A Facebook request: Write a code of tech ethics

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-godwin-technology-ethics-20190430-story.html

by zachr • 7 years ago

85 116 7 years ago

latimes.com

tonetheman• 7 years ago

Programmers/technologist often work for those who only work money... ethics generally do not work in such places...

matz13• 7 years ago

Well that is still ethics. It largely my ethics too. Works for me. It might be different than yours but still.

zwkrt2• 7 years ago

I actually had the exact same thought on different lines. A software code of ethics will be toothless without a financial code of ethics. But a financial CoE is antithetical to finance's goals.

Edit: to be clear that doesn't mean we shouldn't have one!

close042• 7 years ago

A code of ethics is backed by law at least for the most part (sometimes ethical and legal principles might even clash). And here is the biggest difference. For doctors or lawyers unethical behavior leads to losing the license to practice. There's no such thing for coding.

tyingq• 7 years ago

Lawyers also often work for those who only care about money. Ethics are still important in those cases.

Apreche• 7 years ago

Exactly this. If we create hardware and software ethically, that product will not make enough money. Capitalism is almost entirely add odds with ethical engineering practices.

Think about it. Imagine Facebook not doing anything evil. Never selling your data without your permission. Never spying on you. Putting lots of restrictions on advertisements to make sure they are all ok. Banning all the bad users. Reporting analytics accurately. Etc.

How would Facebook make any money? The only ethical sources of income would be to sell non evil ads (if you believe there even is such a thing) or to charge users money to have accounts like Netflix. Non-evil ads are not very effective, and with accurate analytics, they will not fetch a high price.

What other ethical business model is there? If operating ethically, they would be lucky to cover their operating costs. Giving any kind of ROI to investors would be impossible. The same applies to every Silicon Valley operation. Google, Twitter, etc. If they operate ethically and morally, they can't make enough money.

Of course, if the power were mine, I would force them to behave ethically anyway. I don't care if they all shut down. Gonna eat me some rich people.

JoelMcCracken2• 7 years ago

You say it as if these companies shutting down would be a bad thing. These products exploit their users in ways the users and society at large does not yet understand.

If a product cant be profitable without abusing its power, it shouldn't exist.

seibelj• 7 years ago

Doctors protect life, and lawyers keep you out of jail. I guess software engineers can take an oath not to kill people or put people in jail, but after that it's your morals vs. mine, no?

And if I work for the Department of Defense making missile guidance software, then it's OK to kill people, I suppose...

maxxxxx7• 7 years ago

Some people will think creating weapons for defense is an ethical thing to do. I prefer not to do that but I think the point is valid and there is no clear way to determine what’s ethical and what isn't.

Kalium4• 7 years ago

Such people are welcome to the freedom of their consciences.

There is a distinction between personal ethics and professional ethics. In my opinion, that position crosses the line and lands squarely in the realm of personal ethics.

matz13• 7 years ago

You define what the ethics is. If you think creating weapon for defense is not preferable to you then you better work on convincing or forcing other to follow.

analognoise7• 7 years ago

What's unethical is to have your countrymen in a fight with substandard equipment that you could have helped them improve.

War is an ever-present possibility - do you want your neighbor's kids (or yours, if they join the service) dying or being maimed because you didn't help with what you know?

1000 years ago, if you were a blacksmith and the Vikings were coming, would you make swords or ornamental railings?

People who think "it's unethical to make weapons" always assume that someone else is making the weapons, which makes them feel good about themselves (not sure why) - they're willing to sacrifice themselves and their neighbor's children for their ethics.

I'm not. I make weapons, and I think the 'ethical' stance on defense is really just virtue-signalling.

