acm code of ethics and professional conduct
DOI:10.1145/3015149
Bo Brinkman, Don Gotterbarn, Keith Miller, Marty J. Wolf
Making a Positive Impact:
Updating the ACM Code of Ethics
Why Does the Code Need
to be Updated?
The ACM website prominently displays: “Advancing Computing as a
Science & Profession” and “We see a
world where computing helps solve
tomorrow’s problems—where we use
our knowledge and skill to advance
the profession and make a positive
impact.”a These quotes are a highlevel description of the goals and
purposes of the ACM. The ACM Code
of Ethics and Professional Conductb
(“the Code”) describes what brings us
together as a profession. It expresses a
social contract we have as professional members of the ACM, a contract
describing what we expect of each
other and of ourselves as members of
the ACM. As members of the ACM we
have all consented to the Code; that
consent underlies the conscience of
our profession and is the foundation
for our shared expectations of each
other.
The Code provides guidance to
ACM members about committing
to ethical professional conduct. The
Code identifies fundamental considerations for contributing to societal
and human well-being. Every ACM
member who renews a membership
agrees to adhere to this code, a code
that was written a quarter of a century
ago.
The current version of the Code was
approved in 1992. This version of the
Code made significant advances over
its predecessor. Recognizing that the
Code provides guidelines for members of a rapidly developing profession, in 1992 the ACM replaced specific rules that mandated following
specific technologies (which might
become outdated) with statements
of aspirations based on broad ethical principles. In its role of advancing
a ACM Web banner http://www.acm.org/. Accessed 2016-10-04
b Bylaw 15 the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct https://www.acm.org/governance/acm-bylaws#bylaw15
professionalism and producing a positive impact on society, the ACM also
replaced the previous primary function of monitoring member behavior
with an emphasis on educating about
the principles of ethical behavior in
computing and providing guidance in
ethical decision making.c
The 1992 Code was reviewed by
ACM membership and received a
consensus and a commitment of its
members to the ethical principles
embodied in it. Sometimes these
commitments are expressed as rules
and sometimes as ideals, but the essential function was to clarify and formally state the professional’s moral
responsibility toward society.
The 1992 Code organized ethical
principles into four categories: general moral imperatives, more specific
professional responsibilities, organizational leadership imperatives, and
compliance. The principles were not
canonical pronouncements requiring the use of particular technological solutions. Instead, these ethical
markers of professionalism were presented as goals and ideals to which
the morally responsible professional
practitioner should aspire. The principles were accompanied by guidelines and illustrations showing their
application to a developing computing profession.d
The 1992 Code has been robust
and useful in guiding decision-making. Over the years, the Code was used
as a guide to instruct students entering the profession, as a decision support tool for computing practitioners,
as a standard for the public to judge
the professionalism of practitioners,
c Using the New ACM Code of Ethics in Decision Making. Ronald E. Anderson, Deborah
G. Johnson, Donald Gotterbarn, and Judith
Perrolle. Comm. ACM 36, 2 (1993), 98–107;
doi:10.1145/151220.151231.
d Ronald E Anderson. The ACM code of ethics:
History, process, and implications. Social Issues in Computing. McGraw Hill New York, NY,
1994, 48–71.
and as an aid to address legal issues
and ethical tensions.e The ACM Committee on Professional Ethics (COPE)
often receives questions about applying the Code; in the last few years,
many of those questions were related
to artificial intelligence, machine
learning, and robotics.
In the 25 years since the drafting of
the 1992 Code began, there have been
two significant, interconnected, and
broad kinds of changes: 1) amazing
changes in computing technology, and
2) important changes in how deeply
that technology is integrated into social structures and into people’s daily
lives. The technical changes are substantial. The number of people impacted and the intensity of that impact have
been astonishing.
Twenty-five years ago, a “smart car”
had an automatic transmission and,
perhaps, antilock brakes. Sending selfies and tweets from your mobile phone
were science fiction. The Web was in its
infancy.
