acm code of ethics and professional conduct
DOI:10.1145/3173016
Don Gotterbarn, Amy Bruckman, Catherine Flick, Keith Miller, and Marty J. Wolf
ACM Code of Ethics:
A Guide for Positive Action
THE ACM CODE of
Ethics and Professional
Conduct (the Code) is being updated
by the Code Update Task Forcea in conjunction with the ACM’s Committee
on Professional Ethics. The Code was
initially written in 1992, and this is the
first update since then. In previous articles we detailed the motivations for
updating the Code,b gave our responses to feedback on the initial draft, and
produced an updated version, which
we presented for feedback through the
ACM Discourse site, email, and focus
groups and workshops at ETHICOMP
and SIGCSE. We thank everyone who
took part in this public consultation
round. Their insights, both positive
and negative, were invaluable. We have
deliberated extensively on the numerous suggestions for additions, changes,
and deletions. Based on those deliberations, we produced Draft 3 of the Code.
There are some significant changes
made in Draft 3. Some principles have
been removed entirely or completely
rewritten, and some new principles
were added in response to recommendations by several respondents. This
article explains the significant changes
that were made, and a few changes that
were suggested but not made. For the
most part, the suggestions that were
not explicitly incorporated are ideas
that we consider covered by existing
aspects of the Code. Some of these
suggestions were excellent, and because of them, explanatory materials
that will supplement the Code are being designed. These include examples,
cases, and more detailed explanations
of the Code.
This article is part of the final round
of public consultation associated with
the 2018 update to the ACM Code of
Ethics. ACM members agree to abide
by the Code. Please encourage other
computing professionals around you to
a For a list of current taskforce members see
http://ethics.acm.org/code-2018.
b http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2016/12/
210366-the-acm-code-of-ethics/fulltext
read and contribute to this effort.
We have provided two opportunities
to comment on this draft and suggest
ways it might be improved. We have
provided a space for open discussion of
Draft 3 among interested parties at the
ACM Code 2018 Discussion website
https://code2018.acm.org/discuss.
In
addition, ACM members are encouraged to take an online survey about the
specific principles of the Code at
https://www.acm.org/code-2018-survey.
Both comment systems close Feb. 10, 2018.
The ACM is a professional society
whose goals include promotion of the
highest standards “to advance the profession and make a positive impact.”
Thus, the ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct ought to reflect the
conscience of the computing profession, understood in the broadest sense.
A successful code of ethics should
reflect the values of the computing
profession in a way that can help ACM
members make appropriate ethical decisions. The Code should also inspire
members, future members, and other
professionals by highlighting the aspirations of the profession.
The ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct is a guide to proactive
action that helps us, as a profession,
promote good. Because of this, it also
applies to those aspiring to be computing professionals, including students.
Members of ACM student chapters are
also invited to take the survey and comment on the Code.
In the Code we identify global ethical principles that reflect the highest
standards of computing professionals.
The Code is designed to inform ACM
members and others of what society
should expect from computing professionals, and what computer professionals should expect of themselves.
In the next section we identify specific changes we made in response to
suggestions from the reviewers. The
section after that addresses some of
the thoughtful suggestions that did
not directly lead to changes. The article
concludes with Draft 3 of the Code for
your review.c
I. Changes from Draft 2 to Draft 3
1.2 Harm
There were several comments about
Principle 1.2: Avoid Harm. Some respondents suggested that this principle
was inconsistent with work in the military sector or law enforcement where
some systems are designed, in part,
to cause harm. The Task Force modified the guidance for this Principle to
deal more effectively with that perception. Another concern expressed was
that with most systems harm of some
degree almost always happens. In response, we sharpened the definitions of
intentional and unintentional harms,
and we added language to encourage
professionals to take care to minimize
unintended harm.