/Edited. ;)

MangezBien3• 7 years ago

Making missile guidance software is wholly unethical and is what we should be striving to prevent engineers from working on.

didgeoridoo• 7 years ago

The alternative to guided missiles isn’t peace, it’s carpet bombing.

briandear3• 7 years ago

That’s ridiculous. Letting ISIS exist is unethical. Allowing the North Korean government to exist is unethical. Allowing Nazis to attack Poland was unethical. Germans occupying France was unethical. Letting Somali warlords steal UN food aid was unethical. Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait was unethical. Creating weapons to defend against and prevent such things? Not only ethical, but honorable. Would you have us fight evil with our bare hands? Because you’ve essentially said that all weapons are unethical. The problem is that evil, such as ISIS, the Taliban, Nazis, the Khmer Rouge: they don’t care about ethics. Not doing everything possible to defend against such a scourge is itself unethical. Pacifism is unethical when the failure to act allows evil to prevail.

tzs• 7 years ago

I bet the civilians who do not become collateral damage because the missile that was supposed to hit a military base did so due to good guidance software instead of missing and hitting their town would disagree.

When a situation has escalated to the point that someone is launching missiles, it has usually reached the point where destroying the target is more important to them then the risk of collateral damage. If the guidance software is not good enough to give a small margin of error, they will launch several missiles to ensure that one is likely to hit the target, which pretty much guarantees a lot of damage throughout the margin of error of the guidance software.

Bartweiss6• 7 years ago

I want to put aside the question of whether this claim is true for a second, and just point out that it is - obviously, as proven by the response here - controversial among engineers. On that basis alone, it's never going to be part of an effective professional code of conduct. A code which starts with that condition will not be widely adopted. A popular code which tries to add it will fail, or be mired in controversy and lose members. A licensing regime which attempts to keep people who disagree out of the industry will be broken by (government-abetted) defectors or competing licensing.

The number of doctors or prospective doctors who deny the medical code of ethics is very nearly zero. Almost all debate around it centers on subtle questions like defining 'harm' in self-determination cases (e.g. assisted suicide). The number of lawyers who would reject a given the legal code of ethics is perhaps larger, but the code is accordingly narrower. Lawyers are for instance free (and in fact obligated) to support "not guilty" pleas by clients they know are guilty. The boldest parts of the code (e.g. that lawyers cannot actively lie on behalf of clients, or mingle personal business with professional work) are also the the parts which are regularly broken.

Striving to avert something you consider immoral is a sensible decision, even if other people dispute that ethic. But doing so with a professional code of ethics is not only a doomed task, it's one which dooms the rest of the code in the process.

enraged_camel2• 7 years ago

>Doctors protect life, and lawyers keep you out of jail.

I think this is an oversimplification. A lot of doctors deal with non-life threatening diseases and ailments, and some even deal with purely cosmetic stuff (e.g. plastic surgeons). Similarly, a lot of lawyers deal with issues that don't directly carry a risk of a jail sentence, e.g. workers compensation.

LeonB• 7 years ago

If you’re a lawyer representing a mass murderer you must still represent the interests of the client. To not do so would see you disbarred.

So professional ethics can run counter to what a polite member of society would normally wish to do.

74022• 7 years ago

Although I believe lawyers are still required to disclose to the authorities any information concerning their clients' intention to commit a crime in the future - so the obligation to represent a client's interests is not unlimited.

maxxxxx7• 7 years ago

I am usually not averse against regulation but one advantage of tech is that it's still the Wild West where it's possible to innovate quickly and change things. Lawyers and doctors are in much more controlled environment where not much innovation is happening. I am also not sure how to determine what's ethical or not.

I much prefer laws like GDPR where there is a set of rules everyone has to follow.

briandear3• 7 years ago

Medicine is innovating a lot more than some ride-sharing, restaurant rating, social-local photo sharing app startup.

maxxxxx7• 7 years ago

No. I work in medical and progress is much slower. In a lot of tech you can try something and get immediate feedback. In medical you have to wait for years and spend a ton of money.

Kalium4• 7 years ago

I can't speak for others on this, but I do have one: https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics

Like medical and legal professionals, it is concerned with professional ethics. Many people would be surprised to find their personal ethics are not present.

zwkrt2• 7 years ago

'Contribute to society and to human well being'. So your personal ethics are only not present if you wear giant blinders around this statement. So many software devs hold positions that they could probably not defend ethically in casual conversation, it's an epidemic!

