Student Presentation of Ethical Framework (30 Points)
Purpose:
Learn the fundamentals of your assigned ethical framework.
Meet and work with your ethical framework group for the first time.
Help your fellow students learn about your ethical framework.
Instructions:
Put together a slide deck of up to 10 slides and submit it as a PDF to the instructor via email.
Give a 10 minute presentation of your slides as a group with 2 minutes of questions after.
Because your group will have 8-10 people, it may be smart to divide up the work.
How you divide the work and presentation is up to your group, but remember: your group presentation will last only 10 minutes.
One way of doing this is to have half your group focus on creating and presenting slides while the other half proofreads, then switch off so the other half of the group does the heavy lifting for the next assignment and so on.
Even if a group member is not responsible for putting together the slides, make sure everyone is on the same page regarding what your ethical framework is all about.
Due Date:
Your slides are due when class starts (15:30) on 01/22/2019.
Requirements:
Your slides must include:
A brief introductory slide describing the historical origin of the ethical framework. (5 Points)
A slide explaining the connection between the philosopher shown in your framework webpage to the framework. (5 Points)
An introduction and discussion of three core concepts of the ethical framework. (10 Points)
An introduction and discussion of at least one foundational written work in the ethical framework (you do not have to read the full work). (5 Points)
A brief example of how your ethical framework would evaluate a developer accidentally introducing a critical bug into a popular mobile app. (5 Points)
Website Post 1 (60 Points)
Purpose:
Discuss among your group and share with the class the general outlook of your assigned ethical framework.
Note similarities and differences between your ethical framework and the three codes of ethics in the assigned readings.
Get accustomed to the technical aspects of GitHub Pages and flex your HTML/CSS/Markdown muscles.
Instructions:
One person in your group should fork the course GitHub repository which hosts the course website on GitHub Pages.
Make your commits to this fork, then make a pull request to the original repository to submit your assignment.
Be sure to watch out for merge conflicts! You should only be editing your ethical framework page.
Added style and flair is appreciated. Remember, your peers will be able to look at your page!
Familiarize yourself with GitHub Pages (including using Jekyll and Markdown to create webpages).
Look for tutorials online for help (like this one)! If you are entirely new to GitHub or HTML/CSS/Markdown, please feel free to visit office hours.
Write a general statement of purpose for your ethical framework as it relates to ethical and professional issues in computer science.
Write a response to each of the three codes of ethics detailing the similarities and differences between them and your statement of purpose.
The general statement and each of the three codes of ethics responses should be distinctly separate on the webpage.
Due Date:
Your pull request to the original GitHub repository is due when class starts (15:30) on 01/24/2019.
Remember this GitHub repository is public. Keep your commit messages appropriate.
Requirements:
Your statement of purpose (~700 Words) must include:
A description of what makes an action ethical according to your framework. (5 Points)
With regard to your framework, an answer to the question: What triggers the need to evaluate how ethical an action is? (5 Points)
Discuss the predisposition people have to act ethically according to your framework (if this is not stated, explain why that may be). (5 Points)
A brief summary of three issues in computer technology you believe your ethical framework would have a lot to say about (these do not necessarily have to be topics covered in class). (10 Points)
Each of the three codes of ethics responses (~300 Words Each) must:
Briefly summarize the similarities between the code of ethics and your ethical framework. (4 Points)
Briefly summarize the differences between the code of ethics and your ethical framework. (4 Points)
State something that is missing from the code of ethics which your ethical framework can provide. (2 Point)
The webpage is well-formatted, readable, and without merge conflicts in the GitHub repository (style points). (5 Points)
Website Post 2 (60 Points)
Purpose:
Identify diversity issues in computer science.
Identify different perspectives regarding the availability of H-1B visas.
Discuss the perspective of your ethical framework as it applies to the above two issues.
Instructions:
Use the fork of the course GitHub repository you set up in Website Post 1 to commit your Git changes.
Make a pull request to the original repository by the due date.
Write a summary and response to the controversy surrounding H-1B visas.