1.3 Transparency and Honesty
Commenters were concerned that certain technological developments such
as algorithmic transparency and systems that learn were not addressed by
the Code. We agreed. However, since
one goal of this update process is to
craft language that will apply to new
technologies as they emerge, we did
not include these specific technologies
explicitly in the Code. Instead, we tried
to use language that would implicitly include them and future developments. Certain aspects of algorithmic
transparency are covered by the principles regarding nondiscrimination
and privacy, but the concept of transparency was not addressed in Draft 2,
except with respect to the actions of
people. By changing the guidance for
Principle 1.3 on honesty to include explicit discussion of transparency, especially with respect to system limitations
c A complete track changes version of Draft 3
showing additions and deletions to draft 2 is
available at http://ethics.acm.org/code-2018.
JA N UA RY 2 0 1 8 | VO L. 6 1 | N O. 1 | C OM M U N IC AT ION S OF T H E ACM
121
acm code of ethics and professional conduct
and problems, the Code now addresses
technologies that are opaque even to
their developers. Suggestions about
how to manage the release of self-modifying systems are also now made in the
guidance for Principle 2.5.
1.4 Harassment
The harassment principle generated
much discussion, both for and against
a new emphasis in Draft 2 on discouraging harassment. The Task Force consensus is that a strong clause about
harassment should be included in the
Code since it is to be a modern statement of the ethical responsibilities of
the computing profession. As an update to the previous draft, we added virtual spaces to physical spaces as places
where harassment can take place. We
also broadened the harassment definition to encompass cyber bullying.
Many existing harassment policies focus exclusively on prohibiting
negative actions. Draft 3 of the Code
now includes a proactive call to create
open and inclusive spaces. We wanted
to clarify that when people feel disrespected, this can also be prohibitive to
certain spaces. The new language explicitly encourages building diversity
and safe environments that enable all
people to feel respected.
A successful code
of ethics should
reflect the values
of the computing
profession in a way
that can help ACM
members make
appropriate
ethical decisions.
1.6 Data collection and
informed consent
In Principle 1.6, Respect Privacy, we
have shifted the focus away from opting
in or out of data collection, and moved
to a more general requirement for informed consent procedures. The stronger emphasis on informed consent requires that users not only understand
what data are being collected and what
they are being used for, but that they
have the ability to consent to, or to withhold consent from the data collection.
This is consistent with broader international standards that are being implemented worldwide, such as the European Union’s General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR),d which we endorse.
It is important for professionals to
understand that informed consent is
not just about disclosure of information about data collection (for example,
in a lengthy, practically unintelligible
Privacy Policy), but is ideally a proactive
d http://www.eugdpr.org/
122
CO MM UNICATIO NS O F TH E AC M
| JA NUA RY 201 8 | VO L . 61 | N O. 1
agreement with the user about the type,
content, and use of data that are being
collected about them. Users should
have the ability to view and update their
data, and to withdraw from data collection procedures. In many circumstances, users should also be able to remove
their data entirely, particularly on social media or other user-generated content platforms.
Legislation is constantly changing
to catch up with technology, and different countries have different ways of
approaching the issues raised by technical developments. One suggestion
that was made was that we include
the “right to be forgotten” in our privacy clause. This issue is a significant
aspect of the EU’s GDPR regulation
that is coming into effect in 2018, and
which has been debated in other jurisdictions as well. While we are generally
supportive of this idea, we felt that for
a code of ethics, the use of this term
was too specific to particular legislation, and would require too nuanced
a definition to be useful in this Code.
Instead, as part of the privacy clause,
we have required computing professionals to allow for the user’s removal
of data where appropriate - this captures the essence of the “right to be
forgotten” in a way that we deemed to
be more generalizable.
2.6 Evaluation of work and skills
Principle 2.6 clarifies the computing
professional’s responsibility to evaluate potential work assignments. When
potential tasks are assigned, the professional should be able to evaluate the advisability and feasibility of the assignment; if these evaluations are beyond
the computing professional’s skill,
then he or she ought to seek help in
these evaluations. Professionals should
further evaluate if their skill level is currently adequate to complete the assignment or if they are capable of gaining
the required skills.
New Principles and Concepts
To address some of the more recent
changes in computing and society we
added some new principles. These
principles bring attention to the professional’s responsibility to a broader
range of stakeholders.
acm code of ethics and professional conduct
2.9 Security
Computing professionals have a responsibility to ensure that the systems
they create are secure. Principle 2.9
is new, and instructs professionals to
“Design and implement systems that
are robustly and usably secure.” Computer hacking is a growing problem,
and developments like ubiquitous
computing and the “Internet of things”
surround us with new vulnerabilities.
