Ethics Technique

Using Rationale and the doing ethics technique to facilitate the

learning of skills and values in ICT ethics

Yeslam Al-Saggaf & Oliver K. Burmeister

School of Computing and Mathematics, Charles Sturt University, Wagga Wagga,

Australia

Corresponding author details:

Dr Yeslam Al-Saggaf

School of Computing and Mathematics

Boorooma Street

Wagga Wagga , NSW 2678

Australia

Tel/Fax: +61 2 6933 2593

Email: [email protected]

Using Rationale and the doing ethics technique to facilitate the

learning of skills and values in ICT ethics

The aim of this article is to explore the potential of Rationale and the doing ethics

technique in facilitating the learning of skills and values in the context of ICT

ethics. By exploring the use of these two techniques, it is hoped the study will

show that it is possible to teach not just the critical thinking skills, which most

ICT ethics subjects try to achieve, but also the values necessary for ICT

professionals to make moral judgments in relation to the ethical issues they face

in the workplace. To achieve this aim, the article will first analyze an ICT ethical

issue that was raised in a recent media article using Rationale and ethical

classical theory. Next, it will analyse the same ethical issue using the doing ethics

technique and common codes of ethics. Finally, the article will briefly compare

and contrast the two techniques to show how ICT ethics teaching can be

improved in the future.

Keywords: ICT ethics teaching, critical thinking, values, case study, code of

ethics, Rationale, Doing Ethics Technique

Introduction

In recent years there have been several disillusioning experiences in relation to

information and communications technology (ICT) ethics education. A recent book by

Weckert and Lucas (2012), which presents various findings from an Australian national

survey of the industry, found that ICT graduates were more likely to engage in unethical

practices, than people working in ICT who had not graduated from a tertiary ICT

course. This suggests that although all universities in Australia teach ICT ethics, there is

a mismatch between what is taught and what is learnt. Similarly in research involving

ICT graduates who had been working at least 18 months, it was discovered that

although all of the participants had experienced ethical dilemmas in the workplace, little

of what they had been taught at university had prepared them for what they confronted

(Burmeister & Sharma, 2005). Thus it behoves educators to consider how ICT ethics is

being taught and what more can be accomplished to improve the outcomes for

graduates, that is, outcomes that help them to engage professionally in ethical situations

that arise in the workplace.

Case studies have frequently been employed to illustrate ethical principles and

particularly conflicts and prioritisations amongst those principles (Burmeister and

Weckert, 2003). For instance, Anderson et al. (1993) employ scenarios to explore the

application of a new code of ethics in different professional settings. Clement (1993), in

writing up experiences in a Computer-Supported Cooperative Work workshop, found

that discussing scenarios was a productive means to exploring privacy issues. Similarly,

Burmeister (2000) and Ferguson et. al. (2005) used case studies to illustrate the

application of the Australian Computer Society (ACS) Code of Ethics to professional

practice. Why design and explore scenarios? Why not just wait until one is confronted

with an ethical dilemma in the workplace and then apply ethical analysis? There are

several reasons. In general terms, there is the advantage of using scenarios to explore

situations ahead of time, while one can engage objectively in the discussion, without a

subjective involvement in a particular situation.

Case studies, as alluded to above, have always been used to illuminate codes of

ethics. Codes of ethics state the principles and core values that are important to a

profession (Reynolds, 2003). They are also both a way of setting standards for the

profession and a mechanism for maintaining autonomy (Johnson, 2001). Codes of ethics

also provide a practical framework for ethical decision making related to problems that

professionals encounter at work (Quinn, 2006). Many professions have developed their

own professional societies which in turn have adopted codes of ethics (Tavani, 2007)

and all professionals who are members of these societies are expected to subscribe to

their codes of ethics. But, while some codes of ethics have clear forms of sanctions and

penalties (Berleur and Brunnstein, 1996) such as those in the field of law and medicine,

others, like the ACS Code of Ethics, provide only over-arching guidelines for ethical

decision-making at work (Mather, 2006). On the other hand, most codes of ethics share

the same purpose and function, though the contents and emphasis can vary greatly from

one code to another (Johnson, 2001; Berleur and Brunnstein, 1996).

This article begins with a review of the literature, in order to place the two

techniques that are detailed thereafter, in the context of ICT ethics teaching. Those two

techniques for engaging students in systematic ethical thinking are illustrated using a

case study that recently caught media attention around the world. The article concludes

by comparing and contrasting the two techniques, thus illustrating how ICT ethics

teaching can be improved in the future.

Previous Research

This brief review first discusses the need for effective ethics teaching highlighting its

importance in preparing ICT professionals for the ethical challenges that they will face

in the future and engages briefly with the question of whether ethics should be taught as

a separate standalone subject or integrated across the program. Next, the review looks at

the challenges in front of the educators and the challenges in front of the students.

Finally, it discusses the skills and values that an ethics subject should foster and the

widely used strategies to teach ethics focussing on the learning outcomes that should be

set for students.

