Accountability
Randy Modowski
Adam Reimel
Max Varner
COSC 380
May 23, 2011
Road Map
• Definition
o Accountability vs. Responsibility
• Concerns
• Technologies Impact
o Accountability Trade off
• Legal Aspects
o ACM & SE Codes
• Scenario
o Stakeholders, Risks, Benefits
• Solutions
Definition of Accountability
• Accountability is the state of being accountable,
liable, or answerable.
• In other words the person who is accountable is the
recipient of the consequences of an action.
• A party doesn’t need to be directly responsible for
the action and consequences to be held
accountable, responsible, in this case, meaning the
cause of.
Accountability vs.
Responsibility
• The responsible party is the direct cause of the
incident, while the accountable party can receives
the repercussions of the consequences.
• There are several situations where the party at fault,
or responsible, may not be held accountable;
o instead the leadership, management, equipment
manufacturer (in cases of malfunctions) may be
held legally accountable.
Ethical Concerns (Causes)
• Lack of clear, well thought out goals and specifications
• Poor management and poor communication among
customers, designers, programmers, etc.
• Pressures that encourage unrealistically low bids, low
budget requests, and underestimates of time
requirements
• Use of very new technology, with unknown reliability and
problems
• Refusal to recognize or admit a project is in trouble
• Re-used software from older systems, unaware of bugs
in previous software
• Weaknesses in design of operator interface
• Inadequate test plan
• Bugs in test software
Ethical Concerns
(Problems)
• Software failure has been defined as the occurrence
of either:
o deficient functionality, where the program fails to
perform a required function, or
o deficient performance, where the program
performs a function too slow or in an insufficient
manner.
• Misuse of software or product can lead to piracy and
security issues as well as legal ramifications.
Ethical Concerns (Benefits)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Safety feature
Design functionality
Progress
Observations and perspectives
Innovations
New techniques
Warranties
Technologies Impact
• New technology make it easier to access information
o It has become easier to track and identify users
o It has also become easier to hide your identify
• Most companies legally cover themselves from
misuse through use of there products by have
customers agree to their terms before use. That's
why whenever you download software there is that
long set up time of press “Next” and checking “I
agree”
Accountability Trade Off
• High Accountability
o Devs will be less likely to innovate because with
new technology comes new problems
o End users will be tracked more and will lose
privacy
• Low Accountability
o Devs would be less likely to fully test products and
just try to push out as much as possible for max
profit
o Hacking and other forms of misuse would rise
without someway to hold people accountable
Legal Aspects
• Contract document usually written to decide accountability
of failures, errors, and misuse.
o Contracts between client and developer specifies the
liability and accountability for most cases.
o User contracts which need to be agreed to by end-users
specifies legal accountability of misuse to user.
• Most problems are settled out of higher court levels
• Courts have held contract limitations (warranties)
• Courts have problems with liability standards with the
complexity of computers
• Both sides, accountability v production cannot be one
sided
ACM & SE Codes
• SE 1.01 Developers should accept full responsibility for
their own work.
• SE 1.03 Software must fully test and deemed safe as to
not diminished quality of life.
• SE 3.10 Developer must ensure adequate testing of
product.
• SE 3.15 Treat all forms of software maintenance with
professionalism of as new development.
• ACM 1.1 Contribute to society and human well being.
• ACM 1.2 Avoid harm to others.
• ACM 2.5 Give comprehensive and thorough evaluations
of computer systems and their impact.
Description of Ethical
Scenario
• The Therac-25 was a radiation therapy machine
produced by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL)
after the Therac-6 and Therac-20 units (the earlier units
had been produced in partnership with CGR of France).
It was involved in at least six accidents between 1985
and 1987, in which patients were given massive
overdoses of radiation, approximately 100 times the
intended dose. These accidents highlighted the dangers
of software control of safety-critical systems, and they
have become a standard case study in health
informatics and software engineering.
Interested Parties
1. Developer: (Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL))
• They developed the software and their reputation and liability
would be at stake
• They would like the hospital to be held accountable for the misuse
of the machine
2. Providing Company: Hospital
• They use the device on the patients and could be held accountable
for the deaths of 3 patients, and the massive overdose of 6
patients.
• They would like so see the developer held accountable for the
problems with the machine. Machine should have been more
thoroughly tested.
3. Customer: Patients
• Their stake with this would be radiation overdose
• They would like to see someone held accountable and receive
some kind of compensation.
4. FDA & CRPB
• They were the government entities that tested the
machinery for problems and safety issues
Scenario Risks
• The risks for any accountability issue is that if people
and groups responsible aren't held accountable then
there is no reason to not to bare the minimum in terms
of safety and security since the only thing you have to
lose is people not using your product once its found out
it isn’t safe or reliable.
• Many issues can come up when talking about
accountability in general but the two main ones are
hackers using a companies network for malicious
purpose like obtain private information or financial
information to commit fraud. The other one is products
being released that aren’t safe or reliable.
Scenario Benefits
• For the Therac-25 scenario the benefits of a party
being held accountable serve as financial
compensation for the families affected, either by
injury or death, from the Therac-25 medical
procedure. The end result of the Therac-25 scenario
was the product pulled from use but not before 6
patients died and others were harmed from excess
radiation; those family’s affect filed a class-action
lawsuit against the manufactures of the Therac-25
machine. Which ever party is found accountable will
have to pay the amount of the law suit.
Positive & Negative Rights
• Positive rights
o patients have positive right to health care
o hospitals have positive right to properly working
machinery
o patients and hospitals have positive right to
background knowledge of tests, procedures, and
machinery.
• Negative rights
o patients have negative right to life and security.
o patients have negative right to deny treatment
Solution 1: Hospitals
Accountable
• Hospital is responsible for making sure that the Therac25 is functioning properly
• Hospital is responsible for reporting any errors or
problems with the machine to developer
• Hospital are ethically obligated to be concerned for
patients safety
• Hospital should have made sure they got proper training
• Hospital should compensate all interested parties
• Hospital may save lives by not exposing them to
radiation overdose, but also may lose patients the
Therac-25 may benefit
• Hospital will acquire lawyer fees if sued and have
most likely have to settle with interested parties
Solution 2: AECL
Accountable
• AECL has an ethical responsible for making sure that
the Therac-25 has been properly tested in different
conditions
• AECL is responsible for responding to any
malfunctions or problems with the machine
• AECL should be concerned for the well being of its
patients and act in their best interests.
• AECL needs to ensure that doctors and other
operators are properly trained.
• AECL should compensate patients for mistakes made.
• AECL gets lawsuits; while hospitals need to
replace equipment but can still operate.
Solution 3: Both
Accountable*
• AECL is responsible for offering maintenance to any
machine
• AECL is ethically responsible for making sure that the
machine is properly tested and ready to perform
operations
• Client is ethically responsible for making sure they can
offer the best treatment and have the best trained staff
• Client should make sure staff members are well trained
in using the machine
• Both AECL and Hospital share responsibility in legal
compensation
Conclusion
•
•
•
•
•
•
Accountability
Concerns
Technologies Impact
Legal Aspects
Scenario
Solutions
References
• Baase, Sara. A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and
Ethical Issues in Computing. 3rd ed. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.
• http://computingcases.org/case_materials/therac/su
pporting_docs/therac_resources/Timeline.html
• http://courses.cs.vt.edu/cs3604/lib/Therac_25/Thera
c_1.html
• http://computingcases.org/case_materials/therac/cas
e_history/Case%20History.html
• http://www.ccnr.org/fatal_dose.html