In 1992 the number of people using and controlling computers seemed
limited. Computers were typically in a
fixed location, and were just beginning
to connect via the Internet. Computers were used to print bills, to control
some highly specified processes, and
to guide military devices. They managed and recorded financial information, controlled some processes on our
automobiles, and controlled microwaves in the air and in our kitchens. It
made sense for most scholars in computing to have a narrow focus on the
analysis of algorithms and a study of
e Markoff, John. “Apple’s Engineers, If Defiant, Would Be in Sync with Ethics Code.” The
New York Times Blog; http://www.nytimes.
com/2016/03/19/technology/apples-engineers-if-defiant-would-be-in-sync-with-ethicscode.html. Accessed 2016-10-04
Mullin, Joe. Google Puts Its Expert on the
Stand to Combat Oracle, Wraps up Its Case.
Ars Technica; http://arstechnica.com/techpolicy/2016/05/google-puts-its-expert-on-thestand-to-combat-oracle-wraps-up-its-case/
Accessed 2016-10-04
DEC E MB E R 2 0 1 6 | VO L. 59 | N O. 1 2 | C OM M U N IC AT ION S OF THE ACM
7
acm code of ethics and professional conduct
the resources needed to execute them.
Now computing is ubiquitous—
controlling our transportation and
communication, and facilitating many
human interactions. Computing today
is in our bodies—prosthetics, pacemakers, and insulin pumps. Computing is also integral to the ways in which
societies wage war. Computers impact
all areas of our lives and many lifepreserving functions are relegated to a
piece of computer guided machinery.
Many of the newest impacts of computing are invisible. Computers make
decisions about who is audited, who
gets a heart transplant, and who gets
targeted by dangerous devices, be they
cars or missiles. The changes in technology and the kinds and number of
impacted stakeholders are changing
society in fundamental ways.
Social and technical changes connected to computing are interdependent, and they are changing the way
computing is accomplished. Given the
ease of communications, there is a rise
of global software development. Many
software developers have less individual control over what a software project will do or how it will operate. The
easy development and dissemination
of large aggregated datasets is transformational. We are also addressing
concepts like accountable algorithms,
inconceivable to many of us in 1992.f
Although the 1992 Code was designed to be flexible, it has not completely kept pace with these changes.
ACM’s leadership understands that,
and is committed to addressing the
interaction of the technical and social
worlds in the computing profession.
The ACM Council charged COPE to
develop an update to the Code, so that
the members’ social contract with the
ACM better reflects these changes in
computing and society. This update
project is called “Code 2018.”
Important principles guiding Code
2018 are:
˲ The Code should continue to document the ethical and professional responsibilities and obligations of computing professionals.
The ACM,
like software
development in
general, is more
global than
it was during
the last century;
the updated
Code needs to
reflect broad,
intercultural
professional ethics.
f Nicholas Diakopoulos. Accountability in Algorithmic Decision Making. Commun. ACM 59,
2 (Feb 2016), 56–62; 10.1145/2844110 http://
cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/2/197421-accountability-in-algorithmic-decision-making/
abstract. Accessed 2016-10-04
8
COMMUNICATIO NS O F THE AC M
| D EC EM BER 201 6 | VO L . 5 9 | NO. 1 2
˲ The Code should express the consensus of the computing profession on
ethical issues.
˲ The Code should be used as a guide
to decision making.
˲ The Code should educate both
the public and aspiring professionals
about the professional obligation of all
computing professionals.
How will the Code be updated?
The ACM, like software development
in general, is more global than it was
during last century; the updated Code
needs to reflect broad, intercultural professional ethics. COPE is establishing an
international Task Forceg of experts on
codes of ethics, current ethical issues of
computers in society, public policy, law,
and philosophy.h
The Code 2018 Task Force will do several rounds of draft—review - comment
- rewrite—before recommending a draft
to the ACM Council for approval and
adoption. Each draft will have a wide
distribution; the process is designed to
include many voices. The goal is to develop a Code by 2018 that will be useful
for years to come.
