Professional Ethics: When are
Software Engineers Required
to “Blow the Whistle?”
Jonathan Schiff
CS301
Three Views of Whistle-Blowing
• Condemmed as an action taken by
disloyal troublemakers who rat on their
companies and who undermine teamwork
that is based on the hierarchy of authority
within the corporation
• Affirmed unequivocally as an obligation
that is paramount in certain circumstances
where it overrides all other considerations,
whatever the sacrifice involved in meeting
it
• Regarded as a tragedy to be avoided,
though it may sometimes be a necessary
evil
Determining When an Engineer
Should Blow the Whistle
What kind of guidance do the ethical codes
adopted by computer professionals provide
members when they are confronted with
specific dilemmas that could lead to a
whistle-blowing decision?
Software Engineering Code of
Ethics and Professional Practice
• Software engineers shall act consistently with
the public interest
• should “express concern to the people involved
when significant violations of this Code are
detected unless this is impossible,
counterproductive, or dangerous”
• should “report significant violations of this Code
to appropriate authorities when it is clear that
consultation with people involved in these
significant violations is impossible,
counterproductive, or dangerous”
One Opinion: Being Permitted
Versus Being Required to Blow the
Whistle
Permitted:
1. The harm that will be done by the product to
the public is serious and considerable
2. The engineers have made their concerns
known to their superiors
3. The engineers have received no satisfaction
from their immediate supervisors, and they
have exhausted the channels available within
the corporation, including going to the board of
directors
One Opinion: Being Permitted
Versus Being Required to Blow the
Whistle (continued)
Required:
1. The engineers have documented
evidence that would convince a
reasonable, impartial observer that
his/her view of the situation is correct and
the company policy wrong
2. There is strong evidence that making the
information public will in fact prevent the
threatened serious harm
Another Opinion: Being Required to
Blow the Whistle after Only First Three
Conditions are Met
• One has an obligation to disclose organizational
wrongdoing that one is unable to prevent
• The degree of the obligation depends on the
extent to which one can forsee the severity and
consequences of the wrongdoing
• “Harm” is not adequately defined in previous
model: could also involve sexual harassment,
violations of human rights or privacy, industrial
espionage, etc.
• Engineers must be willing to make greater
sacrifices than others because engineers are in
a greater position to do certain kinds of social
harm
A Response to Second Opinion
• Blowing the whistle should only be
required in extraordinary cases
• Doing so in nonextraordinary cases can be
undesirable from an ethical point of view
because it demands that these engineers
to be “moral heroes”
An Alternative Opinion (a sort of
compromise of the previous two)
• Engineers have an obligation to come to the aid
of others
• An engineer’s work must be seen in context of
its relation to society to get an adequate account
of their moral responsibility
• If engineers act as individuals, they may not
always have the ability to help, therefore, they
should act collaboratively with other engineers to
meet all of these responsibilities
Questions?
Comments?
Complaints?