Discussion on:

10 ethical issues raised by IT capabilities

As this article illustrates, ethical concerns associated with ever-expanding IT capabilities generate questions within questions. Do you have a strong opinion on any of the issues raised here? Are you grappling with any ethical dilemmas related to the demands or possibilities created by technology in your field?

Unlike law and medicine, anyone can call themselves an IT professional. Until there are minimum standards set (and adhered to) before being seen as an IT professional, establishing ethical standards is a waste of time.

Same like in law or medicine anyone can call themselves a lawyer or doctor, anyone can call themselves an IT professional until organizations find out they are not. For god sake you can buy a law or medical degree these days....

I have met many university graduates who were dumb as rubber nails...minimum standard that was applied was wealth of their parents. Give me a break.

As for ethical standards, if someone does unethical things on a job, the person remains to do unethical things regardless of how many standards you try to enforce.

Ethics is a method of living and performing in your personal and IT work life. If management enforces ethical standards on the job and follows through when violations occur, then you will have an ethically run IT shop. I work in one like that right now. You take data home, read others email, send mail on behalf of and you will soon be looking for work. It's all about attitude and enforcement.

One question though...who enforces these ethical standards on the "enforcers"? It really depends on how high in the food chain the individual is and on what is the individual "view" of "ethical standards".

If I recall correctly, Hitlers enforced "ethics" caused the 2nd World War and resulted in death of millions of people.

I can't speak to medical degrees, but you cannot buy a law degree...at least not one certified by the Amer. Bar Assn. And, with very few exceptions, you cannot practice law in this country without having graduated from an ABA accredited school. Law (in the U.S.), in fact, is one of the few courses of study that allows practically no distance study.
I agree, however, that the measure of one's IT skills is not necessarily dependent on the length of one's educational pedigree.

I agree. People will continue to follow their own interpitation of ethics even if standards are layed down. Retraining and education is the closest thing you can do to detur individuals from violations of ethic standards.

That belief is one of the worst offending philosophies plaguing our "me first" society. If ethics is open to interpretation, then nothing is unethical! That's why we have Enron, Health South, and Tyco scandals.

In fact, ethics can be easily determined objectively by using logic and reason -- a point which was driven home to me at age 19 by a wise grad student who taught my Logic 101 class.

Near the end of the semester we had covered all of the required course material and our instructor decided to delve into some advanced logical exercises. He broached the subject of ethics by asking, "How many here believe that ethics is a personal matter, and is up to each individual to decide?" Most of the hands in the room went up. He then pointed to each student who had their hand up in turn, and said "You flunk the course."

When people started to believe that he wasn't kidding, an outcry ensued. His answer: "I'm just exercising my personal right to determine what's ethical. My ethics dictate that if you disagree with me you should flunk the course."

Everyone quickly got the point, and of course, no one flunked. But that narcissistic view of life pervades society and has created a mindset ripe for dismissing ethics in favor of "what's best for me?" Our class soon discoved epirical methods for applying logic to ethical questions, and we were quickly disabused of our sophomoric notions.

As for the article that triggered this debate, it was somewhat contrived, but serves well to point out the obvious: everyone (not just IT) has a moral obligation to "do the right thing."

It all really boils down to common sense. For those people who may never learn to apply logic to ethical questions (or who persist in the belief that one can't do that) just listen to your conscience. That little voice inside is remarkably astute at knowing what is right and wrong.

An article that I read recently poignantly addressed this issue. It was called (as I recall) "There Is No Such Thing as _Business_ Ethics." [The word, busines, was italicized] Its point was that ethics is not constrained by labels or agendas. It is universally applicable.

Whether you are in IT, in medicine, or in denial, ethics applies, and can be easily determined. Human beings that we are, however, we will always be plagued by pirhanas who choose to ignore this inconvenient truth. Laws, rules, certifications, etc. might help. But there is no silver bullet.

Whereas we can not choose what is ethical and what is not, we, unfortunately, can choose to ignore ethical quesrtions and eschew ethical behavior.

"As for the article that triggered this debate, it was somewhat contrived, but serves well to point out the obvious: everyone (not just IT) has a moral obligation to "do the right thing."

What if "doing the right thing" requires to break the "code of ethics"? Than either "the right thing" - or - "code of ethics" is wrong - isn't it?