The need for effective ethics teaching

There is no solid evidence in the ICT ethics literature that suggests that completing an

ethics subject will have a positive impact on student‟s behaviour in the workplace. The

results of a recent study indicated that while completing an ethics subject may have had

some impact on students by making them more aware, their behaviour did not change

significantly (Thomas & Ahyick, 2010). There was also no difference in their

perceptions of what influenced their decision making despite the fact they took an entire

ethics subject (Thomas & Ahyick, 2010). Another study, however, suggested that ethics

teaching, specifically using role play with dual-use cases, was effective in developing

the ability to recognise ethical issues, enhancing the understanding of the nature of the

ethics landscape, and that there are multiple legitimate positions to any ethical debate

(Johnson, 2010).

The literature indicates that ethics teaching, whether it is for information

systems students, computer science students, computer security professionals, or even

high school students, is undoubtedly needed (Towell et al, 2004; Johnson, 2010;

Fleischmann, 2010; Lee, 2010; Nikos et al, 2010). For this reason, and given the

increase in the reliance of government, commerce, business, and society in general on

ICT (Fleischmann, 2010), it is of paramount importance that scientists, information

technology professionals, and computer security professionals are adequately prepared

for the ethical challenges that they will face in the future (Towell et al, 2004; Johnson,

2010; Fleischmann; Thomas & Ahyick, 2010). Although, current ethics educational

experiences are in serious need of significant improvements (Fleischmann, 2010),

scholars expect ethics teaching to encourage ethical decision making (Lee, 2010), help

with preventing cases of misconduct (Johnson, 2010) and ensure that the public trust in

the integrity of science and research is not undermined by unethical practices (Johnson,

2010).

There is another dichotomy regarding the teaching of ethics subjects. Should

ethics be taught as a separate standalone subject, or should it be integrated across the

program? Califf & Goodwin (2005) argued that teaching it as a separate subject might

lead students to see it as a separate side issue disengaged from the rest of the program‟s

material. They recommended if this approach is adopted that the subject is taught at the

end of the course so students are able to relate what they learn in ICT ethics to what

they have already learned in the rest of their ICT course (Califf & Goodwin, 2005). On

the other hand, if the ethics material is integrated across the program then ethics, Califf

& Goodwin (2005) argued that ethics will not be taught by subject experts and will

often be left out; this view was confirmed in a recent study of ethics teaching in an

undergraduate business faculty (Plummer et al 2011). While this may be true, educators

are now calling for the introduction of ethics material in a single required subject, i.e.

not an elective (Towell et al, 2004; Fleischmann, 2010; Thomas & Ahyick, 2010); while

injecting other relevant subjects within the program with shorter ethics units to address

the above issues (Towell et al, 2004; Thomas & Ahyick, 2010).

Educator and student challenges

In accepting that the attainment of the above ethics teaching goals are important, a

question arises: what are the challenges in front of the educators who are tasked with

ensuring that the future professionals benefit from ethics subjects? The first challenge is

the educators‟ attitudes towards the inclusion of ethics topics in ICT programs. The

results of a survey of ICT university departments in the US conducted in 2004 (Towell

et al, 2004) indicated that the coverage of the ethical topics was minimal and depended

on instructor preferences. Similar results were also reported in an Australian study

(Plummer et al 2011). The Towell et al (2004) study also revealed that more than 80%

of the respondents to the survey said their programs did not have a single subject

dedicated to ethical topics. On the other hand, the results of another survey conducted in

the same year and also in the US contradicted those results (Lee, 2010). The results of

this other survey suggested that 82.4% of professors in IS taught some form of

computer ethics (Lee, 2010). The results of this other survey were also confirmed in

2008 by the results of a third survey (Lee, 2010). The third survey found that 88% of

schools in the US surveyed included ethics in their programs; taught often by computers

science instructors. This discrepancy suggests that educators‟ attitudes towards ethics

subjects may not be an impediment after all. However, lecturers‟ lack of the necessary

training to teach these subjects, as evidenced from the literature revealed (Towell et al,

2004; Lee, 2010; Plummer et al 2011), is a serious obstacle that needs to be addressed.

This evidence suggested that lack of training was one of the main reasons why

lecturers in some universities did not take ethics subjects seriously or were hesitant to

teach them. Another reason was because some lecturers were uncomfortable with

teaching subjects that had no right answers (Towell et al, 2004). It is also possible that

lecturers must have found that relating ethical dilemmas to industry practice difficult.

What is needed is a consistent, systematic approach of teaching how to dissect ethical

dilemmas, and one that can be taught by academics who do not have formal training in

ethics. The two techniques detailed below address this need.

Students who take ethics subjects also face serious challenges that could make

the realisation of the above goals difficult. As with other philosophy subjects, ethics

subjects have requisite skills including how to write essays, think critically and how to

engage with the literature (Johnson, 2010). But, as Johnson (2010) noted, science

students, which is certainly also true for information technology students given they

share a similar background, don‟t have these skills as they are not accustomed to writing

essays, formulating arguments and consulting the literature as part of their studies. This

skill deficit among the science and information technology students may limit their

chances of performing well in ethics subjects or reduce their benefit from those

subjects. The literature also revealed that the above difficulties may make science

students, possibly true also for information technology students, develop a negative

orientation towards ethics subjects (particularly those who lack real world experience).

The difference in the culture and expectations between the humanities and sciences may

make students perceive ethics subjects as either challenging, inferior to their chosen

programs, irrelevant, or common sense (Johnson, 2010). All these difficulties contribute

to poor learning outcomes for ICT ethics students.