True security requires usability—security features are of no practical use if users cannot or will not use them.
3.6 Legacy Systems Retirement
Principle 3.6 is new, and includes:
“Retire legacy systems with care.” This
principle was added to address a fundamental tension mentioned by responders: sometimes software companies
must end support for systems; however,
what should they do if there are users
who still depend on those systems? Discontinuing support causes harm, but
sometimes is necessary. This is particularly challenging because the users of
legacy systems often reside in the developing world or in areas that are economically less advantaged. This new principle
says that this process should be undertaken with care, and states that it is critical to notify users of the risks (especially
with regard to security) of continuing to
use unsupported systems.
3.4 Leadership principle changes
In the new draft version of Principle
3.4, we consolidated Principles 3.4
and 3.5 from the previous draft. Based
on respondents’ comments, the Task
Force decided that policies for the use
of organizational computing resources
are no longer such a central a concern
so as to require an entire principle to
itself. Instead, we amended the original
principle 3.5, which was about creating policies that protect dignity, to be
broader. Leaders are now expected to
create and support policies and processes that not only protect dignity,
but that reflect all the principles in the
Code. This subsumed the original 3.4
principle, so 3.4 was eliminated, and
the remaining principles were renumbered appropriately.
4 Compliance
The primary functions of a code of ethics are to state a profession’s values and
to present professionals’ commitment
to those values; but many codes also allude to consequences when professionals do not comply with the code. The
principles in the ACM Code provide
numerous behavioral targets. The 1992
Code had a single consequence for
missing any of these behavioral targets:
expulsion from the ACM. The compliance section of the updated ACM
Code is designed to be more flexible,
to inspire and educate, as well as punish when appropriate. The new version
recognizes degrees of violation, and
includes opportunities of remediation
less severe than expulsion.
Must or Should?
Some commenters expressed concern
about the use of “must” and “should”
in the Code. In Draft 3, the word “must”
appears three times, and the word
“should” appears 76. The impetus to
use “should” stems from the aspirational nature of the Code. This is the
same motivation for replacing “moral
imperative” with “ethical imperative”
in the development of Draft 2. The use
of the word “should” is also important because during ethical deliberations, the principles in the Code can
come into conflict. When this occurs,
thoughtful ethical analysis may require
one of the principles to yield to others.
If a computing professional “must” adhere to two principles and the particular situation does not allow adhering to
both simultaneously, the person necessarily violates the Code, even when
a course of action is ethically justified.
By using “should” professionals are
given the opportunity to articulate their
analysis and be transparent about their
ethical reasoning.
What about those three uses of
“must”? The first is in the Preamble
where it says “computing professionals must always support the public
good.” This reminds us that the public
good is our paramount concern and is
given more weight when principles in
the Code conflict. The other two uses
of “must” appear in the guidance for
Principle 2.3, which speaks to following rules and laws. The guidance is
clear: computing professionals must
obey rules. The guidance articulates
that it is possible for rules or laws to
be unethical and when that is the case,
they ought to be challenged. Further,
the computing professionals “must”
accept responsibility for their actions
when they challenge rules.
II. Requested changes
not specifically included
Many useful ideas were suggested that
were not specifically included in the
newest version of the Code. Perhaps
most significantly is that some respondents thought that the Code’s references to “the good of society” or “the public
good” are so vague as to be meaningless. Suggestions were made to amend
the Code to reflect the reality that there
are many different societies, with important differences between them.
The Task Force agrees that “society”
and “public” are indeed very broad,
and that this breadth can be a symptom of insensitivity to the nuances of
different groups and people. However,
in writing a code of ethics for a global
audience, authors can use a broad generalized term, focus on a single or a
few particular societies, try to make a
comprehensive list of relevant societies, or abandon any mention of “society.” The Task Force decided that for
practical reasons, the broad general
references were the proper choice for
this code. Thus, in the Code the “public” or “society” is meant to encompass
all affected people, and is not meant
to homogenize their diversities. In the
Code, a term such as “the public good”
implicitly acknowledges that individuals and subsets within the public may
differ about what is good in a particular
situation, but we contend that there is
a notion of “good” that resonates with
people. This broad sense of good can
be embraced, and a broad sense of evil
can be shunned, without denying the
importance of diversity.
