Ethics and Professional Practice for Ethical Dilemma-myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theEthics and Professional Practice for Ethical Dilemma. Answer: 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 t he 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). IoT devices rely on an internet connection to work properly, and different IoT devices connect with each other to communicate and share the users 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 peoples lives in the future, for the bette r. 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. 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 publ ic 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 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 prof essionals 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 fiel d, 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 and changing its code of ethics to ensure that they are suitable for modern ICT professionals and ethical issues. 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 actions 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 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 c onsequences 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. 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. 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). Utilitarianjudgments 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., Viak, T. (2013). Ryders Painism and His Criticism of Utilitarianism.Journal of agricultural and environmental ethics,26(2), 409-419. Mill, J. S. (2016). Utilitarianism. InSeven 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 Harsanyis utilitarianism: operationalizing all-inclusive utility.Theory and decision,68(4), 405-415. 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.