Part 1 - Question 1 – Doing Ethics TechniqueThis 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.1.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.”
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.
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?Your answer should includeQ1. What's going on? (2 marks)Q2. What are the facts? (2 marks)Q3. What are the issues (non-ethical)? (2 marks)Q4. Who is affected? (2 marks)Q5. What are the ethical issues and implications? (3 marks)Q6. What can be done about it? (3 marks)Q7. What are the options? (3 marks)Q8. Which option is best - and why? (3 marks)
Part 1 - Question 2 - Ethical Theory question (10 marks)Consider the scenario from Part 1-Question 1 and explain about how each of the four ethical theories (i.e., utilitarianism, deontology, virtue and contract) can be applied to argue that your supervisor’s action is unethical (2.5 marks for each explanation x 4 = 10 marks)PART 3: ESSAYThis 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.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.
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.
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?You must:•present an introduction (or background) about the case study (6 marks);•include at least two ethical theories to support your answer (2 x 5 marks);•Include examples of professional Codes of Ethics to support your answer (6 marks);•present a conclusion that briefly outlines your point of view (4 marks); and•ensure that your essay is well written and structured (4 marks).You are not required to include any references in your essay, but where applicable you should cite relevant researchers to support your arguments. State any assumptions before you start writing your essay.