody, 2009). For example, the various systems used for online payments through systems such as PayPal, Skrill, MoneyGram and Payoneer should be secured by the developers who create them. These developers are better-placed to identify the risks to which these systems are exposed. Proper security structures and algorithms are used to ensure that attacks on these systems are neutralized.
Another advantage of making software engineers responsible for the security of software accrues from the trust that users develop with such systems. Companies that develop computers and software for business applications gain value from the trust that their products receive from users. This trust translates to revenue and goodwill. Consequently, such companies must hold their computer scientists responsible for their output. According to Pavlidis (2010), information systems exist in every facet of life. When computer engineers develop a trustworthy system, users are bound to trust these systems. Holding individual computer engineers responsible for their applications is the best approach to fostering trust in software systems and websites, especially those that handle personal or confidential information that should be safeguarded. This approach ensures that software developers take ownership of their projects. They know that they are to be held accountable.
Enforcing ethics for software developers also encourages them to operate within the law. Because of their superior software knowledge, software developers usually hack into secure systems to access information or money from users of the systems. Ethical dilemmas often arise when the hackers do not cause any harm to the system. Software developers should be held accountable for computer crimes such as piracy, fraud, espionage, and sabotage. Piracy involves sharing of personal data, surveillance and personal productions (like audio and video) without the owner’s knowledge (Dodig-Crnkovic & Feldt, 2009; ). It is a criminal offense because it involves stealing potential income and violation of copyright and patent laws. On the other hand, espionage involves stealing secrets and information especially through surveillance (Prunea, 2014). In recent years, there have been many applications using drones and unmanned flying objects. There are many security and privacy issues emerging from such applications. Software developers should be ethical in their operation of such applications (Prunea, 2014; Dodig-Crnkovic & Feldt, 2009). Sabotage is the act of deliberately damaging a system so that its effectiveness may be depreciated. Ethics involves honesty and trust. Software engineers have the duty, to be honest with their abilities and not use them to compromise systems. Enforcing ethics in the applications of software experts encourages operation within the law and reduces the risk of them breaking laws.
Individual computer engineers who are ethical help reduce the likelihood of system failure due to lack of rigor in development. In this regard, they have an ethical obligation to ensure that failure in the system does not occur, causing malfunction. Software and hardware development both call for rigor on the part of the creators (Dodig-Crnkovic & Feldt, 2009). These creators have to envisage all the possible scenarios and make the system capable of coping with them. In the past, there have been high-profile computer software-related failures, but none so high profile as the Therac-25 case. The case highlighted the problems and consequences that may arise from deficiencies in software programs. Programs usually have a set of guidelines and rules that must be met for proper function to be achieved. The program would be considered disciplined if various program specifications are met and the programmer has considered ethical standards. Otherwise, devastating consequences and effects may emerge from undisciplined software development. The Therac-25 was a 1976 computer project developed by The Atomic Energy Company of Canada and CGR, a France-based company. This project involved building a linear accelerator to deliver X-rays that would treat cancer (Leveson & Clark, 1993). The machine would use software to control the hardware and aim a radiation beam to the area of the patient’s body that had cancerous growths or tumors. The main issue with the Therac-25 was that the programmer’s way of thinking and personality were severely flawed (Leveson & Clark, 1993). He preferred to work in isolation instead of in teams where he would collaborate with other people to consider all the possible outcomes of the program. The program handled the errors in silent response. As such, the error output was never informative. The whole system could fail and shut down if only one part of the software failed (Leveson & Clark, 1993). In 1987, the Therac-25 failed, causing patients to be administered with doses of high radiation. This accident represented a significant failure on the part of the software programmer who was responsible for the Therac-25 (Leveson & Clark, 1993). If programmers do not consider using ethics as a major strategy, they are bound to encounter negative outcomes for the company as well as users. The issue is that the unethical behavior of one individual can cost the entire organization.
Regarding role responsibility, individual software engineers should be held responsible for inefficiencies and inconsistencies in the software that they put out. Certain inefficiencies in the software systems may contribute to losses regarding processing speed. As such, software engineers should be held accountable at the individual level by their employers (Hameed, 2009). This level of responsibility and accountability will cause improvement in the production of computer code. If a software developer has promised delivery of service at a given level of efficiency, once the customer buys the software, the developer is contractually bound. The software should perform at the speed and efficiency promised in the contract. Provision of software that does not perform at the agreed level is tantamount to violation of business ethics as well as the contractual agreement between the developer and the customer (Moody, 2009). According to the European Union’s consumer commissioner, Kuneva, if software makers become accountable, the consumers will have a greater array of choices (Moody, 2009; Hameed, 2009).