COPE anticipates publishing two updates to this draft version for review and
comment (at six-month intervals) before
recommending a final version to ACM
Council.
Codes, if carefully written and properly promoted, can be powerful instruments when striving for professionalism, and when establishing safeguards
for society. But a Code that sits in the unread appendix of a book, or languishes
on an unvisited website, has little influence. In addition to the Code 2018 effort,
ACM has begun the “Integrity Project,”
an effort to promote ethical behavior in
the computing professions.
New technologies arise so quickly
that they may be in widespread use before practitioners can see the social
and ethical consequences. In order to
help ACM members in particular and
the computing community at large to
be mindful of professional computing
ethics, and how its principles can be applied, the Integrity Project will develop a
variety of multimedia materials for use
g For a list of current taskforce members see
http://ethics.acm.org/code-2018
h Michael Davis. Eighteen rules for writing a
code of professional ethics. Science and Engineering Ethics 13, 2 (2007), 171–189.
acm code of ethics and professional conduct
in schools and industry, including webinars, YouTube videos, and podcasts.
The Integrity Project will complement
and support the launch of the updated
2018 Code.
Description of the
preliminary changes to
the Code in the draft 1 version
A preliminary update of the Code (Draft
1) was developed by the Code 2018 Task
Force. The initially suggested changes
address the increased impact of computing on the infrastructure of society,
and the increasing moral responsibility
of ACM members. These changes reflect
the need for members to have a better
understanding of how computing technologies and artifacts impact the social
infrastructure. There is a strengthened
emphasis on the need for a member’s
activities to be focused on the common
good. Professionalism in computing
requires honing one’s abilities to anticipate these broader impacts, for accepting responsibility for the consequences
of these impacts, and for skillful analysis of trade-offs.
The purpose of this distribution of
Draft 1 is to solicit comments from ACM
members in particular, and from nonACM members who are particularly interested. Based on the feedback about
Draft 1, the Task Force will develop a revised draft of the code (Draft 2) that will
again be presented for review.
Two clauses were added to Draft 1 of
the Code. One clause provides a standard to help resolve ethical tension that
may exist among Code principles in a
particular situation: “3.4 Ensure that the
public good is a central concern during
all professional computing work.” This
type of clause in an ethics code is often
called a “paramountcy clause.” It helps a
decision maker determine what has priority in her decision. Because it includes
this clause, the Code emphasizes the
professional’s obligations to the public
at large. This obligation should be the final arbiter in all professional decisions.
The other new clause reflects the added moral responsibility of computing
professionals as computing is further
integrated into society: “3.7 Recognize
when computer systems are becoming integrated into the infrastructure of
society, and adopt an appropriate standard of care for those systems.”
Recognizing that the resolution of
ethical tensions is not always clear, the
update to the Code includes a statement of the importance of professional
ethical judgment and of honing ethical
analysis skills. The Code does not provide a checklist of what is ethical in all
situations, but directs a computer professional to use ethical judgment, acting
in a manner that is most consistent with
the spirit of the code of ethics in a given
set of circumstances.
The suggested modifications to principle 1.4 (“Be fair and take action not to
discriminate unfairly.”) grew from a recognition that discrimination can sometimes be used as a synonym for judgment, but that the Code intends the term
in the more colloquial usage of unjust
or unfair judgments; there is also an expanded, alphabetical, partial list of unfair bases of discrimination. The intent
of this clause is to be open ended, thus
enabling it to include consideration of
new social concerns in the future.
Imperatives 1.5 and 1.6 in the 1992
code are both focused on intellectual
property. Copyright, patent, trade secrets, and licensing are all listed, but
there was no mention of Free or Open
Source Software. We have suggested
combining these two principle into
“1.5 Honor intellectual property rights
and give proper credit,” and having the
guidelines address current thinking
about this topic.
