Ethics and Professional Practice

This article discusses ethical dilemmas surrounding IoT technology, critiques the Australian Computer Society Code of Ethics, and critiques Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism.

Running head: ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 0
Ethics and Professional Practice

ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 1
Question 1: Ethical Dilemma Surrounding Internet of Things
The Internet of Things (IoT) is referred to a network of physical vehicles, home
appliances and devices and other objects which are embedded with software, sensors,
connectivity, actuators and electronics which allow these items to connect with each other
and exchange data (Gubbi, Buyya, Marusic & Palaniswami, 2013). With the popularity of
smart devices and increased availability of high-speed internet, a large number of technology
companies started introducing different IoT devices in the market. It is a fairly new industry,
and each manufactures rushing to get the top spot in the industry due to which market is
flooded with a large number of IoT devices which perform different operations such as home
security, automated operations, and others (Lee & Lee, 2015). However, along with the
popularity of IoT devices, the risks associated with the technology have increased as well.
Due to heavy competition, technology organisations are prioritising introduction of new
products which result in compromising the security of these devices. This essay will focus on
analysing the ethical dilemma surrounding IoT technology by analysing the article posted by
‘The Atlantic’ titled “The Internet of Things Needs a Code of Ethics” (Waddell, 2017).
Further, this essay will provide recommendations for addressing the ethical issues relating to
IoT technology.
In previous few years, digital technologies are becoming more and more prevalent
which promotes the growth of IoT technology. However, it also results in increasing issues
relating to IoT technology as well. A good example is malware called Mirai which attacked
secured webcams and DVRs in order to disturb internet access in October 2016 (Kolias,
Kambourakis, Stavrou & Voas, 2017). It shows that cybercriminals can hack IoT devices,
and they can take unfair advantage of them. Francine Berman, a computer-science professor
at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, provided that along with the popularity of IoT
technology, the ethical issues relating to the same will increase as well (Waddell, 2017). The
key ethical issue with IoT technology is security and privacy concern of users. There is lack
of legal and ethical framework in IoT industry which increases the concerns of governments,
organisations and the general public. For example, it is difficult to assess who can be held
responsible in the case of Mirai malware attack. As per Berman, there is a shared
responsibility between the government, innovators, companies and individuals, and they
should try to utilise and create a framework for assigning accountability and responsibility in
order to promote IoT technology for public good (Waddell, 2017).

ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 2
IoT devices rely on an internet connection to work properly, and different IoT devices
connect with each other to communicate and share the user’s data. It means that
cybercriminals can target one IoT device and through which they can collect data from other
IoT devices as well (Graham & Haarstad, 2014). It means that lack of security in one IoT
device can result in compromising the security of other IoT devices which are manufactured
by other corporations. Berman stated that this is a starting phase and people, organisations
and the government should learn from experiences of this phase to improve products in the
future. According to Utilitarianism ethics theory, a right or wrong of a situation is determined
by its consequences rather than actions (Caron, Bosua, Maynard & Ahmad, 2016). Based on
the principles of this theory, people should not judge IoT technology based on its ethical
issues. This technology has a potential to completely change people’s lives in the future, for
the better. Therefore, organisations and the government should promote the development of
IoT technology. However, privacy and security of each individual are crucial, therefore,
technology companies should prioritise the security of people which making IoT devices.
Conclusively, corporations should ensure that these devices are secured from hacking and
cyber-attacks, and they should focus on improving the security in devices rather than
focusing on increasing the sales of the devices.
Question 2: Critique of Australian Computer Society Code of Ethics
The Australian Computer Society (ACS) is referred to an association of more than 26
thousand professionals from information and communication technology (ICT) field.
According to the constitution of ACS, its objective is to advance the excellence in IT field
and promote the development of Australian ICT resources. It was founded in 1966, and it
primarily operates in Australia (Burmeister, 2013). The ACS has provided a Code of Ethics
which is a part of its constitution. All the members of ACS are required to uphold and honour
their profession by being a good citizen and adhering to social values. The ACS code of
ethics provides six principles which are necessary to be adhered by its members that include
the primacy of the public interest, the enhancement of quality of life, honesty, competence,
professional development and professionalism (ACS, 2018). The ACS code of ethics focuses
on ensuring that ICT professionals are doing their jobs ethical and professional in order to
secure public interest (Clarke, 2016). However, many experts argue that the ACS code of
ethics is not enough to protect the interest of public and ACS requires updating its principles

ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 3
in order to implement its policies over ICT professional strictly. This essay will focus on
critiques of ACS code of ethics by discussing different examples.
With the advancement of technology, the role of ICT professionals has grown as well.
The ACS code of ethics guide members during ethical dilemmas that they face during
personal and professional life. However, there are several criticisms of ACS code of ethics
which are provided based on the actions of ICT professional. Taviani (2007) stated that these
codes of ethics have no “teeth” which means that violation of ACS code of ethics did not
necessarily result in termination of its members or any punishment at all. Furthermore, the
ACS code of ethics is not up-to-date, and they only focus on four traditional areas of
concerns which include accessibility, privacy, property and accuracy. Ultimately, ACS code
of ethics is unrealistic, vague, self-serving, incomplete, unnecessary and inconsistent.
Moreover, ACS code of ethics did not provide provision for a situation in which two or more
principles of ethics conflict with each other (Thomas & Ahyick, 2010). The ACS code of
ethics can give professionals the mistaken notion which means that they required following
the principles blindly when they are being examined, deliberated, argued and explored for or
against the action. For example, recent emission scandal in Volkswagen Company showed
the insignificance of the code of ethics and how easily ICT professionals can avoid them to
gain an unfair advantage.
Another issue with ACS code of ethics is that they are too static, inflexible and
detailed for ICT field which is a dynamic sector and it requires a code that can easily be
adapted to changing the environment. On the other hand, codes which are too general and
flexible are criticised for their failure to provide adequate direction. It is also difficult for
ACS to enforce the code of ethics strictly and mostly they are self-serving principles.
According to Bowern, Burmeister, Gotterbarn & Weckert (2006), there are a number of
deficiencies in the ACS code of ethics such as requirement of specific use of code,
requirement of review of role and activities of ACS Disciplinary Committee, requirement of
consistency between ACS code and ethics and international standards and others (Al-Saggaf
& Burmeister, 2012). In conclusion, there are a number of issues relating to ACS code of
ethics including out-dated principles, lack of enforceability, and static policies. The IT sector
is a dynamic field, and it requires a code that is able to change as per changing environment.
The ACS is required to update its code of ethics in order to match them with international IT
standards. These ethics are based on traditional approach, and they did not provide provisions
when two or more principles overlap with each other. Therefore, ACS is requiring analysing

ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 4
and changing its code of ethics to ensure that they are suitable for modern ICT professionals
and ethical issues.
Question 3: Critique of Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism
The Utilitarianism is referred to an ethical theory which determines right or wrong
based on the outcome of a situation rather than based on actions. It provides that beast actions
are the ones which focus on maximising utility. In this theory, ‘Utility’ is defined in various
ways, but, generally, it means in terms of the wellbeing of the public (Mill, 2016). The
Utilitarianism theory provides that most ethical choices are the once that generate greater
good for the greater number. It is a philosophical theory regarding morality or how a person
should act in specific situations. The theory has been influencing in past two centuries by
providing practical disciplines of politics and economics. However, the theory has been
criticized by a number of experts which provides that it is not suitable for modern situations
(Kahane, Everett, Earp, Farias & Savulescu, 2015). The critique of theory includes
impossibility, impracticality, insufficiency and ignoring of the principle of justice. Many
experts argue that Utilitarianism theory is just a philosophy which cannot be applied to real-
life situations. They provide that the theory is impractical and cannot apply to the ethical
dilemma faced by the professional today. This essay will focus on criticising the principle of
Utilitarianism theory based on different examples.
A fundamental critique of Utilitarianism ethics theory is that it ignores justice. An
example was given by H.J. McCloskey who provided that the utilitarianism theory suggests
that if framing an innocent person for a crime can result in reducing of pain and riots than it is
an optimal choice (Trautmann, 2010). Although an innocent person will suffer, a greater
number of people will be protected from pain. Therefore, the Utilitarianism ethics theory
ignores the principle of justice for the greater good. Another common criticism of
Utilitarianism theory that it is impossible to apply in situations because “happiness” cannot
be measured or quantified, that there is no proper way of calculating the impact of an action’s
greater good. For example, if a person states that “I am happier today than yesterday” it
would make no sense at all because happiness cannot be compared or measured. Therefore,
the Utilitarianism theory is criticised because it is impossible to measure the impact of a
greater good on which the theory is based upon. Another key problem with Utilitarianism
ethics theory is the impracticality of calculating the ‘utility’ in different situations (Leuven &
Visak, 2013). In most ethical situations, it is difficult for a person to calculate utility and

ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 5
decide a beat course of action. It is impossible for a person to analyse and all the possible
actions in an ethical dilemma and selects the suitable action which is beneficial for everyone.
In high-pressure situations, it is impractical to implement Utilitarianism theory.
Another problem with Utilitarianism theory is that strict application of its principles
can result in unpalatable consequences. Many experts argue that people can misuse the
principle of Utilitarianism theory and use it to their advantage (Hayry, 2013). For example,
professionals in organisations can conduct fraud or take deceptive actions by saying that it is
for a greater good and it will benefit the shareholders in the long run. Strict implementation
can lead to a selfish version of Utilitarianism ethics theory. The provisions of Deontological
ethics also contradict the principles of Utilitarianism theory. The Deontological ethical theory
determines the ethical nature of a situation by analysing the actions rather than consequences.
However, this approach has its critics as well, for example, saying lying is always wrong is
an incorrect statement (Wang & Chen, 2011). In conclusion, Utilitarianism theory determines
the morality of a situation by analysing rightness or wrongness of consequences rather than
actions. Many experts have provided different critiques of the theory, such as it is impossible
for a person to analyse utility in every ethical dilemma, especially in high-pressure situations.
The theory did not take into consideration the principle of justice which made it unsuitable
morally. It is also impossible to determine ‘happiness’ or ‘greater good’ which makes the
theory impractical and unsuitable for implementing in ethical dilemmas.

ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 6
References
ACS. (2018). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.acs.org.au/content/dam/acs/acs-
documents/Code-of-Ethics.pdf
Al-Saggaf, Y., & Burmeister, O. K. (2012). Improving skill development: an exploratory
study comparing a philosophical and an applied ethical analysis technique. Computer
Science Education, 22(3), 237-255.
Bowern, M., Burmeister, O., Gotterbarn, D., & Weckert, J. (2006). ICT Integrity: Bringing
the ACS Code of Ethics up to date. Australasian Journal of Information
Systems, 13(2).
Burmeister, O. K. (2013). Achieving the goal of a global computing code of ethics through an
international-localisation hybrid. Ethical Space, 10(4), 25-32.
Caron, X., Bosua, R., Maynard, S. B., & Ahmad, A. (2016). The Internet of Things (IoT) and
its impact on individual privacy: An Australian perspective. Computer law & security
review, 32(1), 4-15.
Clarke, R. (2016). Big data, big risks. Information Systems Journal, 26(1), 77-90.
Graham, M., & Haarstad, H. (2014). 4 Transparency and Development: Ethical Consumption
through Web 2.0 and the Internet of Things. Open Development: Networked
Innovations in International Development, 79.
Gubbi, J., Buyya, R., Marusic, S., & Palaniswami, M. (2013). Internet of Things (IoT): A
vision, architectural elements, and future directions. Future generation computer
systems, 29(7), 1645-1660.

ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 7
Hayry, M. (2013). Liberal utilitarianism and applied ethics. Abingdon-on-Thames:
Routledge.
Kahane, G., Everett, J. A., Earp, B. D., Farias, M., & Savulescu, J. (2015).
‘Utilitarian’judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern
for the greater good. Cognition, 134, 193-209.
Kolias, C., Kambourakis, G., Stavrou, A., & Voas, J. (2017). DDoS in the IoT: Mirai and
other botnets. Computer, 50(7), 80-84.
Lee, I., & Lee, K. (2015). The Internet of Things (IoT): Applications, investments, and
challenges for enterprises. Business Horizons, 58(4), 431-440.
Leuven, J., & Višak, T. (2013). Ryder’s Painism and His Criticism of Utilitarianism. Journal
of agricultural and environmental ethics, 26(2), 409-419.
Mill, J. S. (2016). Utilitarianism. In Seven Masterpieces of Philosophy (pp. 337-383).
Routledge.
Taviani, H. T. (2007). Ethics and Technology. Ethical Issues in an Age of Information and
Communication Tecnology. New Jersey: John Willy & Sons.
Thomas, T., & Ahyick, M. (2010). Can we help information systems students improve their
ethical decision making?. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge &
Management, 5.
Trautmann, S. T. (2010). Individual fairness in Harsanyi’s utilitarianism: operationalizing all-
inclusive utility. Theory and decision, 68(4), 405-415.

ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 8
Waddell, K. (2017). The Internet of Things Needs a Code of Ethics. Retrieved from
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/internet-of-things-ethics/
524802/
Wang, X. C., & Chen, Y. H. (2011). Plato's Criticism to the Conception of Justice of
Utilitarianism and Its Modern Theoretical Response. Hebei Academic Journal, 4, 009.