Indeed, if ethical behavior is at odds with a codified ethical standard, then either the standard needs to be re-written, or the logic which dictated the perceived ethical behavior is faulty. This type of predicament is common and often results in the "whistle-blower's dilemma." When the company standard requires someone to do something they know is unethical, they must choose between employment and having a clear conscience. For many, remaining employed is the clear winner. For many more, the alternative (clear conscience) is never even considered. I had a roommate in college whose ethics were entirely derived from his ?survival of the fittest? mentality, and he would never encounter an ethical dilemma. He called it ?living by my wits.?

Those who write codes of ethics purport to 1) be the official standard bearer, and 2) often have a conflicting interest (making a profit, satisfying the shareholders, appeasing the board of directors, etc.) Codified ethics are often a sincere attempt to institutionalize ?doing the right thing,? but they are not necessarily successful in their reasoning due to the motivating business goals.

...orthodoxy is no good substitute for self honesty.

but this is just the start in the current discussion. You seem to purport that there can only be one ethical standard and that we all know what that is. I disagree.

What is ethical and what is unethical is determined by agreement for a particular society or group. Once the basis of ethics is agreed upon then logic can be used to dictate proper behavior. If you don't believe that ethics is an agreement, let me offer this: Vegetarianism is an ethical issue to many adherents. They feel it is unethical to kill/abuse animals for human food. Whether you agree with them or not does not change the fact that it is essentially an argument of ethics. Currently, in most societies it is ethically acceptable to use animals for food products. Vegetarians are arguing for a change in the ethical basis. Some countries now have 'animal cruelty' laws that provide treatment standards where they didn't before, which means the ethical basis changed.

I feel the point of the article is the following question: "Should we codify ethics as they relate to the specific issues of the IT industry so that everyone has the same basis?" If so, "Should we create formal penalties for violations of the ethical standards?". If so, "What organizational entities have to be created to administer this?" If we choose not to do this, then these things may happen through the channels of government for each country.

'The little voice inside your head' is an allusion to following the ethical code you were taught as a child (or whenever you internalized ethical standards). The point of professional ethics standards is to create a 'little voice' that is the same for everyone involved. I agree that the article actually provides few, if any, ethical quandaries. However, though we have the same opinion about the existence of ethical questions that does not mean that we agree on the correct behavior in each circumstance.

Here is an ethical question for you - "Should I be spending time I have contracted to my employer by engaging in a discussion that probably has no value to them?".

We are not fundamentally in disagreement. No, I do not purport that ethics exists in a vacuum. Your very astute statement,

?What is ethical and what is unethical is determined by agreement for a particular society or group?

is an assumption I failed to include in my post. Your follow-up statement,

?Once the basis of ethics is agreed upon then logic can be used to dictate proper behavior?

is precisely where logic comes into play in determining ethics.

RE: ?'The little voice inside your head' is an allusion to following the ethical code you were taught as a child (or whenever you internalized ethical standards). The point of professional ethics standards is to create a 'little voice' that is the same for everyone involved.?

Yes. That is precisely what is desired.

Ethics is like most serious subjects: equally honest, equally sincere, and equally intelligent people can disagree on its constituents. That is why I get very suspicious at suggestions that some new organization needs to be created before we can understand what?s right and wrong within a given context. Organizations have a tendency to reduce their philosophies to the least common denominator. They also have a tendency to become politicized. And they present a consensus opinion which might have been (almost always is) arrived at via one or many compromises. I may be cynical, but my experience has taught me that organizations of any size rarely get things right. I cringe when someone concludes that ?it must be so, because it is codified.? Standards and codification are imperfect dictates feigning perfection.

That having been said, however, I believe that if a handful of well-known and well-respected IT professionals (unimpeachable witnesses) could convene an Ethical Standards Committee for Information Professionals; issue guidelines of behavior; foster principles of professionalism; and promote public debate on ethical questions, I could not find fault with that. It could only heighten awareness about ethics, and produce a public perception that we are, at least, thinking about such things. I would be opposed to such a group having any legal or political muscle, though.

I am at odds with your implication (correct me if I?m wrong) that IT ethics are different from business ethics, from animal husbandry ethics, from engineering ethics, etc. Most ethical principles are not complex: don?t cheat; don?t steal; don?t lie, don?t hurt others? Of course the difficulty arises when one is confronted with a ?gray-area? and finds him(her)self asking such questions as, ?If I borrow this and put it back, is that really stealing? If I don?t tell every thing that I know, is that really lying? If I look at payroll data but don?t tell anyone what I?ve seen, who is that hurting??