Additionally, a complete cyber security standard and a complete due process standard for Code violators were
suggested to be a part of the updated
Code, but were not added. Although
these suggested additions reflect important concerns, the Task Force decided that the additions would be more
appropriately placed in different documents. For example, they could be added as independent standards supporting the Code, such as ACM Bylaws; and
they could be added in supplemental
JA N UA RY 2 0 1 8 | VO L. 6 1 | N O. 1 | C OM M U N IC AT ION S OF T H E ACM
123
acm code of ethics and professional conduct
materials, such as teaching materials.
There are many items that are important, even crucial, that are nonetheless
not appropriate in the Code.
It is important, and tricky, to get the
length of the Code right. There were
some calls for the Code to be made
shorter, possibly short enough to fit on
a business card. There are legitimate
concerns about someone choosing not
to read the Code because it is too long.
Rather than opt for that kind of brevity, we have targeted a middle ground.
The Code must reflect the diversity of
the activities computing professionals are involved in. Broader impacts of
technology are not always clear or immediate, and the Code contains language to remind the reader to consider
those broader impacts. Furthermore,
the Code is intended to serve as a tool
to use during ethical analysis. The guidance helps the professional to a deeper
understanding of the principles. We
hope that the Code is written in a way
that facilitates a quick scan, as well as
rewarding a more careful reading.
Call to action
After reading Draft 3 of the ACM Code
of Ethics, please take the opportunity
to make it better as a standard for the
computing profession. We have provided two opportunities for you to share
your comments. There is a general discussion board https://code2018.acm.
org/discuss providing an opportunity
for interested parties to discuss the suggested updates and ACM members are
invited to take an online survey about
the specific elements of the Code at
https://www.acm.org/code-2018-survey. Both comment systems close
Feb. 10, 2018.
We look forward to your comments.
III. ACM Code of Ethics and
Professional Conduct: Draft 3
Draft 3 was developed by The Code
2018 Task Force. (It is based on the
2018 ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct: Draft 2).
Preamble
The actions of computing professionals
directly impact significant aspects of
society. In order to meet their responsibilities, computing professionals must
124
CO MM UNICATIO NS O F TH E AC M
always support the public good. The
ACM Code of Ethics and Professional
Conduct (“the Code”) reflects this obligation by expressing the conscience of
the profession and provides guidance
to support ethical conduct of all computing professionals.
The Code is designed to support
all computing professionals, including current and aspiring computing
practitioners, instructors, influencers,
and anyone who uses technology in an
impactful way. Additionally, the Code
serves as a basis for remediation when
violations occur. The Code includes
principles formulated as statements
of responsibility, based on the understanding that the public good is always
the primary consideration. Each principle is supplemented by guidelines,
which provide explanations to assist
computing professionals in understanding and applying the principle.
Section 1 outlines fundamental
ethical principles that form the basis
for the remainder of the Code. Section
2 addresses additional, more specific
considerations of professional responsibility. Section 3 pertains to individuals who have a leadership role, whether in the workplace or in a volunteer
professional capacity. Commitment
to ethical conduct is required of every
ACM member, and principles involving
compliance with the Code are given in
Section 4.
The Code as a whole is concerned
with how fundamental ethical principles apply to a computing professional’s conduct. The Code is not an
algorithm for solving ethical problems; rather it serves as a basis for ethical decision making. When thinking
through a particular issue, a computing professional may find that multiple principles should be taken into
account, and that different principles
will have different relevance to the issue. Questions related to these kinds
of issues can best be answered by
thoughtful consideration of the fundamental ethical principles, understanding that the public good is the
paramount consideration. The entire
computing profession benefits when
the ethical decision making process is
accountable to and transparent to all
stakeholders. Open discussions about
ethical issues promotes this accountability and transparency.
| JA NUA RY 201 8 | VO L . 61 | N O. 1
1. GENERAL MORAL PRINCIPLES.
A computing professional should...