THE CODE
In order to make your voice heard about
the update of the code, please examine
Draft 1 (below) and contact the Code
2018 Task Force using the contact information at the bottom of this article.
ACM Code of Ethics and
Professional Conduct: Draft 1
Draft 1 was developed by The Code 2018
Task Force. (It is based on the 1992 ACM
Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct http://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/previous-versions/1992-acm-code/).
Suggested additions to the Code are
underlined.i
Preamble
Commitment to ethical conduct is
i
A complete track changes version of Draft 1
showing all additions and deletions to the
1992 Code is available at http://ethics.acm.
org/code-2018.
expected of every ACM member. The
ACM Code of Ethics and Professional
Conduct (“the Code”) identifies the elements of such a commitment.
This Code includes 24 imperatives
formulated as statements of responsibility. The Code is designed to apply
to practicing and aspiring computing
professionals. Section 1 outlines fundamental ethical considerations. Section
2 addresses additional, more specific
considerations of professional conduct.
Section 3 pertains more specifically to
individuals who have a leadership role,
whether in the workplace or in a volunteer professional capacity. Principles involving compliance with this Code are
given in Section 4.
Each imperative is supplemented by
guidelines, which provide explanations
to assist members in understanding
and applying the imperative.
The Code is intended to serve as a
basis for ethical decision making in the
conduct of professional work. Secondarily, it may serve as a basis for judging
the merit of a formal complaint pertaining to a violation of professional ethical
standards.
The Code as a whole is concerned
with how fundamental ethical imperatives apply to one’s conduct as a computing professional. The imperatives
are expressed in a general form to emphasize that ethical principles which
apply to computing professionals are
derived from broadly accepted ethical
principles.
The Code is not an algorithm for
solving ethical dilemmas. Words and
phrases in a code of ethics are subject to
varying interpretations, and a particular imperative may conflict with other
imperatives in specific situations. Questions related to these kinds of conflicts
can best be answered by thoughtful
consideration of the imperatives and
fundamental ethical principles, understanding that the public good is a primary consideration.
1. GENERAL MORAL IMPERATIVES.
As an ACM member I will....
1.1 Contribute to society and to human
well-being, acknowledging that all people are stakeholders in computing and
its artifacts.
This principle concerning the quality of life of all people affirms an obli-
DEC E MB E R 2 0 1 6 | VO L. 59 | N O. 1 2 | C OM M U N IC AT ION S OF THE ACM
9
acm code of ethics and professional conduct
gation to protect fundamental human
rights and to respect the diversity of all
cultures. An essential aim of computing
professionals is to minimize negative
consequences of computing systems,
including threats to health, safety,
personal security, and privacy. When
designing or implementing systems,
computing professionals must attempt
to ensure that the products of their efforts will be used in socially responsible
ways, will meet social needs, and be
broadly accessible.
In addition to a safe social environment, human well-being requires a safe
natural environment. Therefore, ACM
members who design and develop systems must be alert to, and make others
aware of, any potential negative impact
to the local or global environment.
1.2 Avoid harm to others.
“Harm” means injury or negative consequences, such as undesirable loss
of information, loss of property, property damage, or unwanted environmental impacts. This principle prohibits using computing in ways that
result in harm to users, the general
public, employees, employers, and
any other stakeholders. Harmful actions include intentional destruction
or modification of files and programs
leading to serious loss of resources,
or unnecessary expenditure of human
resources such as the time and effort
required to locate malicious software,
purge it from systems, and mitigate its
effects.
Well-intended actions, including
those that accomplish assigned duties,
may lead to harm unexpectedly. In such
an event, those responsible are obligated to undo or mitigate the negative consequences as much as possible. Avoiding unintentional harm begins with
careful consideration of potential impacts on all those affected by decisions
made during design, implementation,
use, and removal.