Kalium4• 7 years ago

My apologies, I can see I've been unclear.

Many people expect ethical codes to expressly and explicitly include their personal ethical framework in clear detail, that they might use it to hold others to account. A reference to what someone personally considers to be a contribution to society and humanity might not rise to this standard.

Bartweiss6• 7 years ago

Every single time I've seen a public call for a code of tech ethics, the call is justified by discussing professional standards, but quickly switches to calling for legal entrenchment of the author's personal ethics.

On the blogs of notable programmers, best practices for security sit next to demands for closed-shop union membership. In comments sections (like this one), avoiding malicious dark patterns comes alongside demands that no programmer work for the US military. In the news, respecting user data is paired with enormously controversial positions on censorship and encryption.

This is far from the only reason codes of tech ethics have yet to gather major attention, but I think it would suffice even if the others disappear. Professional codes like the ACM's are valuable, but attempts to popularize and enforce them are derailed by attempts to add in specific personal ethics.

overthemoon• 7 years ago

Personal ethics vs what? What do you consider universal, and why?

wgj• 7 years ago

I agree with the idea, and so does the IEEE.

https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html

We, the members of the IEEE, in recognition of the importance of our technologies in affecting the quality of life throughout the world, and in accepting a personal obligation to our profession, its members, and the communities we serve, do hereby commit ourselves to the highest ethical and professional conduct and agree:

1) to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, to strive to comply with ethical design and sustainable development practices, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;

2) to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to affected parties when they do exist;

3) to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data;

4) to reject bribery in all its forms;

5) to improve the understanding by individuals and society of the capabilities and societal implications of conventional and emerging technologies, including intelligent systems;

6) to maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations;

7) to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors, and to credit properly the contributions of others;

8) to treat fairly all persons and to not engage in acts of discrimination based on race, religion, gender, disability, age, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression;

9) to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action;

10) to assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in following this code of ethics.

WalterSear2• 7 years ago

I can't wait till software development is as ethical as the medical and legal industries.

mothsonasloth• 7 years ago

So, prone to negligence and high fees?

Bartweiss6• 7 years ago

Point well taken, but that's underselling the problem by a lot. The American Psychological Association has a clear, strong code of ethics, but worked to help the CIA design torture programs. Not just 'psychologists' but the APA itself.

Codes of professional ethics seem to offer some defense against total indifference to malpractice and incompetence, as with civil engineering restrictions. People holding out for them to do more, especially around conscious decisions like political work, seem to seriously overestimate what they've achieved in the past.

WalterSear2• 7 years ago

On a good day.

elliekelly5• 7 years ago

This is coming. It won't be long before PwC is auditing more code than they are financial statements.

RcouF1uZ4gsC• 7 years ago

Doctor and lawyer ethical codes work because there is a state sanctioned licensing authority. If you try to practice law or medicine without a license, you will be arrested.

Because of that, the ethical codes have teeth, as the medical board or bar can strip you of your license and thus the ability to practice for ethical violations.

There is so such equivalent to the medical board or bar for programmers. Anybody who has the inclination can program. Because of that, any ethical codes will be just words. In fact, companies may actually pay more for people willing to violate these codes.

While I think ethical codes are good, I don’t think they are worth having a licensing authority. I am happy that anyone with the ability is allowed to program and that I don’t need a state license.

Jtsummers2• 7 years ago

https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics

https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/p7-8.html

These seem like good starting points to me.

randomdata• 7 years ago

The problem is that unless there is a licensing body that enforces adherence the ethics, they will be ignored. Doctors and lawyers have such licensing requirements, tech does not. The question is not what the ethics should say, but whether or not tech should require licensing to be involved in it.