1.1 Contribute to society and to human
well-being, acknowledging that all people are stakeholders in computing.
This principle, concerning the quality
of life of all people, affirms an obligation of computing professionals to use
their skills for the benefit of society,
its members, and the environment
surrounding them. This obligation includes promoting fundamental human
rights and protecting each individual’s
right to autonomy in day-to-day decisions. An essential aim of computing
professionals is to minimize negative
consequences of computing, including
threats to health, safety, personal security, and privacy.
Computing professionals should
consider whether the results of their
efforts respect diversity, will be used
in socially responsible ways, will meet
social needs, and will be broadly accessible. They are encouraged to actively
contribute to society by engaging in pro
bono or volunteer work. When the interests of multiple groups conflict, the
needs of the least advantaged should be
given increased attention and priority.
In addition to a safe social environment, human well-being requires a safe
natural environment. Therefore, computing professionals should promote
environmental sustainability both locally and globally.
1.2 Avoid harm.
In this document, “harm” means negative consequences to any stakeholder,
especially when those consequences
are significant and unjust. Examples
of harm include unjustified physical
or mental injury, unjustified destruction or disclosure of information, and
unjustified damage to property, reputation, and the environment. This list is
not exhaustive.
Well-intended actions, including
those that accomplish assigned duties,
may lead to harm. When that harm is
unintended, those responsible are obligated to undo or mitigate the harm as
much as possible. Avoiding harm begins with careful consideration of potential impacts on all those affected by
decisions. When harm is an intentional
part of the system, those responsible
are obligated to ensure that the harm is
acm code of ethics and professional conduct
tential impacts on all those affected by
decisions. When harm is an intentional
part of the system, those responsible
are obligated to ensure that the harm is
ethically justified and to minimize unintended harm.
To minimize the possibility of indirectly harming others, computing
professionals should follow generally
accepted best practices. Additionally,
the consequences of emergent systems
and data aggregation should be carefully analyzed. Those involved with pervasive or infrastructure systems should
also consider Principle 3.7.
A computing professional has an additional obligation to report any signs
of system risks that might result in
harm. If leaders do not act to curtail or
mitigate such risks, it may be necessary
to “blow the whistle” to reduce potential harm. However, capricious or misguided reporting of risks can itself be
harmful. Before reporting risks, a computing professional should thoroughly
assess all relevant aspects.
1.3 Be honest and trustworthy.
Honesty is an essential component
of trust. A computing professional
should be transparent and provide full
disclosure of all pertinent system limitations and potential problems. Making deliberately false or misleading
claims, fabricating or falsifying data,
and other dishonest conduct are violations of the Code.
Computing professionals should
be honest about their qualifications,
and about any limitations in competence to complete a task. Computing
professionals should be forthright
about any circumstances that might
lead to conflicts of interest or otherwise
tend to undermine the independence
of their judgment.
Computing professionals often belong to organizations associated with
their work. They should not misrepresent any organization’s policies or
procedures, and should not speak on
behalf of an organization unless authorized to do so.
1.4 Be fair and take action
not to discriminate.
The values of equality, tolerance, respect for others, and justice govern
this principle. Computing professionals should strive to build diverse teams
The Code is
designed to support
all computing
professionals,
including current
and aspiring
practitioners,
instructors,
influencers, and
anyone who uses
technology in
an impactful way.
and create safe, inclusive spaces for all
people, including those of underrepresented backgrounds. Prejudicial discrimination on the basis of age, color,
disability, ethnicity, family status, gender identity, labor union membership,
military status, national origin, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation,
or any other inappropriate factor is an
explicit violation of the Code. Harassment, including sexual harassment, is
a form of discrimination that limits fair
access to the virtual and physical spaces where such harassment takes place.
Inequities between individuals or
different groups of people may result
from the use or misuse of information and technology. Technologies and
practices should be as inclusive and accessible as possible. Failure to design
for inclusiveness and accessibility may
constitute unfair discrimination.
1.5 Respect the work required to
produce new ideas, inventions, creative
works, and computing artifacts.