To minimize the possibility of indirectly harming others, computing
professionals must minimize errors by
following generally accepted best practices for system design, development,
and testing. Furthermore, harm can be
reduced by assessing the social consequences of systems. If system features
are misrepresented to users, coworkers,
or supervisors, the individual comput10
COMMUNICATIO NS O F THE ACM
ing professional is accountable for any
resulting harm.
In the work environment, an ACM
member has an additional obligation
to report any signs of system risks that
might result in serious personal or social harm. If one’s superiors do not act
to curtail or mitigate such risks, it may
be necessary to “blow the whistle” to
help correct the problem or to reduce
the risk. However, capricious or misguided reporting of risks can itself be
harmful. Before reporting risks, all relevant aspects of the incident must be
thoroughly assessed as outlined in imperative 2.5.
1.3 Be honest and trustworthy.
Honesty is an essential component of
trust. An ACM member will be fair and
not make deliberately false or misleading claims and will provide full disclosure of all pertinent system limitations
and potential problems. Fabrication
and falsification of data are similarly
violations of the Code.
An ACM member has a duty to be
honest about his or her own qualifications, and about any limitations in
competence to complete a task. ACM
members must be forthright about any
circumstances that might lead to conflicts of interest or otherwise tend to
undermine the independence of their
judgment.
Membership in volunteer organizations such as ACM may at times place
individuals in situations where their
statements or actions could be interpreted as carrying the “weight” of a
larger group of professionals. An ACM
member will exercise care not to misrepresent ACM or positions and policies
of ACM or of any ACM units.
1.4 Be fair and take action not to discriminate unfairly.
The values of equality, tolerance, respect for others, and the principles of
equal justice govern this imperative.
Unfair discrimination on the basis of
age, color, disability, family status, gender identity, military status, national origin, race/ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual
orientation, or any other such factor is
an explicit violation of ACM policy.
Inequities between different groups
of people may result from the use or
misuse of information and technology. In a fair society, all individuals have
| D EC EM BER 201 6 | VO L . 5 9 | N O. 1 2
equal opportunity to participate in, or
benefit from, the use of computer resources. However, these ideals do not
justify unauthorized use of computer
resources, nor do they provide an adequate basis for violation of any other
ethical imperatives of this code.
1.5 Honor intellectual property rights
and give proper credit.
ACM members are obligated to protect
the integrity of intellectual property, unless there is an overriding ethical reason not to do so. Examples of types of
violations include (but are not limited
to) misrepresentation of authorship,
misrepresentation of the origin or ownership of ideas or work, misappropriation of a commons, unauthorized use,
unauthorized copying, unauthorized
derivative works, and counterfeiting.
In normal circumstances, violations of
intellectual property laws pertaining to
copyrights, patents, trade secrets, nondisclosure agreements, and license
agreements are contrary to the Code.
Even when not explicitly barred by law,
such violations are contrary to the Code.
Fair uses of intellectual property are
necessary for the progress of technology in the service of the public good.
ACM members should not oppose appropriate fair uses of their intellectual
property.
Efforts to help others by contributing time and energy to projects that
help society illustrate a positive aspect
of this imperative. This includes contributions to projects that are in the public
domain, free software, or open source
software.
1.6 Respect privacy.
Technology enables the collection
and exchange of personal information
quickly, inexpensively, and often without the knowledge of the people affected. ACM members should use this personal data for legitimate ends without
violating the privacy rights of individuals and organizations. ACM members
should therefore implement security
measures to maintain the privacy and
integrity of personal data. This includes
taking precautions to ensure the accuracy of data, as well as protecting it
from unauthorized access or accidental
disclosure to inappropriate individuals.
Computing professionals should establish procedures to allow individuals to
acm code of ethics and professional conduct
review their personal data and correct
inaccuracies.