As for your closing question, I would say ?No, you shouldn?t.? All of us, I submit, would fail some ethical test or another. Sainthood is very elusive. What matters is that we continue trying to ?do the right thing.?

I did not intend to say that ethics were different for various vocations within a society. I think of "IT Ethics" as being like "Business Calculus" classes at university. The subject matter is not different, but has a focus on ethics that are likely to be pertinent in the practice of IT. Possibly, with references to specific examples that are commonly considered vague, or require judgement between competing bases (thinking specifically of example 5 in the article which sets 'personal privacy' against 'public welfare'). Of course, the restricted scope of 'IT Ethics' versus 'Ethics' may not be appropriate.

Your view, then, is that everything is relative and there is no objective ethical standard or moral sense that can be applied.
If everything is relative, there are no rules and whatever your "personal" ethics are will rule, even if that personal standard is to have no standard at all.

Ethics are constantly being interpreted and re-interpreted. That is one of the points of writing the article in the first place.

Professional societies, trade groups, licensing boards, even letters to the editor and online discussions are all mechanisms to define and refine ethical standards. That is not at all the same thing as ?everyone decides for themselves?. Nor is ?common sense? to be relied on, as it is neither reliably common nor is it reliably sensible.

That is why all modern societies have laws. Imperfect and inadequate as the laws are, they better than common sense, and subject to constant re-interpretation.

Interpreting ethics as codified by the law is the role of the court system in this (USA) country, particularly the appellate courts, and the primary function of Supreme Courts.

Ethics does not require the force of law. Morality is well understood outside of jurisprudence. Laws generally serve a public service to maintain an orderly society, but there are many, many occasions where something can arguably be called unethical, but the law has nothing to say about it. There are also situations where someone is obeying the law (or, more accurately, not disobeying the law), but is arguably being unethical.

Nothing in your post supports your assertion that logic can not determine ethical questions (I am assuming that is what you meant in your subject line).

You state, "Ethics are constantly being interpreted and re-interpreted." Are they? Is that a good thing? Would logic be used at all in that interpretation process?

The public debate about ethics that you enumerate is a good thing, but it is not the only way, or even the best way to arrive at ethical truth.

My statement about common sense was that it is a fallback method, should you not be able to reason your way to an ethical position, not that it was the preferred method. The preferred method, of course is by reason (logic).

I confess to blending the two (legal and moral) for my convenience. The two are intimately related, though not the same thing. I will suggest that law is a subset of morality. In as much as any law interferes with freedom and the free flow of commerce and progress, society generally prefers to limit laws to stopping the most egregious of behaviors but not all behaviors that are undesirable or potentially unethical. The process of refining legal questions and ethical questions is, I think similar.

You state: Nothing in your post supports your assertion that logic can not determine ethical questions (I am assuming that is what you meant in your subject line).

That is not quite what I meant. I do, however, assert that using logic IS interpretation. If you use logic, you ARE interpreting! I also assert that my logic is different from your logic, and that MY logic alone or yours alone or together with mine is NOT sufficient to decide moral questions for the world. Further, ALL of our logic together, today, is not sufficient for deciding moral questions for the world 100 years from now.

A very short list of significant social changes that have changed law and perceptions of morality since Europeans settled in the Americas: Bounty on killing naives (once paid by kings and state legislators to make room for settlers), slavery, right to vote for property owners only, right to vote for women, right to sit in the front of the bus.

I remember a cartoon once with two chimps in a cage at a primate research lab. One was reading the paper and looks to the other and says: It says here that every year it gets harder and harder to be human.

The bar is constantly (we hope, there is unfortunate backsliding as well time and again) being raised. Once a behavior is generally accepted, abolishment of slavery for example, new behaviors are identified as immoral by an increasing portion of the public (segregation to extend the same example) and challenged. Today?s news is that some churches and communities in the USA are calling for reparations be paid to the descendants of those victimized by slavery (not completely new, but in this weeks paper as a current discussion).

What I meant by my subject line (That instructor flunks) is that his position, in my opinion, is indefensible: I have seen nothing in the history of civilization to suggest that the perception of ethical behavior is static. It has been refined and reinterpreted constantly. Overall, I think it has been getting better.