Skill development, teaching strategies and learning outcomes

To address the above skill deficit among ICT students, scholars argued that the most

important skill that an ethics subject should foster, was the ability to recognise ethical

dilemmas (Johnson, 2010; Thomas & Ahyick, 2010; Fleischmann 2010; Lee, 2010) and

formulate coherent responses to them (Johnson, 2010; Thomas & Ahyick, 2010).

Literacy, criticism, analysis and argument construction were also important skills,

according to Johnson (2010), that students taking ethics subjects need to be able to

evaluate ethical situations. Johnson (2010) argued that critical thinking was another

essential skill that should be built during the teaching of ethics subjects so students are

able to apply taught principles to real life situations. This view was also supported by

Towell et al. (2004) who pointed attention to two additional skills namely the

communication and rhetoric skills.

The most widely used strategy to teach ethics, involved the use of codes of

ethics and case studies (Fleischmann, 2010; Maslin et al 2010; Lee, 2010; Thomas &

Ahyick, 2010). This view is consistent with the results of a survey of CIS and MIS

schools in the US conducted in 2004 (Towell et al, 2004). According to Towell et al

(2004), the top methods involved the use of case studies (56.3%) and discussion of

personal experiences (54%) of the instructor, colleagues, or students. Moreover, 28% of

the respondents indicated that they used codes of ethics to teach ethics subjects. Another

popular teaching strategy discussed in the literature was the use of role play (Towell et

al, 2004; Johnson, 2010; Fleischmann, 2010; Lee, 2010) particularly when coupled with

dual-use dilemmas involving real case studies (Johnson, 2010; Fleischmann, 2010; Lee,

2010). Dual-use dilemmas discuss uses of technologies that could cause harm to some

people and at the same time can benefit other people. Johnson (2010) argued that using

role play with dual-use case studies was not only effective in developing the ability to

recognise ethical issues but the enjoyment in role-play could address the negative

attitudes, discussed above, that science, and for the same reason IT, students may have

towards ethics subjects (Johnson, 2010).

There are many benefits of codes of ethics that are developed for ICT

professionals. Codes of ethics motivate members of an association to behave ethically

and inspire them because they “provide a positive stimulus for ethical conduct”. Codes

of ethics also guide members through the ethical problems they face in their daily

working life and educate them about what is acceptable and unacceptable in relation to

their interaction with others. Codes of ethics can also discipline members (if they have

teeth) by, for example, causing a member to be sacked from his/her job for violating the

code of ethics (Tavani, 2007, p.101). In addition to these, Reynolds (2003) lists four

more benefits of codes of ethics. According to him, codes of ethics improve ethical

decision-making since adherence to them means that professionals will use a common

set of core values and ideals to serve as guidelines for ethical decision-making (see also

the discussion of codes of ethics as the normative standard for ICT professionalism, in

Burmeister (2012)). Codes of ethics promote high standards of practice and ethical

behaviour because adherence to them reminds the members of their ethical

responsibilities and duties in case they are tempted to compromise or go against the

code amidst competing demands from self, employer, clients, and community. Codes of

ethics also enhance the trust and respect from the general public because the trust of the

general public is built on the expectation that a professional will behave ethically and

adhere to the codes of ethics. Finally, codes of ethics provide an evaluation benchmark

because professionals can use them to self asses their behaviour at work (Reynolds,

2003).

On the other hand several criticisms of ICT codes of ethics have been raised.

These include their vagueness, the fact that they have no teeth, they do not tell

professionals what to do, and in some cases they can be blindly followed (see Tavani,

2007). In addition to the above, another relevant criticism for our discussion is that most

of the codes are the product of the technological thinking in developed countries and so

those who develop these codes tend to neglect the differences in cultural and social

values (Berleur and Brunnstein, 1996).

Having looked at the most widely used strategies to teach ethics subjects,

another question arises: what learning outcomes should be set for the students taking

those subjects? Analysing the relatively limited literature regarding teaching strategies

for ethics subjects revealed that there is a debate regarding the learning outcomes that

should be achieved from ethics subjects. On one hand, those who emphasized values

argued that ethical instruction should focus on teaching values i.e. make students

„better‟ people; on the other hand those who emphasized skill argued that ethical

instruction should focus on teaching skills and providing the resources required to help

students engage in solving ethical problems (Johnson, 2010). While this is the case, the

number of those who advocated teaching skill over teaching values was certainly higher

(Johnson, 2010; Fleischmann 2010; Lee, 2010). Johnson (2010) explained that teaching

values is beyond the business of ethics teachers; and in addition it could also create

challenges for assessment. Johnson (2010) argued that the outcome of learning should

be one that will help students recognize moral issues or develop, what he calls the

“ethical radar”; and appreciate the nature of ethics, or, in other words, the points of

difference between people on ethical issues. Fleischmann (2010) and Spradling and

Hare (2010) argued for another learning outcome to be set for ethics students, namely

sensitivity to other cultures. Arguably sensitivity to other cultures is part of a values

focus, such as the values of respect and tolerance. For instance in Australia, known as a

land of immigrants, where cultural sensitivities are actively taught, values education is

enshrined in both education of children and in requirements for Australian citizenship.

