Case Study: Doing Ethics Technique - Question 1, Part 1 Essay.

What's going on?

Part 1 - Question 1 – Doing Ethics Technique

This session we have restricted the cases to the following three (3). One of these will appear on the exam. We encourage you to prepare all three.
In December 1999, IBM-GSA was one of three tenderers for the IT outsourcing contract for the Departments of Health, Aged Care and the Health Insurance Commission (the Health Group), along with CSC and EDS. During the tender process, IBM-GSA was supplied with computer disks containing critical information relating to final pricing of their rival tenderers. IBM-GSA subsequently revised its tender after the due deadline and the minister announced they were the successful bidder.

At the time, the Office of Asset Sales and Information Technology Outsourcing (OASITO) described giving IBM-GSA details of their rival’s bids as an ‘inadvertent error’. The minister dismissed the Opposition's call for an immediate halt to the tender process. Three years later, the minister, now retired, admitted that the $350 million tender should have been cancelled. He told the Audit Office in September 2002:
“When the disc containing all three bids was delivered to IBM GSA in error my reaction on being informed directly by OASITO was to cancel the tender. I could not see that a tender process with integrity could continue. At the conclusion of the tender I was both disappointed and annoyed at the limited role of the Probity Auditor and the absence of a separate report on the issue.”
Not only did the tender continue, with IBM-GSA being awarded the contract, but the minister's claim that the Probity Auditor’s role was limited was contradicted by evidence provided by OASITO to a Senate Estimates hearing on 8 February 2000. OASITO representatives told Senate Estimates that the management of the tender:

“…was conducted in accordance with the advice from both the probity auditor and our legal advisers engaged for the initiative. All parties concurred at the time that the process could continue unchanged [OASITO] briefed the probity auditor in person [who] immediately came back to us with a proposed course of action…We engaged the probity auditor to participate in all of our discussions to make sure that he fully witnessed the nature of the discussions…and he was happy that we had delivered the messages in accordance with his proposed course of action.”

DET 2

Anna is a young ambitious programmer working for a small company developing software for web based services in the health area, with a focus on support to remote aboriginal communities. To further her career Anna undertakes additional tertiary study, with support from her manager, Brian. This study includes topics covering computer ethics, and issues relating to the impact of ICT on different communities. On her current project, Anna develops a new user interface, which has a strong focus on accessibility for remote communities, especially considering the type of technology likely to be used. She also pays special attention to the use of cultural images in the interface, to avoid those which may be distressing or offensive to aboriginal users. The new system is a great success and Anna’s contribution is recognised by her company, through an Employee of the Month Award. The company also receives a national business award for its contribution to the positive use of ICT in aboriginal communities. Brian takes all of the credit for this, and Anna receives no acknowledgement for her efforts.

DET 3

Andrew, a highly qualified and experienced software developer, has just started work with a government health department on a project that has been underway for about 9 months. He is replacing a novice developer who has decided to move on to a new project with another organisation. Even though the current system is incomplete, it has is being used with 'live' data. On analysing what's been done so far, Andrew discovers that the system is poorly designed and is riddled with bugs due to the former developer's lack of expertise, and that the choice of technologies are incompatible with the department's infrastructure, leading to corruptions and loss of financial data on a daily basis. In fact, much of Andrew's time is initially spent unsuccessfully attempting to recover corrupted data. His vast experience leads him to the conclusion that the system is so unstable that it will eventually corrupt beyond repair and that all its data will become unrecoverable. He therefore advises the supervisor of his findings and recommends that the system be redeveloped using appropriate technologies and quality control measures. He indicates that the entire redevelopment effort will take less than 6 weeks. The supervisor rejects Andrew's recommendation, stating that their IT Department will not agree to a change in technology, and directs Andrew to complete the project using the existing technologies. What should Andrew do?

PART 3: ESSAY
This session we have restricted the essay topics to the following three (3). One of these will appear on the exam. We encourage you to prepare all three.

ESSAY 1
According to Sisela Bok (2003) whistle blowing concerns an individual who makes revelations meant to call to attention to negligence, abuses or dangers that threatens public interest. Essay topic: Whistle blowing is an unethical activity and employees undertaking such behaviour should lose their jobs.