Only the minimum amount of personal information necessary should be
collected in a system. The retention and
disposal periods for that information
should be clearly defined and enforced,
and personal information gathered for
a specific purpose should not be used
for other purposes without consent of
the individual(s).
When data collections are merged,
ACM members should take special care
for privacy. Individuals may be readily identifiable when several data collections are merged, even though those individuals are not identifiable in any one
of those collections in isolation.
1.7 Honor confidentiality.
The ethical obligation for confidentiality holds unless discharged from such
obligations by bona fide requirements
of law or by other principles of this
Code.
User data observed during the normal duties of system operation and
maintenance must be treated with strict
confidentiality, except in cases where it
is evidence for the violation of law, organizational regulations, or this Code.
In these cases, the nature or contents
of that information must be disclosed
only to appropriate authorities.
2. MORE SPECIFIC PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES.
As an ACM member with professional
responsibilities I will....
2.1 Strive to achieve the highest quality
in both the process and products of professional work.
Computing professionals should insist
on high quality work from themselves
and from colleagues. Professionals must
be cognizant of the serious negative consequences that may result from poor
quality. High quality includes respecting
the dignity of employers, colleagues, clients, users, and anyone effected either
directly or indirectly by the work.
2.2 Maintain high standards of professional competence, conduct, and ethical practice.
High-quality computing depends on individuals who take personal and organizational responsibility for acquiring and
maintaining professional competence.
Codes, if carefully
written and
properly promoted,
can be powerful
instruments
when striving for
professionalism
and when
establishing
safeguards
for society.
Professional competence includes
technical knowledge, awareness of the
social context in which the work will be
deployed, and competence in recognizing and navigating ethical challenges.
Upgrading necessary skills should be
ongoing and should include independent study, seminars, conferences, and
other informal or formal education. The
ACM is committed to encouraging and
facilitating those activities.
2.3 Know, respect, and apply existing
laws pertaining to professional work.
ACM members must obey existing local, state, province, national, and international laws unless there is a compelling ethical justification not to do so.
Policies and procedures of the organizations in which one participates must
also be obeyed, but compliance must
be balanced with the recognition that
sometimes existing laws and rules are
immoral or inappropriate and, therefore, must be challenged. Violation of
a law or regulation may be ethical when
that law or rule has inadequate moral
basis or when it conflicts with another
law judged to be more important. If one
decides to violate a law or rule because
it is viewed as unethical, or for any other
reason, one must fully accept responsibility for one’s actions and for the consequences.
2.4 Accept and provide appropriate professional review.
Quality professional work in computing depends on professional reviewing
and critiquing. Whenever appropriate,
individual members should seek and
utilize peer review, and should provide
constructive, critical review of the work
of others.
2.5 Give comprehensive and thorough
evaluations of computer systems and
their impacts, including analysis of possible risks.
ACM members must strive to be perceptive, thorough, and objective when evaluating, recommending, and presenting
system descriptions and alternatives.
Computing professionals are in a position of special trust, and therefore have
a special responsibility to provide objective, credible evaluations to employers,
clients, users, and the public. When
providing evaluations the professional
must also identify any relevant conflicts
DEC E MB E R 2 0 1 6 | VO L. 59 | N O. 1 2 | C OM M U N IC AT ION S OF T HE ACM
11
acm code of ethics and professional conduct
of interest, as stated in imperative 1.3.
As noted in the discussion of imperative 1.2 on avoiding harm, any signs of
danger from systems must be reported
to those who have opportunity and/or
responsibility to resolve them. See the
guidelines for imperative 1.2 for more
details concerning harm, including the
reporting of professional violations.
2.6 Accept only those responsibilities
for which you are qualified, and honor
those commitments.
A computing professional has a responsibility to evaluate every work assignment. Should the evaluation identify
reasons that the project should not be attempted, the professional must disclose
those reasons to the employer or client.
The assignment should not be accepted
unless those reasons are mitigated by
changes to the nature of the project.