A brief summary of the content of the memo. (5 Points)
A discussion of the aspects in the memo your ethical framework finds either valid or ethical. (5 Points)
A discussion of the aspects in the memo your ethical framework finds either invalid or unethical. (5 Points)
Your analysis of gender bias in tech (~500 Words) must include:
A brief summary of outstanding gender issues in tech. (5 Points)
A response to each issue from the perspective of your ethical framework. (5 Points)
If your framework does not have any particular insight for an issue, provide your own while matching the sentiments of your framework as best as you can.
Your analysis of race and ethinicity biases in tech (~500 Words) must include:
A brief summary of outstanding race and ethnicity issues in tech. (5 Points)
A response to each issue from the perspective of your ethical framework. (5 Points)
If your framework does not have any particular insight for an issue, provide your own while matching the sentiments of your framework as best as you can.
The webpage is well-formatted, readable, and without merge conflicts in the GitHub repository (style points). (5 Points)
Website Post 3 (60 Points)
Purpose:
Identify issues in corporate ethical responsibility in tech.
Critique an unethical corporate action in tech.
Compare potential solutions to current corporate ethical issues in tech.
Create a new solution to unethical corporate behavior by applying your assigned ethical framework.
Instructions:
Use the fork of the course GitHub repository you set up in Website Post 1 to commit your Git changes.
Make a pull request to the original repository by the due date.
Write a summary of corproate ethical resonsibility issues in tech.
Write a critique of a specific unethical corporate action using your ethical framework as a guide.
Write a comparison between two proposed methods for solving unethical corporate behavior.
Write a proposed way to enforce/reinforce corporate social responsibility according to your ethical framework.
Due Date:
Your pull request to the original GitHub repository is due when class starts (15:30) on 02/07/2019.
Requirements:
Your summary (~500 Words) must include:
A brief summary of at least three outstanding issues in corporate ethical responsibility in tech. (5 Points)
Your critique (~1,000 Words) must include:
A summary of the specific unethical corporate action being analyzed. (5 Points)
An identification of why that action is unethical as defined by your ethical framework. (10 Points)
A conclusion of how the corporation may have acted ethically in the situation, accord to your framework. (5 Points)
Your comparison (~1,000 Words) must include:
A summary for both proposed methods to solve unethical corporate behavior. (5 Points)
A comparison between the two proposed methods. (10 Points)
A conclusion stating which proposal is more favorable according to your ethical framework. (5 Points)
Your proposal (~700 Words) must include:
A general overview of how your ethical framework would enforce or reinforce corporate social responsibility. (5 Points)
A brief example of an instance where the proposed overview would correct unethical behavior. (5 Points)
The webpage is well-formatted, readable, and without merge conflicts in the GitHub repository (style points). (5 Points)
Website Post 4 (60 Points)
Purpose:
Identify the underlying issues and stakeholders in a case of corporate malfeasance.
Analyze the ethical argumentation for a potential case of corporate malfeasance.
Compare your argumentation to two other ethical frameworks.
Instructions:
Use the fork of the course GitHub repository you set up in Website Post 1 to commit your Git changes.
Make a pull request to the original repository by the due date.
Write a case brief on the relationship between IBM and Nazi Germany.
Write an ethical analysis on the implementation of a Muslim registry using your ethical framework as a guide.
Write two comparison interviews between your framework and the two you believe are most divergent from yours.
For this one, you will need to interview someone from two different ethical framework groups.
Due Date:
Your pull request to the original GitHub repository is due when class starts (15:30) on 02/14/2019.
Requirements:
Your case brief (~500 Words) must include:
A summary of relevant facts which could be used to determine the culpability of IBM. (5 Points)
A listing of the stakeholders in this controversy (as it stands today) and their positions. (5 Points)
A statement on the ethical culpability of IBM with respect to your ethical framework. (5 Points)
Your analysis of the Muslim registry controversy (~1,000 words) must include:
A summary of relevant facts regarding the current state of the controversy. (5 Points)
An argument for or against the implementation of a Muslim registry by a private corporation, citing at least three specific pieces of evidence to make your point. (10 Points)
A summary of whether or not your analysis would change (and why) if the registry was implemented by a government entity instead of a corporation. (5 Points)
Each of your two interviews with another framework (~500 Words) must include:
A statement on how and why you believe your argumentation for or against a Muslim registry diverges from the arguments you anticipate from the interviewed framework. (5 Points)
A summary of the statements made by the framework interviewed. State whether your initial thoughts were accurate or not (and why). (5 Points)
The webpage is well-formatted, readable, and without merge conflicts in the GitHub repository (style points). (5 Points)
Website Post 5 (60 Points)
Purpose:
Identify the key stakeholders in the issue of network neutrality.