Jtsummers2• 7 years ago

Then establish something comparable to the PE concept for software engineers, and require it for certain categories of software (aviation and medical software already have to get certified, have a Professional Software Engineer on the hook too, and then extend this to other types of software systems like certain financial, legal, or personal data systems).

sesteel• 7 years ago

Ethics was a required 2 credit course in my university computer science studies. It isn't some new idea, but I guess it isn't an industry standard yet. I'd agree anywhere the opportunity to do harm exists there should be clear ethical standards established.

qnsi• 7 years ago

I studied business and we also had ethics classes. But nobody really took it seriously. I think there is a strong ethos in medical industry, and think it would be good to see it in startup culture. I think this is a point of this article.

minkzilla2• 7 years ago

At my university every major has a specific ethics class as well as taking a general ethics class. The classes were a joke. All we talked about in Computer Science Ethics was gender/race imbalance in the field. An important issue no doubt, but when with Facebook stuff going on, creating weapons, EU privacy laws, and a bunch of other topics out there it was extremely frustrating being in the class.

ReptileMan• 7 years ago

No we shouldn't. Obey your personal codes and follow the laws.

Tech is fun. Let's keep it that way.

enraged_camel2• 7 years ago

So we shouldn't have a code of ethics because it would make tech "less fun"?

That's actually a good demonstration of why we do need a code of ethics.

briandear3• 7 years ago

A code of ethics is meaningless for “tech” (whatever that is.) Medicine and law have licensing. Violating professional ethics can result in a loss of licensing. In “tech” there isn’t such licensing, thus a code of ethics is just a platitude. There is nothing stopping you from writing your own code and following it.

As far as a code for all of tech, who would write such a thing? And how would it be enforced? And who would be obligated to follow it? Just people that write code? Or what about designers? And if designers have to follow the code, that would mean that they can be “kicked out” for non compliance, which means they have to be “allowed in.” So how does that work? Professional licensing for designers now too? A four-year degree along with a test on the Bauhaus and Human Interface Guidelines?

As far as licensing, that would make tech less fun. What would be the licensing requirements? Would it be like a coding interview with ridiculous whiteboard algorithm examples? Would you have to pass a test on front end frameworks? How about a test on Kubernetes? Would you have to have a degree in “tech?” Steve Wozniak wouldn’t have been eligible to work on Apple I. How about the Wright Brothers? They worked in a bike shop, how were they qualified to invent airplanes with engines? A proper authority ought to have shut them down promptly because clearly they weren’t qualified to be working on flying machines! The Bicycle Mechanics Code of Professional Ethics expressly prohibits working outside of the scope of your training and licensure right? Howard Hughes wasn’t a professional engineer, yet somehow he helped design the fastest airplane at the time.

You want ethics? Then act ethically. But the last thing we need is a gatekeeper organization deciding who is worthy or not to invent the future.

qroshan• 7 years ago

For every ethical software developer, there are 10 who will work for Cambridge Analytica and there is nothing you can do about it.

It's a fools errand; at most serving the purpose of 'feeling good about yourself' rather than any societal impact

lordnacho• 7 years ago

There are also doctors who help criminal gangs steal kidneys. That doesn't mean there's no point in bothering to have them all swear an oath in medical school.

cbhl• 7 years ago

Here's what I don't want:

I don't want ethics exams and accreditation requirements to constrain software development to people with traditional software backgrounds. The cost of a traditional college education in the United States is easily five or six figures, and socioeconomic forces means that black people face systemic barriers to getting access to that education (versus whites, indians, asians, etc.). I want there to be more YCs, more Startup Schools, more Lambda Schools, and I want them open to immigrants and non-US-citizens, too.

I also don't want ethics exams to constrain supply. A lot of software withers on the vine because there's no "business case" for it, but if there was a way to divorce the need to put dinner on the table from how much people (or advertisers, or...) are willing to pay for software, then there's a lot of software that is yet to be written that could make the world better (say, enabling the creation of more art and music, or something).

redbluegreen• 7 years ago

The same could be said for doctors and lawyers though, and I don't think we complain too much about having less unethical doctors.