Your examples (Enron, Health South, and Tyco) I don?t think involve interpreting ethics, but rather people knowingly attempting to profit from unethical behavior. I believe they knew what they were doing was unethical, but thought they could get away with it anyway.

Your statements seem considered and reasonable and your arguments are fine, as far as they go?

I strongly disagree with your assertion ?? that my logic is different from your logic, and that MY logic alone or yours alone or together with mine is NOT sufficient to decide moral questions for the world. Further, ALL of our logic together, today, is not sufficient for deciding moral questions for the world 100 years from now. ?

I think you are using the term, ?logic?, in an informal way, and I am using it in a formal way. Let me try and shed some light on this difference.

There are only two ways to arrive at truth: logic and evidence. This is a factually true statement a priori, i.e. it is a ?first principle?, true by definition. Logic is the language of reason, or, more precisely, the syntax of reason. The simple case of deductive reasoning (If A then B; A is true; therefore B must be true) can yield an unimaginable plethora of truths -- from the mundane to the lofty. Debate is the process whereby two parties define their terms and assert their propositions about a given subject.

When two parties both have the same evidence, are using the same semantics (they define their terms in precisely the same way), and both apply the rules of logic correctly (yes, there are discrete, formal rules), both will arrive at precisely the same conclusion. This is also true by definition. Logic and mathematics are very closely related in this respect. 1 + 1 will always equal 2.

Different conclusions and differences of opinion arise when two parties think they are defining their terms in the same way, but in fact they are not; or when two parties think they have made the same observations, but in fact they have not.; or when one party uses a conditional statement (if A then B) which does not ring true to the other party; or when one or both parties think they have made all of the observations that are relevant, but in fact they have not.

If both parties agree that A is true, and both parties agree that A yields B, then both parties MUST agree that B is true. This works for any discipline, including ethics. The exceedingly difficult part of all of this is getting semantic agreement, observational agreement, and propositional agreement. Once that social contract has been signed, then arriving at truth (and an agreement about it) becomes very mechanical and utterly predictable.

Your disagreement with me (and mine with you) seems to be arising from a semantic discrepancy. I submit that we are using the term, ?logic? differently.

It sounds like you are equating objective ethics and application of ethical principles. Ethical standars can be objective. Application of ethics to a given circumstance may involve interpretation, which often gets skewed by personal preference. A perfect example is the Roe v Wade decision based on a claimed constitutional personal privacy right. Most legal scholars, regardless of what side of the arguement they support, agree that this was a profoundly misguided opinion having quite dubious consitutional support. It is ethics being force-fit to personal desire.

I do not think we are using the terms significantly different, but I think I framed my argument poorly, so I will try again: To make the best decision, the best of common sense and the best of logic still require all the relevant facts and data (as you correctly point out). Any two of us are likely to have different sets of data and different perspectives, and so draw different (if only slightly different) conclusions. Further, as the issues become more complex, ?common sense? becomes less reliable of itself, and more time and effort is required to collect enough relevant facts/data to draw reasonable conclusions. Hence this article: The IT community needs to prepare itself for the inevitable challenges that are brought on by having some responsibility for private or sensitive information.

To extend this argument to: ?ethics open to interpretation?, Ethics decisions are hopefully made with all available facts considered. When new, relevant facts are discovered, decisions may need to be revised.

Your article focuses on the handling of data and doesn't touch on behavior within a development project. If you discuss medical ethics, we're talking about not only information about the patient, but also how the doctor performs. In the case of software development, ethical behavior is no different than any other job behavior - how does the developer behave? Ethics is not a steadfast list; it is a study which proposes to answer: 1) what is good, 2) how ought we behave, and 3) what is the right thing to do? Almost all articles on software development behaviors (like yours) focus on the end product, not the development; while assuming everyone knows what ethics is about. Most don't.

IT is not and will not be a profession until it is viewed as such by people willing to pay professional rates to have IT work done.

The paralegal field spun out of control a few years ago by "holier than thou" types applying thier morality as eithical standards. Quite the mess to this day, and still not viewed as a profession most places.

Agreed. There are only three recognized professions. These have established, licensing requirements. The are Medicine, Law and Architecture. They are regulated by State and Federal statutes. CNA, CNE, CIEE are a far cry from these true professions.

By the standards you list, public accounting qualifies as well. Though the perception of their _adherence_ to their ethical standards is a bit lacking...