For example, the list of values for Australian citizenship contained two variants of

respect. The first variant was “respect for the equal worth, dignity and freedom of the

individual‟, and the other variant was “tolerance, mutual respect and compassion for

those in need” (Immigration Citizenship, 2009, p. 5). Similarly, the Australian

Department of Education, Science and Training list of ten values, to be taught in

Australian schools includes respect, defined as: “Treating others with consideration and

regard” (Curriculum Corporation, 2003, p. 163). While some argue for reasoning skills

and others argue for values, the authors of this article argue that there is a merit in

teaching both; values as well as reasoning skills. To demonstrate that it is possible to

foster values as well as reasoning skills an examination of a case study using two

techniques will be conducted as part of this study.

The research

The method

We proceeded as follows: first we selected a recent media article that raised an ICT

ethical issue (see BBC (2010) for the case study). Second, the first author constructed a

diagram using Rationale to depict the map of the argument about the same moral issue

that the selected media article appears to be raising presenting the supporting reasons

and objections to the reasons with the hope of making a balanced argument. Then he

converted the diagram into a textual form adhering closely to the map of the argument

and applied the two classical theories, namely utilitarianism and deontology, to the

same ethical issue to show how these ethical theories can be used to arrive at moral

judgments about the ethical issue.

Concurrently, the second author analysed the case study, as reported in the

article, using the Doing Ethics Technique addressing each of the eight technique

questions and looking at the situation also from the point of view of the ICT

professional using the British and Australian computer societies Codes of Ethics, and

that of the American Association for Computing Machinery and the ethical theories

mentioned above.

Finally, we drew some conclusions that brought all the analyses together

offering overall comparisons in relation to how the techniques, namely Rationale and

the DET can be useful in facilitating critical thinking about the ethical issue and how

codes of ethics of examples of computers societies and classical ethical theories can be

useful in facilitating the thinking about applying values to moral dilemmas.

Rationale is selected because it a very popular critical thinking software that is

adopted by several universities in Australia where it was born as part a research project

at the University of Melbourne. Unlike the DET, Rationale is not just limited to ICT

ethics teaching; it is also used in English, social studies, history and philosophy. A

justification for using the DET is that it is the only technique in McDermid textbook

which is widely used in Australia at both the University and vocational training levels.

The analyses of the case study

The analysis of the case study using Rationale and ethical classical theory

Rationale is a method of representing ethical dilemmas and working towards logical

arguments. It is one of the methods that has proved to be useful and effective in

representing ethical arguments graphically (i.e. using diagrams). Anecdotal evidence

from past and current students who took Topics in IT Ethics (ITC506) have found it

useful in engaging them in critical thinking, participating in discussions, formulating

well-reasoned arguments and writing clear and concise essays (as long as the diagram is

developed before the essay is written). The software, which is a package from an

Australian company called Austhink Software, helps students to build a model of their

argument, allowing them to clearly see the logical structure. Students can then use the

developed argument as the basis for constructing critical discussions about the moral

judgment of ethical dilemmas in the form of an essay.

In Rationale, an argument is a like a tree but it is an upside down tree with the

root being the main conclusion. It is made of simple arguments that have a relationship

among them which forms the reasoning. Each simple argument is a claim with a single

reason for it or an objection to it. Each reason or an objection is made up of one or more

claims that help each other or work hand in hand in providing the reasoning to the claim

above them. The main conclusion starts the argument and it has to be evaluated to either

true or false. To be true or false the conclusion has to be a full, grammatical, declarative

sentence; should be normative, i.e. making an evaluative judgment in the form of what

ought to be the case as opposed to what is the case which is descriptive, and in the

context of ICT ethics it should also be moral i.e. making a judgment about the rightness

or wrongness of the action in question. Reasons should directly address the idea in the

claim above them, that is, they should answer „why‟ or serve as „because‟ for the claim

above them (Austhink, 2012).

Reasons, or objections for that matter, should observe three rules: the Golden

Rule, the Rabbit Rule and the Holding Hands Rule. The Golden Rule states that every

simple argument has at least two supporting premises and this is to ensure even the

obvious or hidden supporting premises are explicated. The Rabbit Rule states that any

important term or concept that appears in the conclusion must also appear in one of the

premises and this is to make sure that the conclusion is appropriately tied to the

premises. The Holding Hands Rule states that if something appears in a premise but not

in the conclusion, it must appear in another premise to make sure that the premises are

tied to each other (Austhink, 2012). Below is the Rationale argument in textual form

based on the map of the argument in Appendix 1 at the end of this article. As mentioned

before, the argument is made for the case study covered in BBC (2010).

The argument using Rationale

It is wrong for Google to collect data from unsecured wi-fi networks. There are three

reasons for this: collecting data from unsecured wi-fi networks was done without user‟s

consent, violated users‟ privacy and exposed their data to abuse. However, there are

also three objections to this line of reasoning. Google collection of users‟ data,

according to them, was unintentional, was a mistake and did not require consent in the

first place.

Google collection of users‟ data from unsecured wi-fi networks was wrong

because it was done without obtaining user‟s consent. Indeed, not seeking the

permission of users before they collected their data was unethical because by doing that

they violated the users‟ basic human rights. Their rights to be autonomous agents, to be

free (right to liberty), to feel secure and to be treated with respect have all been violated.