ESSAY 2
Penetration testing is also known as ethical hacking. Distinguish white, grey and black hat hackers, from the professional, ethical hacker. In your answer state the extent to which ethical hackers might be the same as or different to white hat hackers.

ESSAY 3
Decision-making assisted by algorithms developed by machine learning is increasingly determining our lives. Can transparency contribute to restoring accountability for such systems? Arguments for and against include issues such as the loss of privacy when data sets become public, the perverse effects of disclosure of the very algorithms themselves (which can lead to ‘gaming the system’), the potential loss of competitive edge, and the limited gains in answerability to be expected since sophisticated algorithms are inherently non-transparent. It is concluded that transparency is certainly useful, but only up to a point: extending it to the public at large is normally not to be advised. Do you agree?S

Doing Ethics Technique: Question 1Q1. What's going on?  

In December 1999, IBM GSA was a tendered for an IT outsourcing contract for the Department of Health, Aged Case and Health Insurance Commission along with the CSC and EDS. While the tendering process was on, the IBM GSA was supplied with a computer disk that contained critical information associated with the detailed information of the final pricing of the rival tenderers who were CSC and EDS. However, this was described as an inadvertent error and the minister later dismissed the opposition’s call of halting the tendering process.

Q2. What are the facts?  

There are a number of facts that are associated with the situation which are as follows-

• It is quite clear that the leak of the information of the tenderers was not any inadvertent error
• The situation involved making use of unethical and illegal way of obtaining the tender.
• Even after the issue was identified, the tendering process was carried on
• IBM-GSA has a clear advantage in winning the tender has they had an access to the information associated with the final bid of the rivals, which was unethical.
• The minister that dismissed the call of immediate halt of the tender process admitted that the tender of $350 should have been dismissed
• The disc with the information was delivered to IBM GSA in error which needed an immediate action.
• It was found out that the management of the tender was conducted accordance to the advice from both probity auditor and legal advisors.
• IBM GSA was awarded the contract which was unethical
• One receiving the information, IBM-GSA revised its tender after the due deadline
• This indicates that IBM-GSA were not supposed to win the tender.

Q3. What are the issues (non-ethical)? 

The main issue is that IBM-GSA  had a clear advantage in the entire process. Furthermore, IBM-GSA had revised the tender after due date, which is another significant issue.

Q4. Who is affected?  

In this entire tendering process, mainly the rivals, who are CSC and EDS are mostly affected as they lost to IBM-GSA, who had a clear advantage in winning the tender.

Q5. What are the ethical issues and implications?  

The ethical issue is that the tendering process was carried on even after knowing the fact that IBM-GSA had a clear advantage in winning the tender. Furthermore, IBM-GSA was given the benefit of revising the tender after the due deadline.

Q6. What can be done about it?  

 In this situation, the tendering should not have happened. The tendering process could be delayed.  The three bidders should have got a chance to resubmit the tender.

Q7. What are the options?  

The options are-

• Cancelling the tender bid process
• All the three bidders should have revised the tender
• IBM-GSA could have been prevented from tender revision

Q8. Which option is best - and why?  

The third option was best as it is clear that IBM-GSA revised their tender after getting the information of the other two bidders. IBM-GSA had revised their tender after the deadline which was unethical and illegal as well. If IBM-GSA was not given the chance to revise their tender, a fair competition could have been held and therefore it is the best option.

Q1. What's going on?  

Anna is a young and ambitious computer programmer who is working for a small company. The company works for developing software for web based services in healthcare and focuses on supporting the remote aboriginal communities. Anna further undertakes additional tertiary study with support from the manager Brian. Anna as a part of their current project develops a new interface that has a strong focus on the accessibility for the remote communities. In this project, she pays special attention on the use of cultural images interface to avoid any content that might be offensive for the aboriginal users. The new system became a great success, however, Brian takes all the credit.

Q2. What are the facts?  