Developing new ideas, inventions, creative works, and computing artifacts
creates value for society, and those who
expend this effort should expect to gain
value from their work. Computing professionals should therefore provide appropriate credit to the creators of ideas
or work. This may be in the form of
respecting authorship, copyrights, patents, trade secrets, license agreements,
or other methods of assigning credit
where it is due.
Both custom and the law recognize
that some exceptions to a creator’s
control of a work are necessary for the
public good. Computing professionals should not unduly oppose reasonable uses of their intellectual works.
Efforts to help others by contributing
time and energy to projects that help
society illustrate a positive aspect of
this principle. Such efforts include
free and open source software and
other work put into the public domain.
Some work contributes to or comprises
shared community resources. Computing professionals should avoid misappropriation of these resources.
1.6 Respect privacy.
The responsibility of respecting privacy
applies to computing professionals in
a particularly profound way. Therefore,
a computing professional should be-
JA N UA RY 2 0 1 8 | VO L. 6 1 | N O. 1 | C OM M U N IC AT ION S OF T H E ACM
125
acm code of ethics and professional conduct
come conversant in privacy’s various
definitions and forms.
Technology enables the collection,
monitoring, and exchange of personal
information quickly, inexpensively,
and often without the knowledge of
the people affected. Computing professionals should only use personal
data for legitimate ends and without
violating the rights of individuals and
groups. This requires taking precautions to prevent unauthorized data collection, ensuring the accuracy of data,
and protecting it from unauthorized
access and accidental disclosure. Computing professionals should establish
transparent policies and procedures
that allow individuals to give informed
consent to automatic data collection,
review their personal data, correct inaccuracies, and, where appropriate,
remove data.
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,
enforced, and communicated to data
subjects. Personal information gathered for a specific purpose should
not be used for other purposes without the person’s consent. Computing
professionals should take special care
for privacy when data collections are
merged. Individuals or groups may be
readily identifiable when several data
collections are merged, even though
those individuals or groups are not
identifiable in any one of those collections in isolation.
2. PROFESSIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES.
A computing professional should...
The responsibility
of respecting
privacy applies
to computing
professionals
in a particularly
profound way.
1.7 Honor confidentiality.
Computing professionals should protect confidentiality unless required to
do otherwise by a bona fide requirement of law or by another principle of
the Code.
User data observed during the normal duties of system operation and
maintenance should be treated with
strict confidentiality, except in cases
where it is evidence of the violation of
law, of organizational regulations, or
of the Code. In these cases, the nature
or contents of that information should
not be disclosed except to appropriate
authorities, and a computing professional should consider thoughtfully
whether such disclosures are consistent with the Code.
126
CO M MUNICATIO NS O F T H E ACM
| JA NUA RY 201 8 | VO L . 61 | N O. 1
2.1 Strive to achieve high quality in both
the process and products of professional work.
Computing professionals should
insist on high quality work from themselves and from colleagues. This includes respecting the dignity of employers, colleagues, clients, users, and
anyone else affected either directly
or indirectly by the work. Computing
professionals have an obligation to
keep the client or employer properly
informed about progress toward completing the work. Professionals should
be cognizant of the serious negative
consequences affecting any stakeholder that may result from poor quality work and should resist any inducements to neglect this responsibility.
2.2 Maintain high standards of professional competence, conduct, and ethical practice.
High quality computing depends on
individuals and teams who take personal and group responsibility for acquiring and maintaining professional
competence. Professional competence
starts with technical knowledge and
with awareness of the social context
in which the work may be deployed.
Professional competence also requires
skill in reflective analysis and in recognizing and navigating ethical challenges. Upgrading necessary skills
should be ongoing and should include
independent study, conferences, seminars, and other informal or formal
education. Professional organizations
and employers should encourage and
facilitate those activities.
2.3 Know, respect, and apply existing
rules pertaining to professional work.
“Rules” here includes regional, national, and international laws and regulations, as well as any policies and procedures of the organizations to which
the professional belongs. Computing
professionals must obey these rules
unless there is a compelling ethical
justification to do otherwise. Rules
that are judged unethical should be
challenged. A rule may be unethical
when it has an inadequate moral basis,
it is superseded by another rule, or it
acm code of ethics and professional conduct
causes recognizable harm that could
be mitigated through its violation. A
computing professional who decides
to violate a rule because it is unethical,
or for any other reason, must consider
potential consequences and accept responsibility for that action.