The violation of these human rights is undoubtedly wrong. However, it can be argued

that the Google collection of users‟ data from unsecured wi-fi networks was merely

accidental overhearing and accidental overhearing does not require users‟ consent. Still,

data collected was written to hard drives. If it was merely a case of accidental

overhearing, data would not have been recorded in the first place. Intercepting users‟

data and then storing it into hard drives suggests it is not accidental and it is not

overhearing.

In addition, collecting data from unsecured wi-fi networks may breach users‟

right to secrecy (or their right to control information about them), to solitude (freedom

from surveillance and observation, and most importantly to anonymity (freedom from

the attention of others (Gibbs, 2008). Given these interrelated elements define privacy,

breaching user‟s secrecy, solitude and anonymity is then clearly a violation of their

privacy which is unethical Tavani (2012). Similarly, collecting data from unsecured wi-

fi networks could expose data to abuse by malicious users which in turn could result in

serious harm to individuals. For example, malicious users can use their data to assume

their identity or stalk them or even steal their money. That is why, subjecting

individuals to harm is considered wrong by all rationale beings.

On the other hand, Google collection of users‟ data from unsecured wi-fi

networks was not wrong because it was not intentional. That is, the absence of intent

makes the action unobjectionable. Conversely, Google did differentiate between

encrypted and unencrypted content. Differentiating between encrypted and unencrypted

content shows intent, which contradicts what Googe said. But, collection of users‟ data

from unsecured wi-fi networks, according to Google, was a mistake; so it should not be

deemed ethically wrong. Still, Google claim it was a mistake does not add up. Google‟s

project appears to be a complex one. It must have been given a budget and so according

to Google, all their budgeted projects require management oversight suggesting this was

not a mistake. There is also another argument against accusing Google of wrongness

with regards to collecting users‟ data from unsecured wi-fi networks. Because the data

were not protected by the users, consent was not required to collect them. If users were

concerned about their privacy they would have secured their wireless networks. It is not

Google‟s fault that some wireless networks are not protected. But the fact that the

wireless network is not protected does not give anyone the right to intercept the traffic

let alone collect data from it. Even if consent is not required, it is not right to intercept

or collect people‟s private information.

In analysing this case study using classical theory from a utilitarian perspective, it

would appear that collecting data from unsecured wi-fi networks was wrong because it

can harm users, violate their basic human rights and invade their privacy. As mentioned

above, malicious users can use their data to assume their identity or stalk them or even

steal their money. Putting restrictions, possibly in the form of laws and regulations, on

collecting data from unsecured wi-fi networks can certainly help stop harm from being

inflicted upon those users. This also shows that while collecting data from unsecured

wi-fi networks can be used to cause harm to users or invade their privacy or violate their

basic human rights, protecting their privacy can protect individuals from these kinds of

harms and violations.

From a deontological perspective it would appear collecting data from

unsecured wi-fi networks was wrong because Google used users as means to an end (the

means being the users themselves and the end being their private data to store in their

giant knowledge repository about the world. Respect for persons entails that people

should be treated as ends in themselves, and not as means to some end. To treat users

with respect means they should be treated as persons who have value in themselves, and

not just as pieces of information that could be acquired to increase the size of Google

knowledge repository and enhance Google intimate knowledge about the world. Users

of wireless networks should exercise caution when accessing the internet by ensuring

their networks are secure and protected by passwords. Google developers also have a

duty of care to the people who are likely to be affected by the software they develop.

They should not take part in the development of software that they know can be used to

invade people‟s privacy.

The analysis of the case study using the Doing Ethics Technique

The passive and active forms of the DET

The passive form of the DET, as seen in Figure 1 is what is taught in ITC506, as well as

in undergraduate ethics teaching at CSU. The technique has also been widely taught in

Australia (Burmeister, 2008; McDermid, 2008a; Simpson et al., 2003). It is passive, in

that it is a systematic way for an individual to work through an ethical dilemma. The

active form has also been effectively taught to ITC506 students, and others (Simpson et

al., 2003). However, the active form requires the participation of multiple people, with

individuals or groups taking the perspective of one stakeholder group. The active form

of the DET tends to result in a richer set of variables and better ethical solutions,

because it takes into account the multiple and often competing viewpoints of different

stakeholders. Furthermore, following the arguments above by Johnson (2010), it is a

better form of case study analysis because it can involve role-play and thus dramatic

enactments, in which differing stakeholder groups can argue in favour of their position,

or against the positions taken by other stakeholders. Consensus is not the aim, but

rather, understanding and valuing each others‟ differences. Thus the active form of the

DET is useful in workshops and face-to-face tutorials, and results in solutions that are

qualified. That is, the solutions can articulate how certain options favour one or another

stakeholder group, and thus unlike the passive form of the DET, a greater breadth and

richness is reflected in the final solution. However, for distance students, engaging in

the type of facilitated group work that the active form of the DET requires, can be

difficult.

