Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Understanding Ethical and Social Issues Related to Computer Systems ....................................... 1

Property Rights: Intellectual Property ......................................................................................... 2

Trade Secrets ........................................................................................................................... 3

Copyright ................................................................................................................................ 3

Patents ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Research on computer guidelines ................................................................................................... 5

Research in Business and Behavioral Ethics .................................................................................. 6

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 9

References ....................................................................................................................................... 9
 COMSATS University Islamabad, Lahore Campus

Ethics in Using Computers in Modern Day

Lifestyle

Prepared By: Sayed Samiullah Razi FA16-BBA-415

Ahmad Tamim Aziz FA16-BBA-405
Khubaib Dogar FA16-BBA-055
Under Supervision of: Sir. Qamar Sajjad
For enquiries kindly contact: sami786ss39@gmail.com
Final Project Assignment
Date: 17-12-2018
Introduction

Identifying factors that contribute to unethical behavior and developing methods of

controlling inappropriate behavior in organizations is an area of increasing interest to both
academicians and practitioners. Although there have been several highly publicized recent
cases of accounting scandals (e.g. Enron and others) the functional area within business
organizations that is currently experiencing a number of ethical problems and conflicts, and
therefore may be most in need of investigating, is the area of computer technology
(Rogerson et al., 2000). As the adoption and use of computer technology has increased, the
reported incidence of unethical use of computers has also rapidly increased (Conger and
Loch, 1995). The immense amount of information available to computer users has created
enormous opportunities for the misuse of computers by members of business organizations.

In addition, the proliferation of computer use by employees in all functional areas has
resulted in a variety of ethical problems for society and organizations that are unique to the
use of computer technology. Issues such as software piracy, virus development, and illegal
system access that were once viewed as an annoyance are now considered major problems
for organizations (Gattiker and Kelley, 1999).

Understanding Ethical and Social Issues Related to Computer Systems

Spectacular cases of computer abuse, such as some recent computer viruses, often receive
considerable media attention. However, most instances of computer abuse receive little if
any attention from the media (Straub and Nance, 1990). Thus, once shared by the universal
or social media, the issue takes a more prominent figure and gains a reputation being
another misconduct to inhibition of fraud in using computers. However, it is estimated that
50 to 90 percent of the companies in the USA experience significant financial losses each
year from computer abuse (Pracht, 2000). Estimates of the annual cost of computer crime
are in the billions in our era (Kreie and Cronan, 1999). In addition, public concern about
1
Page
invasion of privacy by computer technology and misuse of data files are at an all -time high
(Pierce and Henry, 2000).

Although a plethora of discussion papers have been devoted to the topic of comp uter ethics
there have been very few empirical studies regarding the ethical use of computers. In
addition, most of the empirical studies on computer ethics have been conducted within
academic settings, primarily involving the perceptions of undergraduate students. Due to
their lack of professional experience and their moral development stage, undergraduates do
not generally provide a suitable surrogate for investigating the ethical attitudes of business
professionals (Robin and Babin, 1997). Remarkably few journal articles have reported the
results of studies on computer ethics involving information systems (IS) professionals
(Paradice and Dejoie, 1990; Vitell and Davis, 1990; Harrington, 1996; Pierce and Henry,
1996, 2000) or computer users in general (Gattiker and Kelley, 1999).

While most discussions on ethical use of computers have focused on issues involving IS
professionals, the views of computer users are also extremely important since they often
encounter many critical ethical dilemmas with regards to the use of computers (Conger et
al., 1995). Thus, end users are frequently responsible for the unethical use of company
computers. As an example, 50 employees at Dow Chemicals were recently terminated due to
e‐mail abuse (Trombly, 2000). Another reason why it may be important to investigate the
views of computer users is that there are apparently a number of differences in the way IS
personnel in other functional areas view computer related ethical issues (Paradice and
Dejoie, 1990).