Should the evaluation identify reasons that the professional does not
have the expertise to complete the project, the professional must disclose this
shortcoming to the employer or client,
and request that the project be undertaken by someone with the appropriate
qualifications.
Should the evaluation identify that
the project is theoretically impossible
to complete by anyone, the professional must disclose this impossibility to
the employer or client and request that
the project be dropped or modified in
order to make the project theoretically
possible.
On some occasions, other ethical
principles may take greater priority, and
a judgment that a specific assignment
should not be performed may not be
accepted. Only after serious consideration and with full disclosure of risks
and concerns to the employer or client,
and having clearly identified one’s concerns and reasons for that judgment
that failed to result in a change to the
nature of the project, should one accept
the assignment if one is obligated, by
contract or by law. The major underlying principle here is the obligation to
accept personal accountability for professional work. The computing professional’s ethical judgment should be the
final guide in deciding whether to proceed. Regardless of the decision, one
must accept the responsibility for the
consequences.
Computing professionals should en12
COM MUNICATIO NS O F THE ACM
New technologies
arise so quickly
that they may
be in widespread
use before
practitioners
can see
the social
and ethical
consequences.
| D EC EM BER 201 6 | VO L . 5 9 | NO. 1 2
sure that system elements perform as
intended. When an ACM member contracts for work with another party, the
member has an obligation to keep that
party properly informed about progress
toward completing that work.
2.7 Improve public understanding of
computing, related technologies, and
their consequences.
Computing professionals have a responsibility to share technical knowledge with the public by creating awareness and encouraging understanding
of computing, including the impacts
of computer systems, their limitations,
their vulnerabilities, and opportunities
they present. This imperative implies
an obligation to counter any false views
related to computing.
2.8 Access computing and communication resources only when authorized to
do so.
Theft or unauthorized destruction of
tangible and electronic property is prohibited by imperative 1.2— “Avoid harm
to others.” Trespassing and unauthorized use of a computer or communication system is addressed by this imperative. Trespassing includes accessing
communication networks and computer systems, or accounts and/or files
within those systems, without authorization to do so. Individuals and organizations have the right to restrict access
to their systems so long as they do not
violate the discrimination principle (see
imperative 1.4). No one should access
or use another’s computer system, software, or data files without permission.
One should have appropriate approval
before using system resources unless
there is an overriding concern for the
public good. To support this clause, a
computing professional should take
appropriate action to secure resources
against unauthorized use.
3. ORGANIZATIONAL
LEADERSHIP IMPERATIVES.
In this section, “leader” means any
member of an organization who has
leadership or educational responsibilities. These imperatives generally apply
to organizations as well as their leaders.
“Organizations” are corporations, government agencies, and other “employers,” as well as volunteer professional
organizations.
acm code of ethics and professional conduct
As an ACM member and an organizational leader, I will....
3.1 Articulate social responsibilities
of members of an organizational unit
and encourage full acceptance and
satisfaction of those responsibilities.
Because organizations have impacts on
the public, they must accept responsibilities to society. Organizational procedures and attitudes oriented toward
quality, transparency, and toward the
welfare of society will reduce harm to
members of the public. This serves the
public interest and fulfills social responsibility. Therefore, organizational
leaders must encourage full participation in meeting social responsibilities
and quality performance.
3.2 Manage personnel and resources to
design and build systems that enhance
the quality of working life.
Organizational leaders are responsible
for ensuring that (computer) systems
enhance, not degrade, the quality of
working life. When implementing a
system, organizations must consider
the personal and professional development, physical safety, psychological well-being, and human dignity of
all workers. Appropriate human-computer ergonomic standards should be
considered in system design and in the
workplace.
3.3 Establish appropriate rules for authorized uses of an organization’s computing and communication resources
and of the information they contain.
Organizational leadership has the responsibility to clearly define appropriate and inappropriate uses of organizational computing resources. These
rules must be clearly and effectively
communicated to those using their
computing resources. In addition, the
organization must enforce those rules,
and take appropriate action when they
are violated.