(I'm an IT manager, but my educational background is accounting, and I sat for the CPA exam - hardest exam I've ever taken.)

Both the British Computer Society and Association for Computing Machinery have codes of conduct to which their members are expected to adhere. I imagine the same applies of other recognised computing/IT professional associations. The difference is that to be a doctor or a lawyer or a teacher you *must* belong to the professional association concerned, so sanctions for breaking the code of ethics can be enforced. Until the same is true for ICT bodies then we have to self police because nobody really cares if a persone belongs to an organisation or not so there are effectively no sanctions. If I get chucked out of BCS so what? If a Dr gets chucked out of the BMA then they lose their livelihood.

Exactly - here in Australia, it's the same situation. To practice as a medical doctor, you need to be registered with the board. If you commit a civil / criminal offence, or breach the guidelines you are likely to have your registration revoked. Unable to legally practice, you lose your livelihood.

I'm a member of Australia's peak body for IT professionals, but no-one cares.. no employer has ever asked. Barely any employers seem to care if you have a university education. IT is still seen as a bunch of shoddy mechanics.

With the use of Napster and Bit Torrent and the piracy of music / software / video has done little to improve our image.

We are many many many years away from being seen as a profession (with appropriate ethics).

I agree with my Australian Cousin, here in Canada, our ICT bodies are slowly trying to get the business industries to recognize some form of IT Professional Society. It is a painful exercise, as employers are not motivated to embrace this concept and Post Secondary Institutions are too slow in adapting their curriculum to meet the Societies requirements.

The other issue is that the Society is extremely slow to re-patriot all the "Old-time" IT folks into the fold, denying them Society designations due to their lack of Degree/Diplomas from any of the few target institutes and limiting the use of their many years of direct experience in the field.

Until something is done on a bigger scale, this is all just hogwash, we have too many accountants, engineers, secretaries and just dumb people in our field that could easily get PLUS as mentioned in the previous thread, too many "Joes" abusing technology which further tarnishes the IT industry as a whole.


That is my $0.02 worth...

The Institute for Certification of Computer Professionals has had a code of ethics for years. No employers or clients care. Most of them don't even know what my CCP means!

It seems to me that the questions raised are fundamentally the same as they always have been, and the type of technology or data doesn't change the basic principles involved. When you process any transaction, manually or electronically, you give certain permissions for limited use of that information (relevant to the transaction), and there has always been an implicit onus on the recipient to take responsibility for protecting your interests. The use of information always carries implicit permsissions and responsibilities. however it is processed or conveyed.

The comments about professional "policing" compared to other areas like law or medecine are highly valid, but are only likely to change when society feels threatened in some direct way by IT professionals. The main difference here is that electronic data is not so clearly understood, and any potential threat is perceived as more remote (less personal, perhaps).

I recognized long ago that as an IT professional my job and performance were being monitored and dictated by people with no idea what I did nor how I did it. Without belaboring my personal trials in my past and present proffesional life, I am often treated less like a proffesional with years of training and experience, and more like a technical janitor. I could bring the company to a halt with a single flip of a switch, or to a permanent end with a single SQL statement. The ethics of my position require that I responsibly handle far more responsibility that I am credited with, or paid for. I must be on a self imposed honor system to not peek at or take employee or customer information, and if I did - ultimately I would be the only person that could prove or disprove my actions, all evidence of any misuse is mine to manufacture, falsify, destroy, or hide as I choose. So part of my own ethical situation is that should I decide to stop self monitoring there is very little if anything to stop me because no one outside of me really understands the true nature of anything that happens in the server room.

All of these rhetorical questions are fine and thought provoking, but an ethical code can be followed by any individual. For an ethical code to become a part of a job and something you are held to it requires far more understanding of what IT profesionals do by people outside of IT.

Some of these ethical considerations are also addressed by other occupations. The real problem, as I perceive it, is the "IT" covers areas that traditionally have belonged to several other professions.

Examples?

1. Record keeping traditionally has been the realm of the secretarial and administrative. There are international rules covering proper record keeping, to include confidentiality.

2. Keeping of personnel data (and personal data) has been a function of human resources.

3. Financial records have been the realm of accounting/finance.

One of the problems as I see it is that IT, which is a new specialization, is overlapping and absorbing functions traditionally performed by others. Because of this, Point #10 is in effect, and is causing role confusion. Since the perception is that IT is doing these functions, those who traditionally were the data trackers now feel relieved of the responsibility. This creates even more confusion.