74022• 7 years ago

See ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct at https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/

Here are the main points:

  1. GENERAL MORAL IMPERATIVES.
  
  As an ACM member I will

  1.1 Contribute to society and human well-being.
  1.2 Avoid harm to others.
  1.3 Be honest and trustworthy.
  1.4 Be fair and take action not to discriminate.
  1.5 Honor property rights including copyrights and patent.
  1.6 Give proper credit for intellectual property.
  1.7 Respect the privacy of others.
  1.8 Honor confidentiality.

  2. MORE SPECIFIC PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.

  As an ACM computing professional I will

  2.1 Strive to achieve the highest quality, effectiveness
      and dignity in both the process and products of
      professional work.
  2.2 Acquire and maintain professional competence.
  2.3 Know and respect existing laws pertaining to
      professional work.
  2.4 Accept and provide appropriate professional review.
  2.5 Give comprehensive and thorough evaluations of computer 
      systems and their impacts, including analysis of
      possible risks.
  2.6 Honor contracts, agreements, and assigned
      responsibilities.
  2.7 Improve public understanding of computing and its
      consequences.
  2.8 Access computing and communication resources only when
      authorized to do so.

  3. ORGANIZATIONAL LEADERSHIP IMPERATIVES.

  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 of
      those responsibilities.
  3.2 Manage personnel and resources to design and build
      information systems that enhance the quality of working 
      life.
  3.3 Acknowledge and support proper and authorized uses of
      an organization’s computing and communication
      resources.
  3.4 Ensure that users and those who will be affected by a
      system have their needs clearly articulated during the
      assessment and design of requirements; later the system 
      must be validated to meet requirements.
  3.5 Articulate and support policies that protect the
      dignity of users and others affected by a computing
      system.
  3.6 Create opportunities for members of the organization to 
      learn the principles and limitations of computer
      systems.

  4. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE.

  As an ACM member I will

  4.1 Uphold and promote the principles of this Code.
  4.2 Treat violations of this code as inconsistent with
      membership in the ACM.

vorpalhex• 7 years ago

This is kind of grossly simplified though, isn't it?

1.2 Avoid harm to others

So no smart weapons which minimize collateral damage?

1.5 Honor property rights including copyrights and patent.

So no Sci-Hub? What about bad copyrights?

1.8 Honor confidentiality.

What about whistleblowing?

Kalium4• 7 years ago

It's worth mentioning that the text you are responding to is the overview. The ACM offers greater detail that addresses your concerns: https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics

So no smart weapons which minimize collateral damage?

This section is concerned with indirect and unintentional harm. Weapons tend to be a problem for every ethical system. Here, my reading would be that weapons should work as intended.

So no Sci-Hub? What about bad copyrights?

What is a bad copyright is not a question for the ACM code of ethics. You'll find a more detailed examination of intellectual property in the full code of ethics.

What about whistleblowing?

An excellent question! I'll just quote from the discussion directly:

Computing professionals are often entrusted with confidential information such as trade secrets, client data, nonpublic business strategies, financial information, research data, pre-publication scholarly articles, and patent applications. Computing professionals should protect 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. A computing professional should consider thoughtfully whether such disclosures are consistent with the Code.

MaxBarraclough• 7 years ago

So no Sci-Hub?

The ACM are a major academic publisher.

Glyptodon2• 7 years ago

You linked to the 1992 version, which was replaced in 2018.

Among other things, section 1.5 was always a disaster because copyright and patent are not natural rights, but special privileged statuses granted to (in theory) promote the accrual public benefit, and there's no reason practitioners should be required to subscribe to copyright or patent maximalist perspectives.

Section 2.8 was too broad because it didn't take into account security researchers, stuff like insulin pump hacking, etc., (which also ties back to 1.5 being too heavy handed).

Not that the 2018 version is tons better, but it tries more.

JoelMcCracken2• 7 years ago

Yes, technologists should. However, that does not prevent those who would violate those ethics. Laws are in place to do this.

Facebook is just trying to shift the blame to its employees. Gross.