2.4 Accept and provide appropriate professional review.
High quality professional work in computing depends on professional review
at all stages. Whenever appropriate,
computing professionals should seek
and utilize peer and stakeholder review.
Computing professionals should also
provide constructive, critical reviews of
other’s work.
2.5 Give comprehensive and thorough
evaluations of computer systems and
their impacts, including analysis of
possible risks.
Computing professionals should strive
to be perceptive, thorough, and objective when evaluating, recommending,
and presenting system descriptions
and alternatives. Computing professionals are in a position of trust, and
therefore have a special responsibility
to provide objective, credible evaluations to employers, clients, users, and
the public. Extraordinary care should
be taken to identify and mitigate potential risks in self-changing systems. A
system for which future risks cannot be
reliably predicted requires frequent reassessment of risk as the system evolves
in use, or it should not be deployed. Any
issues that might result in major risk
should be reported.
2.6 Have the necessary expertise, or
the ability to obtain that expertise, for
completing a work assignment before
accepting it. Once accepted, that commitment should be honored.
A computing professional is accountable for evaluating potential work assignments.
Once it is decided that a project
is feasible and advisable, the professional should make a judgment
about whether the work assignment
is appropriate to the professional’s
expertise. If the professional does
not currently have the expertise necessary to complete the assignment,
the professional should disclose this
shortcoming to the employer or cli-
ent. The client or employer may decide to pursue the assignment with
the professional after time for additional training, to pursue the assignment with someone else who has the
required expertise, or to forego the
assignment. A computing professional’s ethical judgment should be
the final guide in deciding whether to
work on the assignment.
2.7 Improve public awareness and understanding of computing, related
technologies, and their consequences.
Computing professionals should share
technical knowledge with the public,
foster awareness of computing, and encourage understanding of computing.
Important issues include the impacts
of computer systems, their limitations,
their vulnerabilities, and opportunities
that they present. Additionally, a computing professional should counter
false views related to computing.
2.8 Access computing and communication resources only when authorized to
do so.
No one should access another’s
computer system, software, or data
without permission. A computing
professional should have appropriate approval before using system
resources unless there is an overriding concern for the public good. To
support this principle, a computing
professional should take appropriate
action to secure resources against unauthorized use. Individuals and organizations have the right to restrict access to their systems and data so long
as the restrictions are consistent with
other principles in the Code.
2.9 Design and implement systems that
are robustly and usably secure.
Breaches of computer security cause
harm. It is the responsibility of computing professionals to design and
implement systems that are robustly
secure. Further, security precautions
are of no use if they cannot or intentionally will not be used appropriately
by their intended audience in practice; for example, if those precautions
are too confusing, too time consuming, or situationally inappropriate.
Therefore, the design of security features should make usability a priority
design requirement.
3. PROFESSIONAL
LEADERSHIP PRINCIPLES.
In this section, “leader” means any
member of an organization or group
who has influence, educational responsibilities, or managerial responsibilities. These principles generally apply
to organizations and groups, as well as
their leaders.
A computing professional acting as a
leader should...
3.1 Ensure that the public good is the
central concern during all professional
computing work.
The needs of people—including users,
those affected directly and indirectly,
customers, and colleagues—should
always be a central concern in professional computing. Tasks associated
with requirements analysis, design,
development, testing, validation, deployment, maintenance, retirement,
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.
3.2 Articulate, encourage acceptance
of, and evaluate fulfillment of the social
responsibilities of members of an organization or group.
Technical organizations and groups affect broader society, and their leaders
should accept the associated responsibilities. Organizational procedures
and attitudes oriented toward quality,
transparency, and the welfare of society reduce harm to the public and raise
awareness of the influence of technology in our lives. Therefore, leaders
should encourage full participation of
all computing professionals in meeting
social responsibilities and discourage
tendencies to do otherwise.
3.3 Manage personnel and resources to
enhance the quality of working life.
