EBoard 16: Ethics (All sections)

Warning! You are being recorded and transcribed, provided the technology is working correctly.

Approximate optimistic overview

• Potentially some administrative stuff
• Lots of discussion

Real outline: https://rebelskyw.cs.grinnell.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/GuestCSClassEthics.html

Administrative stuff

Introductory notes

• You are awesome. Take care of yourselves this weekend.
• Sorry sbout the reading response fiasco.
• Be nice to our substitute teacher.
• I look forward to seeing you on Monday.
• Words cannot express my anger at our legislature. Please take care of yourselves and your friends.

Upcoming activities

Scholarly

• Tuesday, 4 March 2025, Noon–12:50 p.m., PDR 224C (White Dining Room). CS Table: TBD
• Tuesday, 4 March 2025, 7:00–9:00 p.m., Harris Concert Hall. Ray Young Bear: From Red Earth Drive: Creating Meskwaki Poetry and Songs through Animism and a Series of Otherworldly Events
• Thursday, 6 March 2025, 11:00 a.m.–Noon, JRC 101. Scholars’ Convocation: Lisa Mueller: Most Protests Fail. It Doesn’t Have to Be That Way

Artistic

• Friday, 28 February 2025, 7:30–8:30 p.m., Roberts Theatre. Day/Dream.
  • Tickets available in the Bucksbaum Box Office, Thursday and Friday, noon–5:00 p.m.
  • Livestream at https://tdps.sites.grinnell.edu.
• Saturday, 1 March 2025, 2:00–3:00 p.m., Roberts Theatre. Day/Dream.
• Saturday, 1 March 2025, 7:30–8:30 p.m., Roberts Theatre. Day/Dream.
• Sunday, 2 March 2025, 2:00–3:00 p.m., Roberts Theatre. Day/Dream.

Multicultural

• Friday, 28 February 2025, 4:00–5:00 p.m., HSSC N1170 (Global Living Room). Middle of Everywhere: International Women’s Day

Peer

Musical, theatric, sporting, and academic events involving this section’s students are welcome.

• Saturday, 1 March 2025, 2:00 p.m., Sebring-Lewis. Grinnell Orchestra presents Rimsky-Korsakov Symphony No. 1.

Wellness

• Friday, 28 February 2025, 6:00 p.m.–8:00 p.m., Aux Gym. Badminton Club (Smash that bird!)
• Friday, 28 February 2025, 9:00 p.m., Noyce Elbow. Nerf at Noyce.
• Saturday, 1 March 2025, 4:00 p.m.–6:00 p.m., Aux Gym. Badminton Club (Smash that bird!)
• Tuesday, 5 March 2025, 12:15–12:50 p.m., GCMoA. Yoga in the Museum.
• Tuesday, 5 March 2025, 4:30–6:30 p.m., BRAC P103 (Multipurpose Dance Studio). Wellness Yoga.
• Tuesday, 5 March 2025, 5:00–6:00 p.m., HSSC S1003 (Atrium). Therapy Dogs.
• Tuesday, 5 March 2025, 7:15–8:15 p.m., HSSC S1003 (Atrium). Therapy Dogs.

Misc

• Sunday, 2 March 2025, 7:30–8:30 p.m., Science 3819. Mentor Session
• Tuesday, 4 March 2025, 7:00–8:00 p.m., Science 3820. Mentor Session
• Sunday, 9 March 2025, 7:30–8:30 p.m., Science 3819. NO Mentor Session

Other good things

These do not earn tokens, but are worth your consideration.

Upcoming work

• Friday, 28 February 2025
  • MP5 released.
  • Submit post-reflection for MP4 on Gradescope
• Sunday, 2 March 2025
  • Submit redo of MP3 on Gradescope
  • Readings on Software Engineering Fundamentals:
    • Documenting your code
    • Unit testing with Rackunit
    • Debugging
    • Submit reading response on Gradescope
  • Submit pre-reflection for MP5 on Gradescope
• Wednesday, 5 March 2025
  • Quiz: Lists (and the big three)
  • Makeup quiz: Tracing
  • Makeup quiz: Conditionals
  • Makeup quiz: Cut and compose
  • Remember that you can bring a sheet of notes for each quiz.
  • Remember that you can start as early as 8:00 a.m. (section 1) or stay until noon (section 2) or 4:30 p.m. (section 3)

Questions

Administrative

Scheme

Readings

Other

Introduction

Why do we have this module in CSC-151?

• Computers and computing technology have an outsize impact on the world.
• Those who develop computing technology should understand their resposibilities as professionals.
  • Most don’t.
• We should have a day (or at least a class period) thinking about the impacts of technology and our responsibilites
• Reminder: CS table discusses these issues on most Tuesdays.
• Reminder: TWO concentrations that consider these kinds of issues as part of their work: Science, Medicine, and Society (SMS) and Digital Studies.

Other notes

• Lots of different approaches in CS classes.
• Sam likes the ACM code of ethics.
• AI has created large numbers of challenges, particularly to understanding why things are happening and unexpected factors.