Analyze the ethical argumentation for or against deplatforming individuals or organizations from the Internet.
Propose a potential outcome of deplatforming upon online echo chambers.
Instructions:
Use the fork of the course GitHub repository you set up in Website Post 1 to commit your Git changes.
Make a pull request to the original repository by the due date.
Write a summary of key stakeholders and their positions in the issue of network neutrality.
Write a critical anylsis of deplatforming using your ethical framework as a guide.
Write a brief proposition of the potential effects deplatforming could have upon online echo chambers.
Due Date:
Your pull request to the original GitHub repository is due when class starts (15:30) on 02/21/2019.
Requirements:
Your summary (~500 Words) must include:
A listing of each key group of stakeholders in the issue of net neutrality. (5 Points)
A summary of their core beliefs and position on the issue. (5 Points)
Your analysis of deplatforming (~1,000 Words) must include:
A summary of the opposition to deplatforming. (5 Points)
A summary of the proponents of deplatforming. (5 Points)
An analysis either in favor or against deplatforming, citing specific elements of your ethical framework to make your point. (10 Points)
Your proposition (~700 Words) must inclue:
A summary of facts about online echo chambers. (5 Points)
A summary of recent deplatforming attempts and their outcomes. (5 Points)
An argument whether deplatforming could affect online echo chambers. (10 Points)
If so, argue how. If not, argue why not. (5 Points)
The webpage is well-formatted, readable, and without merge conflicts in the GitHub repository (style points). (5 Points)
Website Post 6 (60 Points)
Purpose:
Identify key issues in job automation.
Analyze the ethical argumentation for or against job automation.
Analyze the ethical argumentation for or against self-driving cars.
Instructions:
Use the fork of the course GitHub repository you set up in Website Post 1 to commit your Git changes.
Make a pull request to the original repository by the due date.
Write a summary of key issues and the potential stakeholders in job automation.
Write a critical anylsis of job automation using your ethical framework as a guide.
Write a critical anylsis of self-driving cars using your ethical framework as a guide.
Due Date:
Your pull request to the original GitHub repository is due when class starts (15:30) on 02/28/2019.
Requirements:
Your summary (~500 Words) must include:
A listing of at least three key groups of stakeholders in the issue of job automation. (5 Points)
A summary of the effects of job automation on each of these stakeholders. (5 Points)
A brief statement on the culpability of engineers in designing job automation system when human workers lose their jobs. (5 Points)
Use your ethical framework as a guide.
Your analysis of job automation (~1,000 Words) must include:
A summary of the opposition to job automation. (5 Points)
A summary of the proponents of job automation. (5 Points)
An analysis either in favor or against job automation, citing specific elements of your ethical framework to make your point. (10 Points)
Your analysis of self-driving cars (~1,000 Words) must include:
A summary of the opposition to self-driving cars. (5 Points)
A summary of the proponents of self-driving cars. (5 Points)
An analysis either in favor or against self-driving cars, citing specific elements of your ethical framework to make your point. (10 Points)
The webpage is well-formatted, readable, and without merge conflicts in the GitHub repository (style points). (5 Points)
Website Post 7 (30 Points)
Purpose:
Summarize the stances of your ethical framework on each previous topic.
Summarize the stance of your ethical framework on weapons development and warfare.
Develop an algorithm for arriving at an ethical decision in your framework.
Instructions:
Use the fork of the course GitHub repository you set up in Website Post 1 to commit your Git changes.
Make a pull request to the original repository by the due date.
