Analysing Ethical Issues in Computing: Lenses, Stakeholders and Trade-offs

Law: government rules enforced by courts (unauthorized use of a computer is a Criminal Code offence). Policy: an organization's rules (a school's acceptable use policy; a streaming service's terms). Ethics: what we should do (not reading a friend's unlocked phone even though no rule stops you).

Consequences: which option gives the most benefit and least harm? Duties and rights: which rules, promises and rights apply? Fairness: are benefits and burdens shared fairly; who is worst off? Character: what would an honest, responsible person do?

Anyone affected by a decision. For example: the student, the friend, the school's IT staff/school board, and other students whose data could be exposed.

talk and agree has the highest total (+3); under the secret logger the teen is worst off (−3).

It stores everything typed, including passwords and banking details, so anyone who gets the log (or hacks the logger) gets them all.

Laws can't cover every situation and often trail technology. Example: reading someone's messages on a phone they left open, or posting an embarrassing but true photo of a friend without permission.

It records every key pressed on a device.

The fairness lens.

Usually not; it is a breach of the service's policy or contract, which can lead to losing the account.

State the facts and what is uncertain.

The character (virtue) lens.

do nothing total +0 worst-off parent (-1). The total is 0 and the worst score, −1, belongs to the parent.

Employees are told clearly (consent/transparency), it is limited to work devices and a specific security purpose, data is protected and seen by few people, kept only as long as needed, and is covered by a written electronic monitoring policy (required in Ontario for employers with 25+ employees).

An option can have a high total but a very low score for one person. For example scores [3, 3, 3, −3] total +6, while [1, 1, 1, 1] total +4; the first wins on consequences but the second is fairer to the worst-off person.

It ignores duties and rights (the account terms and the owner's agreement) and consequences (security risks if the password is reused elsewhere). Popularity alone doesn't make an action right.

For example: (1) use it (clearly wrong); (2) tell the classmate privately so they can change it; (3) report it to the teacher without naming them; (4) ignore it. Option 2 is the middle ground that protects them without embarrassment.

def best_by_fairness(options):

    return max(options, key=lambda name: min(options[name]))

Worst scores: secret logger −3, talk and agree 0, open parental tools 0. There is a tie at 0; max returns the first one it meets, so it returns "talk and agree". A careful analysis would note the tie and use another lens to break it.

Consequences: might catch some bullying, but captures huge amounts of private data and may make students avoid seeking help. Rights: students' privacy and the need for transparency. Fairness: every student bears the cost for the actions of a few. Recommendation: no blanket keystroke logging; instead clear reporting tools, education, monitoring limited to disclosed, targeted safety needs with strict access rules, and support staff.

For: low harm to the company if the cousin would never subscribe; family connection. Against: breaks the agreed terms (a duty), shifts costs to paying customers and creators, and sharing passwords is a security risk. Decision (model): don't share secretly; use the service's official sharing or extra-member option, or a separate account. A strong answer states the values it put first.