Ethics

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

Let’s read them aloud. We’ll just go around the room.

• 1. GENERAL ETHICAL PRINCIPLES.
     • 1.1 Contribute to society and to human well-being, acknowledging that all people are stakeholders in computing.
     • 1.2 Avoid harm.
     • 1.3 Be honest and trustworthy.
     • 1.4 Be fair and take action not to discriminate.
     • 1.5 Respect the work required to produce new ideas, inventions, creative works, and computing artifacts.
     • 1.6 Respect privacy.
     • 1.7 Honor confidentiality.
• 1. PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES.
     • 2.1 Strive to achieve high quality in both the processes and products of professional work.
     • 2.2 Maintain high standards of professional competence, conduct, and ethical practice.
     • 2.3 Know and respect existing rules 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 Perform work only in areas of competence.
     • 2.7 Foster public awareness and understanding of computing, related technologies, and their consequences.
     • 2.8 Access computing and communication resources only when authorized or when compelled by the public good.
     • 2.9 Design and implement systems that are robustly and usably secure.
• 1. PROFESSIONAL LEADERSHIP PRINCIPLES.
     • 3.1 Ensure that the public good is the central concern during all professional computing work.
     • 3.2 Articulate, encourage acceptance of, and evaluate fulfillment of social responsibilities by members of the organization or group.
     • 3.3 Manage personnel and resources to enhance the quality of working life.
     • 3.4 Articulate, apply, and support policies and processes that reflect the principles of the Code.
     • 3.5 Create opportunities for members of the organization or group to grow as professionals.
     • 3.6 Use care when modifying or retiring systems.
     • 3.7 Recognize and take special care of systems that become integrated into the infrastructure of society.
• 1. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE.
     • 4.1 Uphold, promote, and respect the principles of the Code.
     • 4.2 Treat violations of the Code as inconsistent with membership in the A CM.

Initial reflections

A think-pair-share activity.

Which principles did you find surprising (or most surprising)? Why?

Which are your “favorite” principles? Why?

Which principles do you expect to be hardest to follow? Why?

A case study

Modified from https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/using-the-code/case-dark-ux-patterns/. (Please don’t look there for analysis.)

The change request Stewart received was simple enough: replace the web site’s rounded rectangle buttons with arrows and adjust the color palette to one that mixes red and green text. But when Stewart looked at the prototype, he found it confusing. The left arrow suggested that the web site would go back to a previous page or cancel some action; instead, this arrow replaced the button for accepting the company’s default product. The right arrow, on the other hand, upgraded the user to the more expensive category; it also silently added a protection warranty without asking for confirmation. Stewart suggested to his manager that this confusing design would probably trick users into more expensive options that they didn’t want. The response was that these were the changes requested by the client.

Shortly after the updates were released into their production system, Stewart’s team was invited to a celebration. As a result of these changes, revenues at their client had increased significantly over the previous quarter. At the celebration, Stewart overheard some of the client’s managers discussing the small increase for refunds by users who claimed that they didn’t want the protection plan, but there weren’t many. One manager noted several complaints from visually impaired users, who noted that the mixture of red and green text obscured important disclaimers about the product.

Modified from https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/using-the-code/case-dark-ux-patterns/. (Please don’t look there for analysis.)

TPS: What principles are at play? What should Stewart do (or have done)?

Principles at play

What should Stewart do (or have done)?

Detour: What does a right arrow on a form mean?

Detour: A quick lecture on algorithmic ethics

It’s nice that our guest lecturer knows more than I do.

Another case study

Modified from https://ethics.acm.org/code-of-ethics/using-the-code/case-malware-disruption/. Please don’t read the analysis.

Responsible Services advertised its web hosting services as “cheap, guaranteed uptime, no matter what.” While some of Responsible’s clients were independent web-based retailers, the majority were focused on malware and spam. Several botnets used Responsible’s reliability guarantees to protect their command-and-control servers from take-down attempts. Spam and other fraudulent services leveraged Responsible for continuous delivery. Corrupted advertisements often linked to code hosted on Responsible to exploit browser vulnerabilities to infect machines with ransomware.

Despite repeated requests from major ISPs and international organizations, Responsible refused to intervene with these services, citing their “no matter what” pledge to their customers. Furthermore, international pressure from other governments failed to induce national-level intervention, as Responsible was based in a country whose laws did not adequately proscribe such hosting activities.

Ultimately, Responsible was forcibly taken offline through a coordinated effort from multiple security vendors working with several government organizations. This effort consisted of a targeted worm that spread through Responsible’s network. This denial-of-service attack successfully took Responsible’s machines offline, destroying much of the data stored with the ISP in the process. All of Responsible’s clients were affected. No other ISPs reported any impact from the worm, as it included mechanisms to limit its spread. As a result of this action, spam and botnet traffic immediately dropped significantly. In addition, new infections of several forms of ransomware ceased.

TPS: Was the response appropriate? Ethical? What principles would permit the security vendors and government organizations to write such software. Which might suggest that they behaved unethically?

Final thoughts

We probably won’t have time for any final thoughts.