Undirected Musings about Ethics

Why bother?

Everyone thinks they're doing good most of the time. Ethical codes help +guide that sense into alignment with the surrounding social and political +context: doing good for whom, why, and with what kinds of caveats.

It's not about engineering, it's about people

An ethical code for software development should not waste too much space +talking about engineering practices. Certainly there is value in getting +more developers and systems people to follow good engineering practice, but +an ethical code should focus on the interaction between trustworthiness, the +greater good, the personal good of all the participants in the system, and +software itself.

(This comes up in Ethics for Programmers, above.)

It's no good to build a wonderfully-engineered system that is cheap to run +and easy to integrate with if it systematically disenfranchises and abuses +its users for the benefit of its owners, and that's a problem we actually +have via Facebook, Github, Twitter, and numerous others.

Ethical codes are fundamentally extrinsic

Ethical codes exist so that others can judge our behaviour, not so that we +can judge our own behaviour.

Ethical codes must be constraining

Ethical codes do not exist in a vacuum. A code that authorizes its adherents +to behave in any way they see fit, subject only to their own judgement, is no +ethical code at all. We already have that and the results have not been great.

This is important - a meaningful ethical code for software would probably +cripple most software business models. An ethical code that prioritizes +active consent, for example, completely cripples advertising and analytics, +and puts a big roadblock in buyouts like Instagram's. This may well be good +for society.

Integrity is not about contracts or legislation

Ethics, personal integrity, and group integrity are tangled together, but +modern Western conceptions of group integrity tend to revolve around “does +this group break the law or engender lawsuits,” not “does this group act in +the best interests of people outside of it.”

Assumptions

I've embedded some of my personal morality into the “ethics” articles in this +section, in the absence of a published moral code. Those, obviously, aren't +absolute, but you can reason about their validity if you assume that I +believe the “end user's” privacy and active consent take priority over the +technical cleverness or business value of a software system.

+ +

This has some complicated downstream effects: “active consent” means +something you can't handwave away by putting implied consent (for example, to +future changes) in an EULA or privacy statement. I haven't written much that +calls out this pattern because it's pervasive.

The “end user is the real product” business model most social networks +operate on is fundamentally unethical under this code. It will always be more +valuable to the “real customers” (advertisers, analytics platforms, law +enforcement, and intelligence agencies) for users to be opted into new +measurements by default, assuming consent rather than obtaining it.

+ + + +

+ + +comments powered by Disqus +

+ + + + + +