Property Rights: Intellectual Property

Contemporary information systems have severely challenged existing laws and social
practices that protect private intellectual property. Intellectual property is considered to be
intangible property created by individuals or corporations. Information technology has made
it difficult to protect intellectual property because computerized information can be so
easily copied or distributed on networks (Laudon, 2012). Intellectual property is subject to a
variety of protections under three different legal traditions: trade secrets, copyright, and
2
Page

patent law.
Trade Secrets

Any intellectual work product—a formula, device, pattern, or compilation of data—used for
a business purpose can be classified as a trade secret, provided it is not based on information
in the public domain (Laudon, 2012). Protections for trade secrets vary from country to
country and continent to continent. In general, trade secret laws grant a monopoly on the
ideas behind a work product, but it can be a very tenuous monopoly. Software that contains
novel or unique elements, procedures, or compilations can be included as a trade secret.
Trade secret law protects the actual ideas in a work product, not only their manifest ation. To
make this claim, the creator or owner must take care to bind employees and customers with
nondisclosure agreements and to prevent the secret from falling into the public domain. The
limitation of trade secret protection is that, although virtuall y all software programs of any
complexity contain unique elements of some sort, it is difficult to prevent the ideas in the
work from falling into the public domain when the software is widely distributed.

Copyright

Copyright is a statutory grant that protects creators of intellectual property from having their
work copied by others for any purpose during the life of the author plus an additional 70
years after the author’s death (Laudon, 2012). For corporate-owned works, copyright
protection lasts for 95 years after their initial creation. Congress has extended copyright
protection to books, periodicals, lectures, dramas, musical compositions, maps, drawings,
artwork of any kind, and motion pictures. The intent behind copyright laws has been to
encourage creativity and authorship by ensuring that creative people receive the financial
and other benefits of their work. Most industrial nations have their own copyright laws, and
there are several international conventions and bilateral agreements through which nations
coordinate and enforce their laws. In the mid-1960s, the Copyright Office began registering
software programs, and in 1980, Congress passed the Computer Software Copyright Act,
which clearly provides protection for software program code and for copies of the original
sold in commerce, and sets forth the rights of the purchaser to use the software while the
creator retains legal title. Copyright protects against copying of entire programs or their
3
Page

parts. Damages and relief are readily obtained for infringement. The drawback to copyright
protection is that the underlying ideas behind a work are not protected, only their
manifestation in a work. A competitor can use your software, understand how it works, and
build new software that follows the same concepts without infringing on a copyright. “Look
and feel” copyright infringement lawsuits are precisely about the

distinction between an idea and its expression. For instance, in the early 1990s, Apple
Computer sued Microsoft Corporation and Hewlett-Packard for infringement of the
expression of Apple’s Macintosh interface, claiming that the defendants copied the
expression of overlapping windows. The defendants countered that the idea of overlapping
windows can be expressed only in a single way and, therefore, was not protectable under the
merger doctrine of copyright law. When ideas and their expression merge, the expression
cannot be copyrighted. In general, courts appear to be following the reasoning of a 1989
case—Brown Bag Software vs. Symantec Corp.—in which the court dissected the elements
of software alleged to be infringing. The court found that similar concept, function, general
functional features (e.g., drop-down menus), and colors are not protectable by copyright law
(Brown Bag Software vs. Symantec Corp., 1992).

Patents

A patent grants the owner an exclusive monopoly on the ideas behind an invention for 20
years (Laudon, 2012). The congressional intent behind patent law was to ensure that
inventors of new machines, devices, or methods receive the full financial and other rewards
of their labor and yet make widespread use of the invention possible by providing detailed
diagrams for those wishing to use the idea under license from the patent’s owner. The
granting of a patent is determined by the United States Patent and Trademark Office and
relies on court rulings. The key concepts in patent law are originality, novelty, and
invention. The

Patent Office did not accept applications for software patents routinely until a 1981
Supreme Court decision that held that computer programs could be a part of a patentable
process. Since that time, hundreds of patents have been granted and thousands await
4

consideration. The strength of patent protection is that it grants a monopoly on the

Page

underlying concepts and ideas of software. The difficulty is passing stringent criteria of
non-obviousness (e.g., the work must reflect some special understanding and contribution),
originality, and novelty, as well as years of waiting to receive protection.