TheCoelacanth• 7 years ago

Yes, we don't have a major problem with technologists behaving unethically. We have one with corporate decision makers behaving unethically.

krisrm• 7 years ago

I don't disagree that perhaps software developers should be on board with a code of ethics, but this is a false dichotomy between the decisions of doctors/lawyers when providing services, and the decisions of technology companies on the whole. Companies that exist to make profit, in this case generally by monetizing user data in some (often questionable) form. It seems to me like the ethical responsibility bit lies more with the directorship and management of these companies, and not the Joe Bloe software dev that's working on making emojis display correctly in IE.

Bartweiss6• 7 years ago

I frequently see people dismiss this with "programmers have an obligation to think about the possible uses of their work". That's not false, but I think it seriously underestimates the depth of the problem.

The simplest difference between professions with clear ethical codes (doctors, lawyers, civil engineers) and ones without is that professions with strong codes provide outcomes. A doctor treats a specific patient, a lawyer litigates a case, a civil engineer builds a specific bridge. Even indirect work like medical research has specific recipients and a fairly clear course for future use. Programmers, like chemists or machinists, frequently create tools.

Alfred Nobel famously created his prize in atonement for the destruction caused by his invention, but he invented and marketed dynamite for use in mining and construction, where it provided real benefit to humanity. Edward Teller spent the second half of his life championing civilian uses for nuclear power and atomic bombs, having seen the world reshaped by fear of a weapon he hoped would be demonstrated to prevent future wars.

The beauty of professional codes in medicine and law is that they achieve moral good without taking heavily-disputed moral stances; if doctors do no harm and refuse instructions to do so, harm will generally be prevented. A chemist studying nitrates or a programmer designing GPS guidance has no such guarantees; the same work is very likely to create both good and bad in uncertain amounts, depending on where it's put to use.

mountainofdeath2• 7 years ago

The case I like to bring up was the Volkswagen emission scandal. The executives where pointing fingers at "well shucks, these engineer's must have done it and not told anyone". Having a strong sense of ethics would be to stand up and say "I can't do that lest I risk my license so fire me".

ptah• 7 years ago

this won't help with corporate malfeasance at all.

TallGuyShort• 7 years ago

I see people in technology doing border-line dishonest and unethical things all the time. They're called marketing, sales, and product management. I've rarely known them to go by the name of software developer - in fact they're usually the ones to dig their feet in against misrepresenting things or doing stuff that violates privacy or user expectations, etc.

glbrew• 7 years ago

Ironically technologists seem to have higher ethical standards than doctors and lawyers. Hell, the entire US medical system revolves around financial assault of the infirm.

kazagistar2• 7 years ago

Medical system vs medical professionals are very different. You can't solve systemic issues with individualized responsibility. It's not that doctors are bad, it's privatized healthcare that is causing the problem, and requires systemic solutions (since it's clear the same problems don't exist under other systems).

What's really happening here is that Facebook wants to push for blaming individuals, because it let's them keep doing whatever unethical things they want to, since they know that individual responsibility is toothless in the face of such a massive system like itself.

floren• 7 years ago

I participated in the Order of the Engineer ceremony (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer) when I finished my degree, and I think it wouldn't hurt for more people to do so. I have met very few people wear the ring on a regular basis.

azinman2• 7 years ago

What’s silly here is that things that are harmful only happen with hindsight and scale. I don’t think anyone at FB understood what Cambridge Analytica would turn into, because it came from a program of trying to help advance researchers. When things are new, you assume the best for them. Only once time passes do you understand all the unexpected ways people can abuse it.

drinane• 7 years ago

The challenge here is technologists have shunned labor organization to my knowledge which is what I understand controls the cited fields. Different economic model applies to most people in technology compared to law and medicine. Smells like a buzzword article. Maybe the cloud companies could implement a code and create barriers to deploy "unethical" code... that might work.

deanalevitt• 7 years ago

I might have missed it when scanning the article, but nowhere did it mention how the formal ethical codes for docs and lawyers are backed up by licenses and review panels and exams. Are they proposing the same regulation before allowing someone to build an app?