From a practical perspective, the DET is nothing but a series of questions

specifically eight that can be applied to a case study with the hope that answering the

eight questions will at the end of the analysis facilitate the recommendation that can

solve the problem in question. As can be seen below these questions can be divided into

two groups; the first four and the last four. While the first four questions help students

state the facts and the issues, the last four questions focus more on the ethical behavior

of the ICT professional. An explanation of the DET questions and how they apply to the

ethical issue in question are discussed below.

The analysis using the DET

Q1. WHAT'S GOING ON?

This is a synopsis of what the case is all about. It can be taken from a variety of

perspectives, for example, from the perspective of a person raising a complaint, in which

case, it is a synopsis of the complaint. It can be taken from the perspective of an

involved observer, in which case, it is an outline of what was observed, without going

into too much detail. Where there are multiple perspectives, those should be described

here.

 As Google collected StreetView data they also collected all unencrypted

wireless communications data that they were able to access.

 The communications data collected in this manner breached privacy legislation

in at least 30 countries.

 Multiple jurisdictions were pursuing legal avenues against Google for privacy

violations on the basis of claims of criminal intent.

 Google denied intent, claiming that it was accidental.

Q2. WHAT ARE THE FACTS?

This is a descriptive list of the facts of the case. This doesn't just describe the case; it lists

the facts as they are known (from all sources and perspectives), and also what one might

reasonably consider to be possibilities. For example, if a person was raising a complaint,

Q1 would outline their complaint, and Q2 would provide the evidence to both support

and refute that argument. All such facts must be demonstrable or supportable. It would

be worthwhile to assign a credibility weighting to each fact, to help with later analysis.

 Google collected unencrypted wireless communications data.

 The communications data collected in this manner breached privacy legislation.

 It was alleged that Google acted with criminal intent.

 Google denied intent, claiming that it was accidental.

 Google claimed it was the work of a lone engineer.

 Google claim that all their projects undergo rigorous checking.

 The code involved was complex and not likely the work of a sole individual.

 The complexity of the work involved would have required an allocated budget

and management oversight.

 Users of the communications did not give consent for Google to copy their

interaction.

 Google did not seek user permission.

 Google recorded all the communications data and has not made it available to

authorities when requested to do so.

 Google differentiated between encrypted and unencrypted data, suggesting

intent.

Q3. WHAT ARE THE ISSUES?

This is a list of ALL the issues that are involved in the case, whether they be ethical,

legal, or otherwise. Q5 seeks to extract only the ethical issues for further analysis, but at

the stage the focus is on simply extracting and describing every relevant issue.

 Google collected unencrypted wireless communications data without the

permission of those involved in those communications.

 Collecting data without permission of users breaches privacy.

 Google appeared to act with criminal intent.

 It was the work of a lone engineer.

 Google‟s rigorous project checking it not so rigorous after all.

 Google‟s intent is seen in its allocation of a budget and of management

oversight.

 Google recorded all the communications data and has not made it available to

authorities when requested to do so.

 Google failed in its duty of care.

Q4. WHO IS AFFECTED?

This is a list of all the stakeholders involved in the case. This need not be restricted to

the ones specifically mentioned in the case. It is necessary to consider who/what else

might be affected by the issues listed at Q3, regardless of the degree to which they are

affected. Q4 involves a description of how each stakeholder is affected, both positively

and negatively. It may also involve comments on the degree of effect.

 Google and its shareholders.

 The users whose communications were intercepted by Google.

 The engineer whom Google claim was responsible for the code.

 The Google team who were responsible to conduct rigorous project checking.

 Google management who oversaw the StreetView project.

 The authorities who requested Google to provide copies of the communications

data.

 Legal authorities who are prosecuting Google in their respective jurisdictions.

 Users of Google worldwide, who place their trust in Google to abide by their

stated privacy policies.

 Marketing companies and other organisations who are potential consumers of

the communications data captured by Google.

 Line managers within Google who approved budgetary expenditures for the

communications data capture coding.

Q5. WHAT ARE THE ETHICAL ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS?

For this question extract only the ethical issues identified at Q3. List the ethical issues,

discuss them in terms of classical ethical theory, and discuss their implications – on the

stakeholders, as well as on the ICT and wider community. Professional codes of conduct

should also be considered in this evaluation of the issues and implications.

 Collecting data without permission of users breaches privacy.

 Google failed in its duty of care.

 Google denied criminal intent, claiming that it was accidental. But lack of intent

does not make the storing of that data acceptable.

 Just because some wireless communication was unprotected/unencrypted does

not give Google or others the right to intercept and store it.

Kantian ethics suggests that intent or motivation is an important consideration. If the

legal action proves that Google acted with criminal intent, then their actions as a

corporation, and the actions of the management, line managers and engineer involved

were not ethical.

Consequentialism suggests that this was unethical behaviour, because the

consequences of these actions resulted in the loss of reputation for Google, a breach of

the public trust, the victimisation of innocent users of unencrypted communications and

the breaching of privacy legislation at least 30 jurisdictions.

Codes of professional behaviour vary from one country to another, and given

that at least 30 jurisdictions are involved, no single code can address the issues in this

case. However, many ICT codes have common elements, including the need to uphold

the public good, to show a duty of care, to obtain informed consent, and to be honest in

interactions. For example, the codes of the British and Australian computer societies,

and that of the American Association for Computing Machinery all hold that the public

good must be the paramount consideration, when considering ethical issues, and

therefore in this case study, the effect of Google‟s actions on public trust are an

important ethical and professional consideration.