Write a brief summary of the position of your ethical framework on computer-assisted warfare and from two of the following:
The importance of professional codes of ethics.
Diversity in the technology sector.
Immigration issues in the technology sector.
Corporate personhood.
Discriminatory registries.
Online censorship.
Net neutrality.
Job automation.
Autonomous vehicles.
Write an algorithm which demonstrates from start to finish how to analyze an ethical decision.
Post both of these on the main page of your ethical framework
If you have only been using a single page for your posts, place this one at the top.
Due Date:
Your pull request to the original GitHub repository is due when class starts (15:30) on 03/07/2019.
Requirements:
Each of your summaries (1 Paragraph Each) must:
State the problem being discussed, and why it is important to your framework. (1 Point)
State the position of your ethical framework in response to this problem. (2 Points)
Provide at least two pieces of evidence supporting your position. (2 Points)
Your algorithm must include:
A summary of assumptions and inputs made (think of this as the arguments being passed to your algorithm). (2 Points)
A step-by-step set of instructions (in a pseudocode-like style) which determines whether a decision is ethical or not according to your framework (outputs such as, “Probably ethical,” or, “Probably not ethical,” are also allowed). (8 Points)
The webpage is well-formatted, readable, and without merge conflicts in the GitHub repository (style points). (5 Points)
Personal Response 1 (30 Points)
Purpose:
Reflect upon the ethical framework you have represented and how it has informed your own personal ethics.
Instructions:
Write a single page (single side of the paper) response to the following prompt:
How has the ethical framework you have represented helped you explore your own personal ethics as they apply to computer technology?
Use a standard font in 12 point size.
Use single spacing.
Submit your response as a PDF to the proper assignment in Sakai.
Due Date:
Your response is due in Sakai when class starts (15:30) on 03/07/2019.
Requirements:
Your response to the prompt must:
Identify the ethical framework you have represented. (5 Points)
Provide general insight into how it has helped you explore your own personal ethics. (10 Points)
Provide one specific example from class topics showing how the framework enabled you to explore your personal ethics. (10 Points)
The paper is well-formatted, readable, and without spelling or grammar mistakes (style points). (5 Points)
Personal Response 2 (60 Points)
Purpose:
Explore either the Internet of Things or intrusive/pervasive advertising.
Instructions:
Write a single page (single side of the paper) response to one of the following prompts:
Pick one specific aspect of the Internet of Things (this could be a specific kind of technology, activity, etc.). From the perspective of your new ethical framework, what is the single most troubling ethical issue of your chosen aspect of IoT? Why?
Take a stance on ad blockers (this applies to browsers, in-app advertisements, etc.) according to your new ethical framework. Why is it either ethical or unethical for someone to use an ad blocker?
Use a standard font in 12 point size.
Use single spacing.
Include your name and the date in the top left corner of the page.
Submit your response as a PDF to the proper assignment in Sakai.
Due Date:
Your response is due in Sakai when class starts (15:30) on 03/21/2019.
Requirements:
Your response to the prompt must:
Identify the ethical framework you represent. (5 Points)
Provide general insight into your stance (according to your framework) based on the prompt. (15 Points)
Provide two specific concepts from your framework supporting the position chosen from the prompt. (30 Points)
The paper is well-formatted, readable, the proper length, and without spelling or grammar mistakes (style points). (10 Points)
Personal Response 3 (60 Points)
Purpose:
Explore either computer-aided government surveillance or the social credit score system.
Instructions:
Write a single page (single side of the paper) response to one of the following prompts:
Consider our previous class readings and discussions on corporate data collection and personal data usage. According to your ethical framework, in what ways do government surveillance and personal data collection differ from corporate data collection? If there is not difference, explain why not.
What would your ethical framework have to say about the United States adopting a social credit score system like the proposed system in China (which is not expected to be fully implemented until 2020)? What benefits and detriments would your framework identify?
Use a standard font in 12 point size.
Use single spacing.
Include your name and the date in the top left corner of the page.
Submit your response as a PDF to the proper assignment in Sakai.
Due Date:
Your response is due in Sakai when class starts (15:30) on 03/28/2019.