Research on Computer Guidelines

As a result of the numerous ethical problems associated with computer technology, many
researchers have recommended the implementation of codes of ethics specifically for
computer applications (Walsham, 1996). For example, with respect to computer abuse,
Vitell and Davis (1990 p. 70) state, “It seems imperative that more organizations should
write and enforce codes of ethics.” Loch and Conger (1996, p. 83) suggest, “Organizations
should develop policies, guidelines, and training that link attitudes and soci al norms to
foster ethical computing by their employees.” Gattiker and Kelley (1999, p. 252) concluded,
“The development of ethical standards and regulations that are perceived as acceptable and
appropriate by the majority of users is needed to facilitate compliance with legislation and
with company and industry policies for the ethical use of computer technology.”

Professional organizations appear to have taken the advice offered by researchers. To cope
with problems associated with unethical use of computer technology, several professional
organizations such as ACM (Association for Computing Machinery), DPMA (Deutsches
Patent- und Markenamt - Startseite), IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers), and others have developed a professional code of ethics (Walsham, 1996). In
addition, many firms have incorporated regulations specifically related to the use of
computers in the company’s code of ethics (Pierce and Henry, 1996). Evidently,
organizations, IS professionals, and researchers assume that formal computer guidelines are
an effective method of eliminating or at least reducing the improper use of computer
technology.

Although much work has been devoted to the development of guidelines for computer use,
the effectiveness of computer guidelines remains questionable (Pierce and Henry, 1996).
Only three studies have apparently examined the effectiveness of computer guidelines on
the misuse of computers. None of the studies appear to provide much support for the value
5

of computer guidelines as a means of reducing the unethical use of computers.

Page
Vitell and Davis (1990) examined the effects of both professional and company codes of
ethics on the opportunity to engage in unethical behavior and the frequency of unethical
behavior by IS personnel. The results indicated that neither a company nor a professional
code of ethics had any influence on either variable. Harrington (1996) investigated the
effects of generic ethics codes and IS specific codes on judgments and intentions regarding
computer abuse by IS professionals. The results demonstrated that IS specific codes were
not related to judgments about whether certain hypothetical actions constituted unethical use
of computers or intentions to engage in the unethical use of computers. The results were
only slightly better for generic codes of ethics. For a few of the ethical issues examined,
generic codes were effective, for example, for IS personnel who were characterized as high
in denial of responsibility. For IS professionals classified as low in denial of responsibility,
generic codes were not effective.

A more recent study examined the relationship between IS specific codes and the ethical
beliefs of IS professionals on three types of ethical issues (Pierce and Henry, 2000). The
three types of ethical issues examined included, opportunity, obligation, and intent. IS
professionals provided responses representing their personal beliefs on each of the ethical
issues and then indicated how they perceived their co‐workers and their company would
view each of the ethical issues. The results indicated there were no differences between the
three types of ethical issues. With regards to perceptions on how the organization would
view the potentially unethical issues, a positive influence of computer guidelines was
observed on two‐thirds of the ethical issues. However, there was not much support for the
notion that IS guidelines influenced the ethical beliefs of IS professionals or the perceived
views of co‐workers. Thus, the researchers concluded, “the influence of an organizational
code seems to be limited to perceived organizational norms and not generalized to personal
and co‐worker norms” (Pierce and Henry, 2000, p. 319).

Research in Business and Behavioral Ethics

Although the amount of empirical research on computer ethics is limited, a number of

studies have examined ethical behavior in business organizations and several theories have
6
Page

been offered to account for the results. Most of the theories on ethics in the workplace have
attributed the ethical attitudes of an individual to either situational variables, characteristics
of the individual, or an interaction between these two factors (Treviño, 1986). Two recent
articles have presented a comprehensive review of the research in business ethics by
categorizing the studies according to these two factors (Ford and Richardson, 1994; Loe et
al., 2000).

Some of the situational factors examined in the area of business ethics include t he influence
of the organization’s ethical culture, the sanctions and rewards associated with complying
with ethical guidelines, the support of top management, and the influence of referent others.
Perhaps the most frequently invested situational factor in business ethics is the effects of a
formal code of ethics. While some studies have reported that a formal ethics code was
associated with higher ethical standards, other studies have found either no effect, or a very
weak influence for ethics codes (Ford and Richardson, 1994; Treviño et al., 1999; Loe et
al., 2000). Several explanations have been offered to account for the conflicting results. One
possibility is that the mere existence of an ethics code is not sufficient. It has been
postulated that in order to be effective, upper management must be committed to adopting
and enforcing sanctions for the code of ethics and that the guidelines must be unambiguous
and clearly communicated to the employees (Laczniak and Inderrieden, 1987; Vitell and
Davis, 1990).