Q6. WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT IT?

This question elicits a general idea of what can be done to resolve the case, whether

those ideas are practical, possible, or not. Generally what kind of resolutions might there

be? The answers need not go into great detail, as its purpose is to provide a basis for

answering Q7, but they do need to broadly and laterally to come up with several

alternatives.

 Google issues a public apology.

 Release copies of the data gathered to authorities, so that they can assess for

themselves that there was no criminal intent.

 Destroy the communications data gathered.

 Not on-sell the communications data to third parties.

 Review budgeting and management oversight of projects, to ensure such

accidents do not occur again.

 Reprimand the engineer responsible.

 Make the StreetView application available for public scrutiny prior to the next

round of data gathering for that project.

Q7. WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS?

This question requires detailed listing and description of all the possible options that

might be available to resolve the case. Be creative here; the most obvious options are not

always the best. It's possible that not all options will result in a positive outcome for all

stakeholders. List and describe at least three different options, and discuss the benefits

and detriments of each.

Option 1: Review of systemic processes for Google’s project management.

 This does not solve the current problem, but will help to improve project

management, budgetary/fiscal project oversight, and overall management

oversight of projects.

 This ensures that the likelihood of a repeated breach of ethics is not likely to

occur.

 Training in ethical processes, such as integrity systems development, should be a

part of this process.

Option 2: Focus on re-establishing public trust.

 Many codes of professional conduct make „the public good‟ their primary focus

(true of the British, Australian and American codes mentioned above). The

breach of public trust evidenced in this case necessitates action on the part of

Google and the ICT industry to re-establish trust.

 This solution encourages the involvement by Google of multiple ICT societies,

best accomplished through the involvement of the international umbrella ICT

body, the International Federation of Information Processing, which has over 50

member societies, including the three mentioned above.

Option 3: Proving that no criminal intent was involved.

 Make the data available to authorities who have requested it, but in such a way

that once examined, all that data will be destroyed.

 Destroy all records of the communication data.

 Google to issue a public and worldwide apology.

Q8. WHICH OPTION IS BEST - AND WHY?

In answering this question, assess which of the options described in Q7 is the best.

Recommend one of several options here, and argue for that recommendation, providing a

solid basis in fact and reasonable/supportable conjecture.

Option 2 is best. Option 1 is likely to be an ongoing process within Google, as it

is within many organisations. Option 3 can be incorporated into option 1, in that

destroying the communications data in a way that can be verified, will help to re-

establish public trust. However, once the data is made available to authorities, its

destruction may be delayed. For instance, in Australia legal requirements concerning

data storage may require that data to be stored for up to five years before it can be

destroyed.

Discussion and conclusion

In comparison, while Rationale forces the user to decide in advance the outcome of the

argument, with the DET the user decides what the outcome should be at the end.

However, one way in which Rationale was better than the DET was in its ability to

force the user to think not just about the supporting reasons for the claim of the

argument but also the objections to the claims, which lead to somewhat a more a

balanced argument. On the other hand, one way the DET was better than Rationale was

in its ability to force the user to think about the facts and the ethical issues involved.

Another way in which the DET was better than Rationale was in the area of producing

options to solve the problem and making a recommendation in favour of one of the

options. The Rationale did not produce such outcomes. However, in defence of

Rationale, it did offer solutions from the perspective of the main stakeholders involved,

in this case the users whose data were being collected by Google. Rationale also

appeared stronger compared to the DET in facilitating critical thinking as evidenced by

the balanced argument it helped produce. Rationale was also better than the DET in

transitioning from critical thinking about the ethical issue in question to using values

(ethical principles) to judge the action in question. While in the case of the DET

applying values appeared an „afterthought‟, to the DET‟s credit, the behaviour of the

ICT professional has been the focus of the analysis from the beginning of the analysis to

the end.

This article explored the potential of Rationale and the doing ethics technique in

facilitating the learning of skills and values in the context of ICT ethics. By analyzing

an ICT ethical issue that was raised in a recent media article using Rationale and ethical

classical theory and then using the doing ethics technique and common codes of ethics

it showed that it is possible to teach critical thinking skills as well as values, which

according to some educators (certainly not the authors of this article), as mentioned

above, are beyond the business of ethics teachers. This article has also shown that these

techniques can help students recognise ethical dilemmas in the workplace, think

critically and objectively about the ethical issues, make founded moral judgments in

relation to these issues and come up with solutions to the ethical dilemmas encountered.

It can also help students formulate well-reasoned arguments and write clear and concise

essays. It is hoped this article will contribute to the discussion on how ICT ethics

teaching can be improved in the future.

References

Anderson, R.E., Johnson, D.G., Gotterbarn, D. & Perrolle, J., 1993. Using the New

ACM Code of Ethics in Decision Making, Communications of the ACM, 36(1),

98-107.