There would be less confusion if IT would not consider itself in isolation, but as an extention and transformation of the existing disciplines. There is no need to reinvent the wheel. Acceptable practices of record keeping and confidentiality do not change because the responsibility for upkeep changes.

This is where true professionalism comes in. Our modern emphasis on narrow specialization makes this mess possible. Information Technology is not simply hardware and software. It is only one facet of it. Current training and standards of the profession must be expanded to include more than just what's on the machine.

Everything else that makes a person ethical is internal, and that is a completely different subject.

...in addition to IT becoming an "extension" and transformation of other disciplines, I believe one of the largest problems is the shear amount of data that IT professionals are allowed access to. Traditionally, other professions, such as secretarial/administrative, hr, accounting/financing and research/development, have only had access to the data which was relevant to their specific field. However, with the advent of IT professionals maintaining the upkeep of networks as a whole, we are able to access data from every one of these separated professions. This puts us in a tough situation because we now need to know the acceptable practices for record keeping for all of the professions which exist on a given network, and a lot of times, especially when specific data is shared between professions, it is unclear the scope of the security of the data and exactly who should or should not have access to it.

... for their own information security, to an extent. If you rely solely on IT's power of discretion, then you are inviting an unethical person to take advantage of your apathy. There are simple software solutions that apply rights management and encryption to email and documents, meaning only those who are designated access can access them, no matter where they are. Including IT, or any other department personel.
http://www.essentialsecurity.com/products.htm

...my actual experience isn't very positive about that.

The administrative types I know have very little konwledge about the operating systems and applications that they use daily. Yes, Windows XP/2000 has rights management, password protection, encryption, etc. When I have brought the subject up, I was looked at with blank stares. The attitude is that working with files and anything on the computer is the tech's responsibility.

You are right - the files belong to them, not the techs! So the responsibility is supposed to rest with the creator/owner of the files. But because of the separation of the perceived separation of duties between IT and end user, all responsibility is passed by default to the IT department.

End result? We get fiasco's like the VA laptop.

Last year I had the experience of teaching an IT Ethics course at a college in Canada. It was very interesting, as we discussed many of the point brought up in this thread. IT does need some sort of ethics body to help with the profession. Otherwise, we leave ourselves up for potential problems with lawsuits, etc. Even now, there is still a movement to make developers responsible for software that causes someone to loose money (remember the whole Slammer issue).

We need to make the whole IT world a professional body, with standards, etc. If not for the simple fact that we can then say who is and isn't and IT Pro

The article raises some great issues and I'll admit I haven't read the whole thing yet. But to state that there are no Ethics standards in IT is just mis-informed. I have subscribed and honored the SAGE Code of Ethics for over 20 years and based on my evaluations which more or less assess my conduct under this code, I have done quite well. http://www.sage.org/ethics.mm

... but optional. Other "professions" require a society membership and adherence to rules of conduct. I also abide by SAGE's code, but there's no inherent risk to my career if I choose not to do so. That's the difference between IT and medicine or accountancy.

The biggest issue as far as IT is that to all the other departments in an organization, IT is a money loser. We make no product. We provide no services that generate income. Our job is to keep everyone else working. So outsourcing and jobs reductions are happening.

That brings in so many more questions to this discussion. Who cares about the lowly PC person. That posistion is replacable, or so management thinks, now. They contract out and have IBM or HP or someone take over kepping YOUR internal desktop systems working. Now you have many, many more people gaining acces to whatever data is on you INTERNAL computers. Now you need to worry about the desktop systems, not just a lost laptop.

Until all the other departments realize what really goes on in IT, like everything they do, we keep working, it will be the same. The mentality to hire a couple of recent college grads and dump the "overpaid" incumbenr, one of them will workout, is a major part of the problem.

And one last question. How come the credit card companies can debit an account within seconds of a transaction, but an electronic paymants to them takes ten working days. Who is getting the interest on all of that ten days worrth of limbo. Talk about unethical.

The article raises more of coffee side chats than ethical issues. If we as an industry are still debating these questions then we shuld be kicked around for not providing leadership back to the boardroom. The "ethical" questions raised are bush league with the notable execptions of health safety and security. Which are only being stalled by politcal factions, not ethical reasoning.