Would they call for the same for journalists too? Arguably, the media has an equal need for ethical oversight, but we generally prefer the media to be free of partisan interference.

I believe journalists and technologists are better off without state or federal licensing to enforce ethical codes.

prima-facie• 7 years ago

We do have an ethical code. "The Unwritten Laws of Engineering" book sums it up nicely. The ethical codes such as those of ACM or IEEE are good examples.

klagermkii• 7 years ago

I don't think you can compare the relationship of a company to customers, to that of a one-to-one relationship of a doctor or a lawyer. The company acts as a third party with very different (and often directly conflicting with the end user) aims that creates a much harder ethical situation for a developer to navigate and creates confusion as to who has the responsibility to sound the alarm.

I think of something like legal or medical confidentiality, which can involve their clients doing pretty horrible things but it being the "ethical" thing to not reveal that. If one takes this same thing to a Facebook scenario, does the developer who works for Facebook then have the obligation to protect the confidentiality of Facebook even if they're doing awful things? Would it be any different where a lawyer is working for a horrible client, trying to use the law to do things that are a net-negative for society, but ethics would put their obligation towards their direct client rather than society at large.

If one then wants to write a piece about ethics, one should start with examples of fields with ethical codes that have a structure closer to the relationship of users/Facebook/developers.

elliekelly5• 7 years ago

The company acts as a third party with very different (and often directly conflicting with the end user) aims that creates a much harder ethical situation for a developer to navigate and creates confusion as to who has the responsibility to sound the alarm.

This is very similar to structure I operated under as a corporate attorney at a bank but also as the Chief Information Security Officer. I owed a duty to the bank, as my "client," and also to the bank's clients, whose information I was charged with protecting. You are indeed correct that it's a difficult and uncomfortable situation to manage. I always tried to be a "zealous advocate" for the bank in all matters except those related to privacy and I'll be the first to admit that much of my zealous advocacy was indeed a net-negative for society. I did ultimately leave because of a disagreement over how to respond to (or in their case, chose to ignore) an ongoing breach of customer accounts.

All of that being said, I don't think it's an impossible ask with a bit of help from the government. I also served as the AML Officer and in that capacity I had the absolute final say on all matters related to money laundering thanks to the PATRIOT Act. The only way to override my decision would be a board vote. I never had any "disagreements" about how to handle an AML situation because my decisions were final while my decisions as CISO were merely a recommendation that management could (and did) ignore in order to save time, money, and bad PR.

circlefavshape• 7 years ago

I'll be the first to admit that much of my zealous advocacy was indeed a net-negative for society

Curious to find out more about this, and how you felt about it while you were doing it, if you're willing to talk about it.

mindcrash• 7 years ago

Not needed, we hackers - more or less - already have one for about 35 years:

1) Access to computers - and anything which might teach you something about the way the world really works - should be unlimited and total. Always yield to the Hands-On Imperative!

2) All information should be free.

3) Mistrust authority - promote decentralization.

4) Hackers should be judged by their acting, not bogus criteria such as degrees, age, race, or position.

5) You can create art and beauty on a computer.

6) Computers can change your life for the better.

7) Don't litter other people's data.

8) Make public data available, protect private data.

Originally penned down by Steven Levy in "Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution" and slightly modified by the CCC after that.

Source: https://www.ccc.de/en/hackerethics

Bartweiss6• 7 years ago

The medical code of ethics dates back, at least in sentiment, to Hippocrates. Legal codes of ethics draw on Daniel Webster, Thomas More, and so on back to Rome. If programming is going adopt a more heavyweight code of ethics, I don't want it to be in response to the news stories of the day - I'd much rather see us start with the admirable history of the field.

The whole image of amoral, selfish programming implies that we either lost sight of or failed to publicize the strong ethical stances which have been around for decades.

52-6F-62• 7 years ago

I really enjoyed that book in particular, and generally appreciate that code, but I've always questioned the definition of information in this context.