The facts in this case are as follows-

• Anna works for a small software developing company
• The company provides web based services with a focus on support to remote aboriginal communities
• Anna undertakes tertiary study with the support of her manager Brian
• Anna studies about the computer ethics, issues associated with impact of ICT on different communities that is reflected in her work.
• On her current project, Anna developed a new user interface that mainly has strong focus on the accessibility of remote communities.
• Anna played special attention to make use of cultural image
• This was done so that the aboriginal users do not find any content offensive
• The new system therefore became a great success
• Contribution of Anna is recognised by the company.
• However, Brian took the credit for Anna’s achievement

Q3.What are the issues (non-ethical)?  

The main issue is that, Brian took the credit of someone else’s hard work. Although Brian helped Anna in her studies, it was Anna who thought out of context to make this project a success.

Q4. Who is affected?  

In this case, Anna is mostly affected as her hard work although recognized was taken away by Brian.

Q5. What are the ethical issues and implications?  

The main ethical issue associated with this situation is that, taking away the credit of Anna’s hard work was completely unethical. Although Brain helped Anna with her tertiary studies, it was the hard work of Anna that made the project successful. So the situation is unethical.

Q6. What can be done about it?  

Facts and issues associated with the situation

 In this situation, Anna should be given her due credit as the project was successful only because of the innovative idea of Anna. Brian should not be allowed to take the credit. Anna should be given a promotion for her contribution.

Q7. What are the options?  

The options are-

• Anna should ask for her sue credit and recognition’
• Brian should not take away someone else’s credit
• As a recognition to her effort, Anna should be given a promotion

Q8. Which option is best - and why?  

The option that Anna has is to ask for her due credit and recognition. Since it was Anna’s original idea and hard work that made this project a success, Anna has the right to ask for her due credit and recognition. Brian although provided her support, he should not take away the due credit and recognition that Anna deserves.

Q1. What's going on?  

Andrew is an experienced and a highly qualified software developer who has started to work with a government health department. He is in charge of a project that has been underway for about 9 months. The current system although is incomplete has been used for live data. Andrew discovered certain bugs in the system as the system is poorly designed. This is mainly because of the lack of expertise of the previous developer. The choice of technologies was found to be incompatible with infrastructure of the organization that is resulting in corruptions and loss of data. Andrew spent a lot of time to recover some previously corrupted data. He found out that the system is very unstable and can lead to subsequent data loss. Therefore he recommends that the system is needed to be redeveloped that will take less than six weeks.

Q2. What are the facts?  

The facts associated with the case are as follows-

• Andrew is highly qualified and experienced software developer
• He replaced a novice developer in the new organization. He has given a charge of the project that has been in underway for about 9 months
• The current system although is incomplete, is being used for live data.
• Andrew discovers that the system is poorly designed and has lots of bugs
• The issues with the system are mainly due to the lack of expertise of the previous developers.
• The choice of technologies in the system is not compatible with the infrastructure of the organization.
• The incompatible systems are leading to data corruption and loss of financial data.
• Andrew spent a lot of time in recovering the corrupted data and came to the conclusion that if this system is used, it will result in data corruption beyond repair
• Andrew proposes redevelopment of the system that will take less than 6 week
• The supervisor rejects Andrew’s proposal

Q3. What are the issues (non-ethical)?  

The main issue is that with the continuous use of the flawed system, the data of the organization will be lost beyond recovery.

Q4. Who is affected?  

In this case, the organization will be affected the most followed by Andrew,  as he is in charge of the project.

Q5. What are the ethical issues and implications?  

The use of the flawed system even after knowing the consequences is unethical and therefore should be avoided. Andrew’s proposal of system redesigning is however rejected.

Q6. What can be done about it?  

Andrew could pressurise the reform. Andrew can further raise the issue to the higher management. If none works, Andrew should take the initiative of making the necessary changes in the existing system

Q7. What are the options?  

The options that Andrew has-

1. Making the supervisor understand the need of reform
2. Reporting this issue to higher officials
3. Refusing to work on a flawed system

Q8. Which option is best - and why?  

The option of making the supervisor understand the need of the reform is best as it will help in taking the necessary action as soon as possible. The other option can delay the project that will result in subsequent time loss for the organization.