Dear Jody and techRepublic staff I couldn't get the pdf version of the dpwnload. Is the link broken?
I wish to file this interesting article, can you tell me where I can get it?
Thank you..

Sorry you're having trouble downloading the PDF; it worked for me just now, but I might just have lucked out. I'll e-mail you the PDF and check with engineering about the link.

Thanks
Jody

Reasoning: You state (in two different posts):
*** An article that I read recently poignantly addressed this issue. It was called (as I recall) "There Is No Such Thing as _Business_ Ethics." Its point was that ethics is not constrained by labels or agendas. It is universally applicable. ***

*** I am at odds with your implication that IT ethics are different from business ethics, from animal husbandry ethics, from engineering ethics, etc. ***

The point of ?Business Ethics? or ?IT Ethics? is not that ethics are relaxed for professionals, but that an Additional layer of ethics is added. A physician, in addition to behaving as an ethical citizen, must provide ?state of the profession? care for their patients. The treatments studied in medical school are unethical if they have been supplanted by better ones, and the doctor must keep up with education to know this.

The issues of IT professionals working with sensitive data are increasing dramatically (in the scope and risks to compromise) and inadequately addressed to date. Other professions have standards and guidelines for addressing specific issues within those professions. It is time, suggests the article, for IT to act professional and address its specific issues before the law suits get too heavy (an ?ethical standards committee? to borrow your words, could do this).

Ethics ARE different for business and professionals, because extra requirements are added. The standards are also under periodic review, and get raised as available knowledge/technology increases.

I'm grateful to each of you who've taken the time and trouble to add your thoughts to the discussion.

As a point of clarification, there are two underlying themes to the article. The first is essentially that change breeds more change. Civilized society has conducted itself according to basic precepts of ethical behavior for generations, but society itself is not static. As change has been wrought by advances in science, technology, medicine, agriculture, and other areas it is both reasonable and necessary that society reexamines its underlying principles of behavior to see if the same rules still apply. Since technology, our major field of interest in this space, has generated some fairly profound changes in how society conducts itself some "tweaks" may be needed to accommodate those changes.

The other theme is personal responsibility. Whether IT as a profession has a single codified and administered set of ethics, as is the case in law and medicine, or has a number of professional societies each one of which with its own version of ethical dogma (as is currently the case), ethical behavior is something we as individuals practice. I'm not sure what is meant by "organizational ethics"; organizations are made up people, each one of whom is either ethical or not. The bad behavior of some individuals should not be a reflection of the organization as a whole, and the perception that an organization is unethical should not be a justification for any member of that organization to practice unethical behavior.

As Lyndon Johnson once said, "All politics are local.".

My purpose in writing the article was not to present a comprehensive list of ethical questions resulting from advances generated by technology. That's not possible in such a limited space. My intent was to provide a framework to stimulate discussion and debate, a goal that thanks to all of you has been met.

All technology by virtue of efficiency eliminates jobs...one trench machine can replace ten ditch diggers. The chalenge then, it seems to me is to redirect that potential to the betterment of society...to be less destructive and self consumptive.

Today, our society is faced with an aging generation on the verge of exiting the workforce and not enough "new blood" genX, genY to replace them. It is therefore necessary to begin to think "outside the box" and begin to automate those functions which are menial(for lack of a better term). To expand on this writer's statement, it is necessary to set the goals and expectations of our existing and next generations higher and begin to revamp our system of education where more young adults are given the opportunity and are driven to seek higher jobs. Continuing education is also something needing to be addressed.

Today, our society is faced with an aging generation on the verge of exiting the workforce and not enough "new blood" genX, genY to replace them. It is therefore necessary to begin to think "outside the box" and begin to automate those functions which are menial(for lack of a better term). To expand on this writer's statement, it is necessary to set the goals and expectations of our existing and next generations higher and begin to revamp our system of education where more young adults are given the opportunity and are driven to seek higher jobs. Continuing education is also something needing to be addressed.

A couple of blacksmiths could easily keep the ditch diggers in shovels. With the advent of the trencher, fewer ditch diggers were necessary. However, we now have NEW jobs building, maintaining, and operating trenchers as well as related needs for shipping and fueling those trenchers. Technology doesn't eliminate jobs as much as it replaces jobs and, in many cases, often expands on the number of available occupations.