Confidentiality is another benefit of promoting ethical behavior and work amongst software developers. Confidential information such as patient records, as student performance records, bank statements, location data, etc. should be held privately and securely within the computer systems. In today’s highly technological world, applications such as social media involve sharing of private information like photographs, location data, family information, etc. Users regard such information as highly confidential and accessible only to some people. Cloud computing applications such as Microsoft Office, Google Docs, and DropBox also involve storing documents in “a cloud” and the user can access it from anywhere provided they have an internet connection (Reach, Parker & Bateman, 2013). Such documents must be safeguarded from falling into the wrong hands. The ethical obligation of confidentiality involves the duty of the software/ computer engineer to ensure that entrusted information has been safeguarded. This duty includes the obligations to protect user information from unauthorized use, access, disclosure, loss, theft, or modification. This duty of confidentiality means that the computer engineer or software developer should not use the data for their benefit. With regards to user security, the computer engineer should use all available measures to protect user information. This obligation may involve the adoption of physical, technical and administrative safeguards. The computer engineer fulfills confidentiality roles in part, through adoption and enforcing of the necessary security measures. In this regard, physical safeguards may include the use of stand-alone systems and keeping servers and computer storage systems away from public areas. Technical safeguards could involve using passwords, anti-virus software, encryption, firewalls as well as other advanced technical measures. Administrative safeguards include developing and enforcing organizational rules regarding who has access to user information.
There are benefits related to the safety of individuals as well as the environment as a result of the ethical operation. Computer manufacturers have an ethical obligation to use materials that do not harm the computer user. Also, the extraction of minerals for some of the vital components for electronic gadgets has been the cause of human conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where proceeds from mining finance militia groups (Ethicalconsumer.org, 2016). As part of their ethical obligation, computer scientists must distance themselves from activities that fuel the use of conflict minerals (Ethicalconsumer.org, 2016). Computer scientists should also endeavor to used processes that reduce their carbon footprint on the environment. Computer manufacturing processes using hydrocarbons should be shortened to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Conclusion
There have been tremendous leaps in computer technology in recent decades. Software engineers and computer manufacturers are finding themselves facing uncharted ethical demands concerning their different applications. Online applications are shaping the way people think and share information in unprecedented ways. . In today’s highly technological world, applications such as social media involve sharing of private information like photographs, location data, family information, etc. Users regard such information as highly confidential and accessible only to some people. Cloud computing applications such as Microsoft Office, Google Docs, and DropBox also involve storing documents in “a cloud” and the user can access it from anywhere provided they have an internet connection (Reach, Parker & Bateman, 2013). These documents must be safeguarded from falling into the wrong hands. The software engineers have an ethical duty to safeguard user information. This duty includes the obligations to protect user information from unauthorized use, access, disclosure, loss, theft, or modification. It is in this changing climate that the ethics of software engineers and computer scientists, in general, must be enforced. This paper provides various benefits that computer users are bound to obtain if computer scientists are to be held responsible for their applications based on their adherence to ethics. One of the major advantages of this approach is the reduction of software threats. There are various categories of software threats, but perhaps the most common are malware and viruses. These malware and viruses corrupt the system and weaken it, exposing it to other security threats. Other issues associated with the working of the system include those on efficiency. Developers should be held accountable for the quality of software they produce. They should maintain ethical operation by delivering software that is of the same high quality as that which they advertise to potential customers. Enforcement of ethical practice will enhance the consumer experience and widen consumer choice. The accrued trust from users is also an advantage of enforcing the software developer ethics. Rigor in software development, which decreases the likelihood of system failure is also encouraged by ethical operations. Issues with confidentiality and safety will also be reduced if software developers are held accountable concerning their ethics. Overall, ethical behavior introduces numerous advantages for system users.
References
Dodig-Crnkovic, G., & Feldt, R. (2009). Professional and Ethical Issues of Software Engineering Curricula: Experiences from a Swedish Academic Context. In Proceedings Of HAOSE09 Academic Press, 5(2), 1-10.
Ethicalconsumer.org, (2016). Shopping guide to Laptops, from Ethical Consumer.Ethicalconsumer.org. Retrieved 17 March 2016, from http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/buyersguides/computing/laptopsandnetbooks.aspx
Hameed, S. (2009). Softwtre Engineering Ethical Principles based on Islamic Values. JSW,4(6). http://dx.doi.org/10.4304/jsw.4.6.563-570
Kim, T., Gupta, P., Han, J., Owusu, E., Hong, J., Perrig, A., & Gao, D. (2016). OTO: Online Trust Oracle for User-Centric Trust Establishment. Carnegie Mellon University, 2(1-22).
Moody, G. (2009). Should Software Developers Be Liable for their Code? | Linux Journal.Linuxjournal.com. Retrieved 17 March 2016, from http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/should-software-developers-be-liable-their-code
Pavlidis, M. (2010). Designing for Trust. IEEE, 4(2), 10-23.
Prunea, B. (2014). Should engineers be held responsible instead of programmers in the case of autonomous drones?. Lawyr.it. Retrieved 17 March 2016, from http://www.lawyr.it/index.php/articles/debates/361-should-engineers-be-held-responsible-instead-of-programmers-in-the-case-of-autonomous-drones