Leaders should ensure that management enhances, not degrade, the quality of working life. Leaders should consider the personal and professional
development, accessibility requirements, physical safety, psychological
well-being, and human dignity of all
workers. Appropriate human-computer ergonomic standards should be used
in the workplace.
JA N UA RY 2 0 1 8 | VO L. 6 1 | N O. 1 | C OM M U N IC AT ION S OF T H E ACM
127
acm code of ethics and professional conduct
3.4 Articulate, apply, and support policies and processes that reflect the principles in the Code.
Leaders should ensure that organizational policies are consistent with
the ethical principles in the Code, are
clearly defined, and are effectively communicated to all stakeholders. In addition, leaders should encourage and
reward compliance with those policies,
and take appropriate action when policies are violated.
Leaders should verify that processes used in the development of
systems protect the public good and
promote the dignity and autonomy
of users. Designing or implementing
processes that deliberately or inadvertently violate, or tend to enable the
violation of, the Code’s principles is
ethically unacceptable.
3.5 Create opportunities for members
of the organization or group to learn
and be accountable for the scope,
functions, limitations, and impacts of
systems.
Educational opportunities are essential for all organization and group
members. Leaders should ensure that
opportunities are available to computing professionals to help them
improve their knowledge and skills
in professionalism, in the practice
of ethics, and in their technical specialties. These opportunities should
include experiences that familiarize
computing professionals with the
consequences and limitations of particular types of systems. Computing
professionals should be fully aware of
the dangers of oversimplified models,
the improbability of anticipating every possible operating condition, the
inevitability of software errors, the
interactions of systems and the contexts in which they are deployed, and
other issues related to the complexity
of their profession.
3.6 Retire legacy systems with care.
Computing systems should be retired
when it is judged impractical to continue supporting them. System developers
should take care when discontinuing
support for systems on which people
still depend. Developers should thoroughly investigate viable alternatives to
removing support for a legacy system.
If these alternatives are not practical
128
CO M MUNICATIO NS O F T H E AC M
or unacceptably risky, the developer
should assist stakeholders’ graceful
migration from the system to an alternative. When system support ends,
stakeholders should be notified of the
risks of their continued use of the unsupported system.
System users should continually
monitor the operational viability of
their computing systems, accepting the
timely replacement of inappropriate or
outdated systems. The primary consideration must be the impact on stakeholders, who should be kept informed
at all times.
4.2 Treat violations of the Code as
inconsistent with membership in
the ACM.
Computing professionals who recognize breaches of the Code should take
actions to resolve the ethical issues they
recognize, including, when reasonable,
expressing their concern to the person
or persons thought to be violating the
Code. Possible actions also include reporting the violation to the ACM, which
may result in remedial action by the
ACM up to and including termination
of the violator’s ACM membership.
Authors
3.7 Recognize when a computer system
is becoming integrated into the infrastructure of society, and adopt an appropriate standard of care for that system and its users.
When organizations and groups develop systems that become an important
part of the infrastructure of society,
their leaders have a responsibility to
be good stewards of these socially integrated systems. Part of that stewardship requires establishing policies for
fair system access, including for those
who may have been excluded. That
stewardship also requires that computing professionals monitor the level
of integration of their systems into the
infrastructure of society. Continual
monitoring of how society is using a
system will allow the organization or
group to remain consistent with their
ethical obligations outlined in the
Code. As the level of adoption changes, there are likely to be changes in the
ethical responsibilities of the organization or group. When appropriate
standards of care do not exist, computing professionals have a duty to ensure
they are developed.
4. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE.
A computing professional should...
4.1 Uphold, promote, and respect the
principles of the Code.
The future of computing depends on
both technical and ethical excellence.
Computing professionals should
adhere to the principles of the Code.
Each ACM member should encourage
and support adherence by all computing professionals regardless of
ACM membership.
| JA NUA RY 201 8 | VO L . 61 | N O. 1
Don Gotterbarn (chair@Ethics.acm.org 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.
Amy Bruckman (asb@cc.gatech.edu) is a professor of
Interactive Computing at Georgia Institute of Technology,
Atlanta.
Catherine Flick (cflick@dmu.ac.uk) is a Senior Lecturer
in Computing and Social Responsibility at De Montfort
University, Leicester, U.K.
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.