Background

Whistle Blowing could be defined as the act of different members of the organization to disclose the vital information based on unethical or illegal practices within the organization. This act is becoming a common matter as many employees are focusing on the ethical based concerns. The act of whistle blowing can bring about a range of problems for the organization as well as the whistleblower. However, this act is an important and effective method in order to control the unethical behavior within the organization.

Ethics Theories applied

The Utilitarian Theory could be applied to the act of whistleblowing. The theory focusses on the fact as to which of the option based on the action would be helpful in producing the greatest amount of happiness and would cause the least harm. From the basic perspective of a whistle blower, the utilitarian theory would suggest a whistle blower to keep silent at the beginning and then report their personal matter to the immediate manager. The whistle blower then should blow the whistle and then report the matter outside of the organisation.

ACS code of ethics

Ethical issue in the tendering process

According to the ACS Code of Ethics, it has been defined that this code of ethics is dedicated to help in improving the confidence of the public within the industry.The members within the organization should know the fact that the ACS could be helpful in resolving the dilemmas within the organization. The ethical code could also provide support in order to take proper action that would include the act of whistle blowing. With the help of the ACS code of ethics, the whistle blower should take proper action at times.

Based on the above discussion, it could be concluded that the act of whistle blowing could be considered as an ethical action if it has been performed in the right manner and if they are performed for the right reasons. In many of the organization, the act of the whistleis considered as an unethical activity. Hence based on the above discussion, it should be considered that the act of whistle blowing should be performed in an ethical manner.

The act of penetration testing, which is also known as ethical hacking is defined as the skills that are required for testing the defenses within the organization. Penetration testing is a particular term that would be able to focus on discovering the risks, vulnerabilities and thus maintain a proper control of the system.Hackers are classified as white, grey and black hat hackers. The white hat hackers employ the exact methods as the black hat hackers and they could be sometimes be paid who would work for companies for the role of security specialists who would find loopholes within the security systems. The black hat hackers have a vast knowledge of breaking into the computer networks and thus pass through the protocols of security.The grey hat hackers are a mixture of the white and black hat hackers. They try to penetrate into the networks without the permission of the owner.

The Kantianism theory defines the way in which a person should behave and thus decide the good or bad actions. The consequentialism theorycould be defined as a theory that would deal with the consequences of the action. Based on these theories, the actions should be decided based on these theories.

The ACS code of ethics could be applied to the case of penetration testing that would be helpful for the efficient working within the organization. The security of the information security should follow some code of ethics, which would be helpful in serving the client in a better way and thus would help in avoiding any form of illegal based activities. 

Based on the above discussion, it could be concluded that the act of penetration testing or ethical hacking is a serious matter of concern. The white hat hackers have to be paid in order to perform the act of hacking.

Decision-making with the help of algorithms developed by machine learning is increasing over the years. However, there are issues associated with the transparency that contribute to restoring of the accountability of the system. Full opacity of the process is a norm and therefore several objections against full transparency are needed to be examined. The use of such algorithms is associated with the issues which include loss of privacy in situation when data sets become public, issues with the disclosure of the algorithms themselves and potential loss of competitive edge. Therefore it is needed to be evaluated wether the use of algorithms in decision making is ethical or not.

According to the ethical theory of deontology, the rightness and the wrongness of the action is needed to be evaluated. With the use of algorithms developed by machine learning, there are certain issues associated with the loss of competitive edge and loss of privacy. Therefore, the action of making use of algorithms of machine learning is wrong according to the theory of deontology.

According to the theory of utilitarianism, the rightness or wrongness of the consequence determines whether a situation or action is ethically correct. Although the use of such algorithms helps in effective decision making, risking the data privacy is not ethical.

According to the ACS code of ethics, honesty is to be maintained in every action. Any action should consider benefit of the public and therefore risking the privacy of the confidential data is not ethical.

It can be concluded that transparency is certainly useful till the point it does not risk the privacy and the confidentiality of the data. Extending transparency to the public at a large in normally not advised as it will risk the privacy and the confidentiality of the data. The sophisticated algorithms are generally non transparent that therefore might not have any ethical issues associated with them. The use of algorithms in decision making by risking the privacy confidentiality of the data is not ethical and the use of such transparent systems are not recommended.