Austhink, 2012. Learn [online]. Austhink. Available from:

http://rationale.austhink.com/learn [Accessed 5 January 2012]

BBC, 2010. Google accused of criminal intent over StreetView data [online]. Available

from:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10278068 [Accessed 5 January 2012]

Berleur, J. & Brunnstein, K., 1996. Ethics of Computing: Codes, spaces for discussion

and law. London: Chapman & Hall

Burmeister, O. K. 2000. Applying the ACS code of ethics. Journal of Research and

Practice in Information Technology, 32(2), 107-120.

Burmeister, O. K., & Weckert, J., 2003. Applying the new software engineering code of

ethics to usability engineering: A study of 4 cases. Journal of Information,

Communication & Ethics in Society, 3(3), 119-132.

Burmeister, O. K., & Sharma, A., 2005. Professionalism in ICT: meeting the challenge

of ethical dilemmas in the workplace. Paper presented at the Fourth Australian

Institute of Computer Ethics Conference, Deakin University, Geelong.

Burmeister, O. K., 2008. Introduction. In D. McDermid, ed. Ethics in ICT An

Australian Perspective. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson, 1-26

Burmeister, O.K., 2012. Ethics in Information and Communications Technology. In P.

Bowden, ed. Applied Ethics. Tilde University Press.

Califf, M. E., & Goodwin, M., 2005. Effective incorporation of ethics into courses that

focus on programming. Proceedings of the 36th SIGCSE Technical Symposium

on Computer Science Education, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, February 23-27,

347-351

Clement, A., 1993. Privacy Considerations in CSCW: Report of the CSCW‟92

Workshop, SIGCHI, 25(4), ACM Press, 34-39.

Curriculum Corporation, 2003. Values Education Study [online]. Available from:

http://www.valueseducation.edu.au/verve/_resources/VES_Final_Report14Nov.

pdf [Accessed 29 September 2009]

Ferguson, S., Salmond, R., Al-Saggaf, Y., Bowern, M. & Weckert, J., 2005. The use of

case studies in professional codes of ethics: The relevance of the ACS

experience to ALIA‟s code of ethics. Australian Library Journal, 54(3), 299-308

Fleischmann, K. R., 2010. Preaching What We Practice: Teaching Ethical Decision-

Making to Computer Security Professionals. Lecture Notes in Computer

Science, 6054, 197-202

Gibbs, M., 2008. Privacy. In D. McDermid, ed. Ethics in ICT: An Australian

Perspective. NSW: Pearson, 89-123

Immigration Citizenship, 2009. Citizen test part one: What does being an Australian

mean? [online]. Available from:

http://www.citizenship.gov.au/learn/cit_test/_pdf/citz-booklet-pt-1.pdf

[Accessed 29 September 2009].

Johnson, D. G., 2001. Computer Ethics. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Johnson, J., 2010. Teaching Ethics to Science Students: Challenges and a Strategy. In B.

Rappert, ed. Education and Ethics in the Life Sciences: Strengthening the

Prohibition of Biological Weapons. Canberra: ANU E Press, 197-213

Lee, A., 2010. Cyber ethics in action: copyright, privacy, and media awareness

teachers‟ guide. Thesis (Master of Education). Queen‟s University.

Maslin, M., Zuraini, I., Ramlah, H., & Norshidah, M., 2010. An ethical assessment of

computer ethics using scenario approach. International Journal of Electronic

Commerce Studies, 1(1), 25-36.

Mather, K., 2006. Codes of ethics: protecting whose interest? Information Age. October

2006/November, 38-39.

McDermid, D., 2008a. Employment and work. In D. McDermid, ed. Ethics in ICT An

Australian Perspective. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson, 231-248

McDermid, D., 2008b. Ethics in ICT An Australian Perspective. Frenchs Forest, NSW:

Pearson.

Nikos I. K., George E. P., Panos D. S. & Ioannis A. T., 2010. What do computer science

students think about software piracy?, Behaviour & Information Technology,

29(3), 277-285

Plummer, K., Burmeister, O., Muntean, D., McGrath, D., Murphy, D., & Macklin, R.,

2011. A whole of curriculum approach to teaching business ethics, Australian

Journal of Professional and Applied Ethics, 12(1&2).

Quinn, M.J., 2006. Ethics for the Information Age. 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson, Addison

Wesley.

Simpson, C., Nevile, L., & Burmeister, O. K., 2003. Doing Ethics: A Universal

Technique in an Accessibility Context. Australasian Journal of Information

Systems, 10(2).

Spradling, C., & Hare, B., 2010. Teaching and integrating social and professional issues

into a small college Computer Science curriculum: tutorial presentation. Journal

of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 25(5), 267-268.

Reynolds, G., 2003. Ethics in Information Technology. Boston, Massachusetts: Course

Technology.

Tavani, H.T., 2007. Ethics and technology: Ethical issues in an age of information and

communication technology. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Tavani, H.T., 2012. Ethics and technology: Controversies, Questions, and Strategies

for Ethical Computing. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Thomas, T., & Ahyick, M., 2010. Can We Help Information Systems Students Improve

Their Ethical Decision Making?. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information,

Knowledge, and Management, 5, 209-224

Towell, E., Thompson, J. B., & McFadden, K. L. 2004. Introducing and developing

Professional Standards in the information systems curriculum. Ethics and

Information Technology, 6, 291–299

Weckert, J., & Lucas, R., 2012. Ethics and the Governance of ICT. Canberra, Australia:

ANU E-Press