I disagree. I read the ACM code in its entirety, and although very difficult to follow in the current rarefied mega-Corporate environment, it is what it should be for professionals that should be serving society first instead of profiting from it regardless of consequences.
I also commend the very participatory process the ACM went through to create it in the first place. I surely gave my input, and now I felt I was heard and represented in the end product. Regards / Saludos / Grato Andrés Leopoldo Pacheco Sanfuentes > On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:06 AM, Richard Brooks <r...@g.clemson.edu> wrote: > > In my security course, I have students look at and contrast > the ACM and IEEE codes of ethics. > > To be honest the ACM code is long winded, hard to follow, and > (in my opinion) almost impossible to follow. > > It does not surprise me that it did not influence the people. > What would surprise me is if they read the whole thing. > > The IEEE code is brief and less legalistic in tone. > >> On 2/4/19 2:20 PM, Aaron Massey wrote: >> Re: seeking empirical evidence about ethics instruction >> >> A recent publication at FSE attempted to evaluate the impact of the new >> ACM code of ethics on decision-making and found no evidence of an effect >> according to their methodology. You can read the paper here: >> >> https://people.engr.ncsu.edu/ermurph3/papers/fse18nier.pdf >> >> It’s worth asking whether this is the sort of structure a study of this >> nature should have. For example, this study doesn’t really address many >> (or any?) of the points Charles made earlier. >> >> Best, Aaron >> >> >>> On Mon 04 Feb 2019 07:40 AM, Charles M. Ess wrote: >>> And thanks on both fronts! >>> >>> My acknowledging that it was a critical, spot-on point was not >>> gratuitous or merely courteous: behind it is a larger point - one that >>> we don't always point out to our undergraduate students. But >>> Aristotle warned at the outset of his Nichomachean Ethics that no one >>> under 30 should attempt it - precisely because of their comparative >>> lack of experience as enculturated ethical beings. (Part of this >>> enculturation includes precisely our learning from our mistakes - >>> phronesis as self-correcting ethical judgment.) >>> FWIW: while I loved teaching undergraduate philosophy courses, such as >>> ethics and logic, for example - and still think that there's value and >>> some measure of good effect from them - having so-called >>> "non-traditional" was always a great pleasure, precisely because they >>> could bring their greater experience into play. FWIW: the past couple >>> of decades have been even better on this front as I've been privileged >>> to work with a number of groups and communities who meet Aristotle's >>> age requirement - and it shows up in insights, discussion, debates, >>> dialogue, etc. that are that much richer for it. >>> >>> In all events - yes, kudos and great thanks, Paul! >>> - c. >>> >>>> On 04/02/2019 05:32, Paul wrote: >>>> Charles, >>>> I would like to claim partial credit for spurring your excellent >>>> response. ;) >>>> Paul >>> >>> -- >>> Professor in Media Studies >>> Department of Media and Communication >>> University of Oslo >>> <http://www.hf.uio.no/imk/english/people/aca/charlees/index.html> >>> >>> Postboks 1093 >>> Blindern 0317 >>> Oslo, Norway >>> c.m....@media.uio.no >>> -- >>> Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major >>> commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you >>> moderated: >>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. >>> Unsubscribe, change to digest mode, or change password by emailing >>> liberationtech-ow...@lists.stanford.edu. >> > > > -- > =================== > R. R. Brooks > > Professor > Holcombe Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering > Clemson University > > 313-C Riggs Hall > PO Box 340915 > Clemson, SC 29634-0915 > USA > > Tel. 864-656-0920 > Fax. 864-656-5910 > Voicemail: 864-986-0813 > email: r...@acm.org > web: http://www.clemson.edu/~rrb > PGP: 48EC1E30 > -- > Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major commercial > search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: > https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, > change to digest mode, or change password by emailing > liberationtech-ow...@lists.stanford.edu. -- Liberationtech is public & archives are searchable from any major commercial search engine. Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated: https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech. Unsubscribe, change to digest mode, or change password by emailing liberationtech-ow...@lists.stanford.edu.
