David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics and Information Technology 9 (2):89-100 (2007)
The proliferation of information and communication technologies (ICTs) into all aspects of life poses unique ethical challenges as our modern societies become increasingly dependent on the flawless operation of these technologies. As we increasingly entrust our privacy, our well-being and our lives to an ever greater number of computers we need to look more closely at the risks and ethical implications of these developments. By emphasising the vulnerability of software and the practice of professional software developers, we want to make clear the ethical aspects of producing potentially flawed software. This paper outlines some of the vulnerabilities associated with software systems and identifies a number of social and organisational factors affecting software developers and contributing to these vulnerabilities. Scott A. Snook’s theory of practical drift is used as the basis for our analysis. We show that this theory, originally developed to explain the failure of a military organisation, can be used to understand how professional software developers “drift away” from procedures and processes designed to ensure quality and prevent software vulnerability. Based on interviews with software developers in two Norwegian companies we identify two areas where social factors compel software developers to drift away from a global set of rules constituting software development processes and methods. Issues of pleasure and control and difference in mental models contribute to an uncoupling from established practices designed to guarantee the reliability of software and thus diminish its vulnerability.
|Keywords||Science Technology and Society studies practical drift professional ethics software development and use software vulnerability|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Nurbay Irmak (2012). Software is an Abstract Artifact. Grazer Philosophische Studien 86 (1):55-72.
Don Gotterbarn (1999). Not All Codes Are Created Equal: The Software Engineering Code of Ethics, a Success Story. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 22 (1):81 - 89.
William Spees (2001). Ethical Responsibilities of Software Developers in Developing Simulations. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 15 (1):59-64.
Ronald R. Sims, Hsing K. Cheng & Hildy Teegen (1996). Toward a Profile of Student Software Piraters. Journal of Business Ethics 15 (8):839 - 849.
Ian Phau & James Ng (2010). Predictors of Usage Intentions of Pirated Software. Journal of Business Ethics 94 (1):23 - 37.
S. Chopra & S. Dexter (2011). Free Software and the Economics of Information Justice. Ethics and Information Technology 13 (3):173-184.
Janice A. Singer & Norman G. Vinson (forthcoming). Ethical Issues in Empirical Studies of Software Engineering. Philosophical Explorations.
Matthew K. McGowan, Paul Stephens & Dexter Gruber (2007). An Exploration of the Ideologies of Software Intellectual Property: The Impact on Ethical Decision Making. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 73 (4):409 - 424.
Peter Suber (1988). What is Software? Journal of Speculative Philosophy 2 (2):89-119.
Ari Takanen, Petri Vuorijärvi, Marko Laakso & Juha Röning (2004). Agents of Responsibility in Software Vulnerability Processes. Ethics and Information Technology 6 (2):93-110.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads14 ( #133,322 of 1,692,221 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #184,284 of 1,692,221 )
How can I increase my downloads?