Requirements:
Your response to the prompt must:
Identify the ethical framework you represent. (5 Points)
Provide general insight into your stance (according to your framework) based on the prompt. (15 Points)
Provide two specific concepts from your framework supporting the position chosen from the prompt. (30 Points)
The paper is well-formatted, readable, the proper length, and without spelling or grammar mistakes (style points). (10 Points)
Personal Response 4 (60 Points)
Purpose:
Explore mission critical systems and life critical systems.
Instructions:
Write a single page (single side of the paper) response to the following prompt:
Consider a catastrophic event occurs where one person dies due to a bug in some software. What ethical responsibilities are incumbent upon the company who created the software in reaction to this event? Who specifically in the company holds those responsibilities (could be multiple people)?
Use a standard font in 12 point size.
Use single spacing.
Include your name and the date in the top left corner of the page.
Submit your response as a PDF to the proper assignment in Sakai.
Due Date:
Your response is due in Sakai when class starts (15:30) on 04/04/2019.
Requirements:
Your response to the prompt must:
Identify the ethical framework you represent. (5 Points)
Provide insight into your personal stance based on the prompt. Be sure to answer both questions posed in the prompt. (15 Points)
Briefly identify the stance of your assigned framework. (10 Points)
Identify how your personal stance agrees with or deviates from the stance of your framework (be specific). (20 Points)
The paper is well-formatted, readable, the proper length, and without spelling or grammar mistakes (style points). (10 Points)
Personal Response 5 (60 Points)
Purpose:
Explore whistleblowing and protections for whistleblowers.
Instructions:
Write a single page (single side of the paper) response to the following prompt:
Consider the whistleblowing activities of Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. From the perspective of a citizen, was the backlash against their actions warranted? Think about both the media reaction and government reaction to their whistleblowing.
Use a standard font in 12 point size.
Use single spacing.
Include your name and the date in the top left corner of the page.
Submit your response as a PDF to the proper assignment in Sakai.
Due Date:
Your response is due in Sakai when class starts (15:30) on 04/11/2019.
Requirements:
Your response to the prompt must:
Provide insight into your personal stance based on the prompt. (25 Points)
Identify at least two specific examples from An Enemy of the People to reinforce your argument. (25 Points)
The paper is well-formatted, readable, the proper length, and without spelling or grammar mistakes (style points). (10 Points)
Personal Response 6 (60 Points)
Purpose:
Explore digital piracy.
Instructions:
Write a single page (single side of the paper) response to the following prompt:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) anti-circumvention and safe harbor provisions are necessary to protect the property (whether intellectual property or otherwise) of digital content providers. Without these two provisions, copyright would be unenforceable in the digital age.
Use a standard font in 12 point size.
Use single spacing.
Include your name and the date in the top left corner of the page.
Submit your response as a PDF to the proper assignment in Sakai.
Due Date:
Your response is due in Sakai when class starts (15:30) on 04/25/2019.
Requirements:
Your response to the prompt must:
Explicitly state your personal agreement or disagreement with the prompt. (5 Points)
Provide insight into your personal stance based on the prompt. (25 Points)
Identify the ethical framework you represent. (5 Points)
Compare and contrast your personal stance with the stance of your framework. (15 Points)
The paper is well-formatted, readable, the proper length, and without spelling or grammar mistakes (style points). (10 Points)
Final Exam (100 Points)
Instructions:
Respond to each of the three questions posed in the exam document (found on Sakai).
Each question response should answer the question in full. Make sure you understand what is being asked.
Each question response should be between 1 and 3 pages in length.
Do not change any of the formatting in the exam document.
This has been prepared for you to provide a uniform experience for you and your peers.
Due Date:
Your final exam is due in Sakai at the end of the scheduled final exam period (12:30) on 05/07/2019.
Requirements:
Each question response (30 Points Each) must:
Answer the question in the proper depth and detail. (20 Points)
Demonstrate mastery in your ability to understand and discuss the chosen framework(s) and topic(s). (10 Points)
The responses are well-formatted, readable, the proper length, and without spelling or grammar mistakes (style points). (10 Points)