There must be a line somewhere between authority and expertise—also information and intellectual property.

It's more that I don't think I understand, even though I've probably read [most of] the same books.

Where does a journalistic piece of writing fall? Certainly, and often, the results of an investigative piece of writing would be considered quite valuable information. Does that mean it should be free? If so, how should that work be funded in the future. Most efforts outside of selling the final product have failed disastrously. Most people want it for free—free as in free like rainfall. I suppose some software may fall under a similar question.

On authority—who gets to speak to a subject? Decentralizing "facts" has put us in the position where empirical evidence is actively opposed on baseless grounds, with decentralizing the ability to compound nonsensical ramblings and dress them up as if they are of equal value as something hypothesized, experimented on, iterated, and proven within the confines of our scientific process.

Those are two more practical and immediate questions, but a sibling comment also raised a salient point.

I like a lot of the points they make, but also think some of them are naive as they came before the normalizing of internet and computers.

Curious to hear from others on this one.

Wohlf• 7 years ago

All information should be free.
protect private data.

How do you reconcile these? Data is information. Or is this another free vs Free (Kostenlos vs Frei) situation?

vokep• 7 years ago

Using the first part of the "protect private data" line

Make public data available.

yellowstuff2• 7 years ago

Professional ethics is not the right approach to fixing the problem with user data. As the Equifax hack shows, the problem is not limited to the tech industry, and it's a problem of incentives at the corporate level, not the individual contributor level. We need corporate regulation.

User data is an asset, because you use it to make money, and it is a liability, because it can be stolen and misused. Companies currently get all of the benefit but very little of the risk. If user data had to be insured then there would be a financial incentive to only keep what's needed, and to treat it more carefully.

elliekelly5• 7 years ago

If user data had to be insured then there would be a financial incentive to only keep what's needed, and to treat it more carefully.

Interesting thought, how would you imagine this would work in practice? Insurance against what? In the event of loss, who would make a payment to who?

There are "cybersecurity" insurance policies available to companies now but they really only cover the cost of mailing notification letters to impacted people and sometimes the cost of credit monitoring for a year. They're way overpriced and usually not at all worth it. I suspect that isn't really what you had in mind though?

thfuran• 7 years ago

Presumably the insurance (or company who failed to get insurance) would pay the affected users.

yellowstuff2• 7 years ago

The insurance payouts for a breach could go to the affected users or to the government, I don't think it would matter much. The important part is that companies need to pay to retain user data. The insurance would have to be mandatory for large companies.

yarrel• 7 years ago

Let's write a code of executive ethics instead. All this ressentiment at tech workers needs to be channeled into something actually productive.

rglover• 7 years ago

Just don't be a piece of shit. If you need a list of rules to do that, lord have mercy on your soul.

Sevrene• 7 years ago

Different people view being a piece of shit differently. It's good to codify standards no?

gaze• 7 years ago

Why would tech workers go the way of medical professionals and structural engineers and all these instead of going the way of financial engineers?

Glyptodon2• 7 years ago

The ACM tried to revise its code of ethics not long ago. The process a bit rough because there are very very different interests and perspectives within the organization, not to mention difference in norms between nations (like China).

They did try, though. They went just far enough that it's almost possible to suggest that one couldn't adhere to the current code and still work for Google, Facebook, or China in any engineering capacity. But I still don't really expect them to start penalizing members, as the ACM seems to see itself a lot more as an academic/research group than professional org.

reallydude• 7 years ago

unjustified physical or mental injury

I don't subscribe to "mental injury" as a quantifiable or philosophical harm. There is no way to protect against interpretation or experience, that necessitates increasingly complex and ineffective measures to adapt to subjective and possibly aberrant, mental states. This will always devolve into a discussion of normality, which is immoral at the core.

2.6 Perform work only in areas of competence.

This perhaps, can be salvaged. I would not agree to this as-is. How anyone measures competence is too open, given the state of software development.

neonate• 7 years ago

http://archive.is/DpMS0

A Facebook request: Write a code of tech ethics

Related Stories