It is generally assumed that a number of personal characteristics also influence the

likelihood an individual will engage in unethical activity. Numerous studies have
investigated individual differences in ethical attitudes due to such variables as perso nal
attributes (e.g. religion, nationality, sex, age), educational background, and personality
beliefs and values (Ford and Richardson, 1994; Loe et al., 2000). In addition, several
researchers have speculated that individual factors may have an impact on the manner in
which situational variables influence ethical attitudes (Treviño, 1986; Harrington, 1996).
Thus, the effectiveness of ethics codes may be dependent on a number of individual
variables. An individual variable that would seem likely to moderate the influence of ethics
codes is the degree to which an individual believes in universal moral rules. That is, some
individuals may believe that certain acts (e.g. not being truthful) are always wrong. Other
7
Page
individuals may reject the notion that there are universal moral rules and assume that what
constitutes ethical behavior depends on the situation or outcome of the behavior.

The possibility that individuals differ in terms of the degree to which they believe in
universal moral rules versus the belief that ethics is relative or dependent on the situation
has been incorporated into a number of theories on ethical behavior. For example, Forsyth
(1980) proposed that the beliefs of individuals varied along a continuum ranging from a
strong belief in universal moral rules to a belief that what is ethical is relative. Conversely,
Kohlberg’s (1969) original model viewed moral development as progressing through a
series of stages and levels. At the highest level of moral development, the principled level,
individuals are assumed to believe in universal values or principles.

It would seem logical to assume that individuals with a strong belief in universal moral rules
would not be highly influenced by situational factors, such as computer guidelines. This
notion is consistent with most theories on ethical beliefs. For instance, Kohlberg’s model
proposed that individuals functioning at the highest level of moral reasoning adhere to a
self‐chosen set of moral rules and are assumed to reason beyond the norms, laws, or
authority of any individual group or society. Thus, it might seem reasonable to expect that
individuals with a strong belief in universal moral rules would not be susceptible to the
influence of situational variables or guidelines on the use of company computers.

Conversely, it might be reasonable to expect individuals who do not adhere to a belief in

universal moral rules would rely on external or situational factors to determine what is
ethically appropriate in a given situation. Again, this reasoning is consistent with most
theories on ethical beliefs. For example, in Kohlberg’s model, individuals classified at the
conventional level of moral reasoning, those individuals who have not progressed to the
highest level of moral development, are assumed to determine what is ethically appropriate
based on the expectations of good behavior by others, such as a family, a peer group, or
society in general. The ethical behavior of individuals at this level is expected to be highly
influenced by laws, regulations, and referent others. Thus, it might be logical to assume that
the ethical attitudes of individuals who do not believe in universal moral rules could be
8

influenced by situational factors, such as computer guidelines.

Page
Conclusion

Clear computer guidelines may serve not only as rules to inhibit the unethical use of
computers, but also to inform users concerning what is considered to be inappropriate use of
company computers. For example, in the past, copying computer software had become so
common that it was often viewed as socially acceptable (Vitell and Davis, 1990). Thus,
guidelines may be needed to clarify and correct misconceived notions regarding what is
considered acceptable use of computers. As the use of computer technology continues to
grow within organizations it would seem logical to expect that new ethical issues will
develop. To assist employees in coping with new ethical dilemmas it would be beneficial for
organizations to clearly communicate what is considered appropriate use of computers in as
many circumstances as possible.

With respects to possible shortcomings in the current literature, it should be noted that, the
factors reported in this literature are likely to be influenced by the tendency of some
symptoms to provide socially desirable responses. It is probably unlikely that any control
procedure is capable of completely eliminating this bias. However, it would seem unlikely
that a socially desirable response bias could vastly contradict with that of a known fact of
unethical norm’s unethicality and ethical practices’ validity. The guidelines and belief in
universal moral rules will still rank a head and shoulder above the rest of so called unethical
social practices in computing an using media devices.

