Introduction to Research Methods. The Scientific Investigation and Ethics in Computing

Unit 1 - 3 Discussion

Discussion Topic: Codes of Ethics and Professional Conduct

Pick a case study from the examples provided by the Association of Computing Machinery (ACM). Review the application of the ethics code to the situation described and highlight the impact on any relevant legal (jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional) and social issues, as well as on the professionalism of the computing professionals involved. You should provide comparisons to the British Computer Society (BCS) Code of Conduct.

RESPONSE

Discussion Topic: Project Failures Study

The case study regarding automated active response weaponry describes an incident where Q Industries were producing autonomous vehicles that had uses that benefited military and enforcement departments. Due to the nature of their work, protestors have tempered with machinery. While this may seem like a case of property destruction, the use case of this machinery can also be discussed to be an infringement of privacy and such. In a response Q Industries have created non-lethal countermeasures, with this going so well multiple governments have requested for lethal countermeasures as well. As Q Industries has accepted this proposal, many engineers left the company in protest. These engineers were then sued by Q Industries for breaching confidentiality agreement. Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) has many codes of ethics that act as a general guideline for producing machinery with well intentions. One of their codes (code 1.2) describes about how while harm may be unavoidable in certain circumstances, it should never be the main (‘ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct’, 2018). By shifting towards lethal responses, Q Industries directly tries to harm the community without considering other actions such as non-lethal methods. This also follows the British Computing Society (BCS) clauses of public interest (Code 1) discussing having regard for public safety (Trustee Board Regulations Schedule 3 v8 Code of Conduct for BCS Members BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT CODE OF CONDUCT FOR BCS MEMBERS, 2022). While the employees breach the clause of honouring confidentiality (Code 1.7) by informing the public about the dangers of the intended design, breaching of the 1.7 code is allowed in order to not breach other codes. Therefore, they did the right action of trying to prevent harm by breaching confidentiality.

References

  • ‘ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct’ (2018). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3274591
  • Trustee Board Regulations Schedule 3 v8 Code of Conduct for BCS Members BCS, The Chartered Institute for IT CODE OF CONDUCT FOR BCS MEMBERS (2022).

Response by Julius Cloos


The case study regarding automated active response weaponry highlights ethical concerns about the development of lethal autonomous systems by Q Industries. As Chun Yin’s analysis noted, this debate is particularly relevant today due to the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict, where both sides rely heavily on drones (Plichta, 2025). Russia has even announced attempts to build fully autonomous drones, making this issue more pressing than ever (Defense Express, 2025).

It is particularly important not to violate Principle 2.2 of the ACM Code of Ethics when developing lethal systems. When human lives are at stake, technology must be developed with the necessary competence, as the absence of such competence could endanger lives unnecessarily (ACM, 2025a).

Furthermore, Principle 3.1 of the ACM Code of Ethics, which stresses prioritising the public good, was violated by Q Industries in this case (ACM, 2025b). By pursuing lethal technologies, Q Industries disregarded the broader public interest and failed to uphold professional ethical standards.

Overall, Chun Yin’s analysis provides valuable insight into the ethical implications of autonomous military technology, showing how critical it is to follow professional codes of conduct in such high-stakes fields.

References

Response by Thaimu Fullah

Your work clearly engages with the ethical issues raised in the Q Industries case and makes good use of both the ACM Code of Ethics and the BCS Code of Conduct to frame your analysis. I particularly like how you contrasted confidentiality (BCS, 2022, Code 1.7) with the broader obligation to prevent harm, showing that whistleblowing can sometimes be justified. This demonstrates an understanding of professional responsibility and public interest.

That said, there are areas where the argument could be strengthened. For instance, you could discuss the legal and ethical grey areas surrounding whistleblower protection laws in different jurisdictions (Lewis and Trygstad, 2009). You could also explore the broader social implications of developing autonomous lethal weapons, such as the potential for escalation in conflicts or the ethical dilemma of delegating life-and-death decisions to machines (Sharkey, 2012).

While you have mentioned the BCS Code, the comparison could be more explicit. You could structure a section that directly compares how the ACM and BCS codes approach similar issues, such as public safety and professional integrity. For example, the BCS’s emphasis on “honouring your duty to the public” (BCS, 2022) could be contrasted with the ACM’s focus on “contributing to society and human well-being” (ACM, 2018).

Overall, this is a very good piece of work with clear application of professional codes.

References

  • ACM (2018) ACM code of ethics and professional conduct. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3274591 (Accessed: 22 August 2025).
  • BCS (2022) Trustee Board Regulations: Schedule 3 v8 – Code of conduct for BCS members. Swindon: British Computer Society. Available at: https://www.bcs.org/membership/become-a-member/bcs-code-of-conduct/ (Accessed: 20 August 2025).
  • Lewis, D. and Trygstad, S.C. (2009) ‘Protecting whistleblowers at work: A comparison of the impact of British and Norwegian legislation’, Industrial Law Journal, 38(2), pp. 164–188.
  • Sharkey, N. (2012) ‘The evitability of autonomous robot warfare’, International Review of the Red Cross, 94(886), pp. 787–799.

Summary

Everyone seems to be in agreement that ethics ties very closely to development of technology and advancements and that while the ACM code of ethics is not enforceable by law that it should always be followed by with the best of one’s capabilities. Not only that but sometimes even the guidance codes have some common ground with certain laws which can be enforced, such as whistleblower protection laws.