3.4 Ensure that the public good is a
central concern during all professional
computing work.
The needs of people—including users, other people affected directly and
indirectly, customers, and colleagues
—should always be a central concern
in professional computing. Tasks associated with requirements, design,
development, testing, validation, deployment, maintenance, and disposal
should have the public good as an explicit criterion for quality. Computing
professionals should keep this focus no
matter which methodologies or techniques they use in their practice.
3.5 Articulate, apply, and support policies that protect the dignity of users and
others affected by computing systems
and related technologies.
Dignity is the principle that all humans
are due respect. This includes the general public’s right to autonomy in dayto-day decisions.
Designing or implementing systems
that deliberately or inadvertently violate, or tend to enable the violation of,
the dignity or autonomy of individuals or groups is ethically unacceptable.
Computing professionals who are in
decision making positions should verify
that systems are designed and implemented to protect personal dignity.
3.6 Create opportunities for members
of the organization to learn, respect,
and be accountable for the principles,
limitations, and impacts of computer
systems.
Imperative 3.6 complements the imperative on public understanding (imperative 2.7). Educational opportunities are
essential to facilitate optimal participation of all organizational members.
Opportunities must be available to all
computing professionals to help them
improve their knowledge and skills in
professionalism, the practice of ethics,
and computing, including experiences
that familiarize them with the consequences and limitations of particular
types of systems. Professionals must
know the dangers of building systems
around oversimplified models, the improbability of anticipating and designing for every possible operating condition, the inevitability of software errors,
the ways in which systems impact and
are impacted by the contexts in which
they are deployed, and other issues related to the complexity of their profession.
3.7 Recognize when computer systems
are becoming integrated into the infrastructure of society, and adopt an
appropriate standard of care for those
systems.
Computing professionals who develop
computer systems that have or may
become an important part of the infrastructure of society have a responsibility
to be good stewards of that commons.
Part of that stewardship requires that
computing professionals monitor the
level of integration into the infrastructure of society. As the level of adoption
changes, there are likely to be changes
in the ethical responsibilities of the organization. Continual monitoring of
how society is using its computer system
will allow the organization to remain
consistent with their ethical obligation.
Where such standards of care do not exist, there may be a duty to develop one.
4. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE.
As an ACM member I will....
4.1 Uphold, promote, and respect the
principles of this Code.
The future of computing depends on
both technical and ethical excellence.
ACM members should adhere to the
principles expressed in this Code.
Each member should encourage and
support adherence by all computing
practitioners.
4.2 Treat violations of this code as inconsistent with membership in the
ACM.
If an ACM member does not follow this
code membership in ACM may be terminated.
5. COPE INVITES COMMENTS
The Committee on Professional Ethics
is asking you to participate in this project. We invite you to share your views
with the Code 2018 Task Force. We are
soliciting suggestions about areas of
computing that have changed and need
to be addressed in an updated Code. For
more details, and to provide input, visit
http://ethics.acm.org/code-2018.
Bo Brinkman (bo.brinkman@miamioh.edu) is an associate
professor of computer science and software engineering at
Miami University, Oxford, OH.
Don Gotterbarn (gotterbarn@acm.org) is chair of the ACM
Committee on Professional Ethics and Professor Emeritus
in the Department of Computing at East Tennessee State
University, Johnson City.
Keith Miller (millerkei@umsl.edu) is the Orthwein Endowed
Professor for Lifelong Learning in the Sciences College of
Education, University of Missouri, St. Louis.
Marty J. Wolf (mjwolf@acm.org) is a professor of
computer science at Bemidji State University, Bemidji, MN.
© 2016 ACM 0001-0782/16/12 $15.00
DEC E MB E R 2 0 1 6 | VO L. 59 | N O. 1 2 | C OM M U N IC AT ION S OF T HE ACM
13