References

1. Armstrong, J.S. and Overton, T.S. (1977), “Estimating nonresponse bias in mail
surveys”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 14, pp. 396‐
402. [Crossref], [ISI], [Google Scholar]
2. Conger, S. and Loch, K.D. (1995), “Introduction”, Communications of the ACM,
Vol. 38, p. 32. [Crossref], [ISI], [Google Scholar]
9
Page
3. Conger, S., Loch, K.D. and Helft, L. (1995), “Ethics and information technology use:
a factor analysis of attitudes to computer use”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 5,
pp. 161‐84. [Crossref], [ISI], [Google Scholar]
4. DeVellis, R.F. (1991), Scale Development: Theories and
Applications, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. [Google Scholar]
5. Ford, R.C. and Richardson, W.D. (1994), “Ethical decision making: a review of the
empirical literature”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 13, pp. 205‐
21. [Crossref], [ISI], [Google Scholar]
6. Forsyth, D.R. (1980), “A taxonomy of ethical ideologies”, Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, Vol. 39, pp. 175‐84. [Crossref], [ISI], [Google Scholar]
7. Gattiker, U.E. and Kelley, H. (1999), “Morality and computers: attitudes and
differences in moral judgments”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 10, pp. 233‐
54. [Crossref], [ISI], [Google Scholar]
8. Harrington, S.J. (1996), “The effect of codes of ethics and personal denial on
computer abuse judgments and intentions”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 20, pp. 257‐
77. [Crossref], [ISI], [Google Scholar]
9. Kohlberg, L. (1969), “State and sequence: the cognitive developmental approach to
socialization”, in Goslin, D.A. (Ed.), Handbook of Socialization Theory and
Research, Rand, Chicago, IL. [Google Scholar]
10. Kreie, J. and Cronan, T.P. (1999), “Copyright, piracy, privacy, and security issues:
acceptable or unacceptable actions for end users?”, Journal of End User Computing,
Vol. 11, pp. 13‐20. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
11. Kreie, J. and Cronan, T.P. (2000), “Making ethical decisions: how companies might
influence the choices one makes”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 45, pp. 66‐
71. [Crossref], [ISI], [Google Scholar]
12. Laczniak, G. and Inderrieden, E.J. (1987), “The influence of stated organizational
concern upon ethical decision making”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 6, pp. 297‐
307. [Crossref], [ISI], [Google Scholar]
13. Laudon, K.C. (1995), “Ethical concepts and information
10

technology”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 38, pp. 33‐

Page

9. [Crossref], [ISI], [Google Scholar]

14. Loch, K.D. and Conger, S. (1996), “Evaluating ethical decision making and
computer use”, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 39, pp. 74‐
83. [Crossref], [ISI], [Google Scholar]
15. Loe, T.W., Ferrell, L. and Mansfield, P. (2000), “A review of empirical studies
assessing ethical decision making in business”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 25,
pp. 185‐204. [Crossref], [ISI], [Google Scholar]
16. Magner, N., Welker, R.B. and Johnson, G.G. (1996), “The interactive effects of
participation and outcome favourability on turnover intentions and evaluations of
supervisors”, Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, Vol. 69,
pp. 135‐43. [Crossref], [ISI], [Google Scholar]
17. Mason, R. (1986), “Four ethical issues of the information age”, MIS Quarterly, Vol.
10, pp. 4‐12. [Crossref], [ISI], [Google Scholar]
18. Metzger, M., Dalton, D.R. and Hill, J.W. (1993), “The organization of ethics and the
ethics of organizations: the case for expanded organizational ethics
audits”, Business Ethics Quarterly, Vol. 3, pp. 27‐43. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]
19. Murphy, K.R. (1993), Honesty in the Workplace, Brooks/Cole, Belmont,
CA. [Google Scholar]
20. Paradice, D.B. and Dejoie, R.M. (1990), “The ethical decision‐making processes of
information systems workers”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 10, pp. 1‐
21. [Crossref], [ISI], [Google Scholar]
21. Pierce, M.A. and Henry, J.W. (1996), “Computer ethics: the role of personal,
informal, and formal codes”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 15, pp. 425‐
37. [Crossref], [ISI], [Google Scholar]
22. Pierce, M.A. and Henry, J.W. (2000), “Judgments about computer ethics: do
individual, co‐worker, and company judgments differ? Do company codes make a
difference?”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 28, pp. 307‐
22. [Crossref], [ISI], [Google Scholar]
11
Page