UPI Study › Courses › Ethics in Technology › Free lessons › Lesson 15.7 Free with a free account
The Formal Rules and Pledges That Define Acceptable Professional Behavior
Ethics in Technology · Chapter 15: Doing the Right Thing: Ethics, Media Responsibility, and Digital CitizenshipSection 15.7 · lesson 106 of 11615 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Ethics in Technology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Ethics in Technology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: How Privacy, Security, and Ownership Rights Overlap in the Digital Landscape →← Creating Systems and Cultures That Encourage Employees to Behave EthicallyNext lesson: How Privacy, Security, and Ownership Rights Overlap in the Digital Landscape →
In this lesson
Formal principles, conduct rules and accountability in computing professions.
- Distinguish a code of ethics from a code of conduct
- Compare the ACM, IEEE and ISC2 codes
- Explain a professional oath or pledge’s purpose
- Describe review and sanctions for alleged code violations
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,866 words). Read along, or search it.
Doing the Right Thing: Ethics, Media Responsibility, and Digital Citizenship
Professional Codes and Pledges
Professional organizations publish codes, which connect acceptable behavior with the purposes of a profession. This lesson compares broad principles, concrete rules, personal pledges, and consequences for violations. The first objective distinguishes a code of ethics, from a code of conduct. The next compares three organizations: ACM, IEEE, and ISC two, in their computing-related fields. Their codes use different wording, while sharing concern for the people affected by technology. Then explain why a professional oath or pledge, adds a personal moment of commitment. Finally, describe how alleged violations are reviewed, before an organization determines a consequence. A complaint is not a confirmed violation. Evidence and procedures matter. The source presents an introductory process, while each organization has its own actual requirements. We will distinguish that general model, from ISC two's written evidence-based complaint procedure. Together, these mechanisms connect professional judgment, shared expectations, personal commitment, and accountability.
2 Related Functions
Ethical Principles Explain Why; Conduct Rules Specify What
A code of ethics states broad values and principles, describing the professional ideal. It helps practitioners reason about responsibility, including cases a rulebook has not anticipated. A code of conduct makes expectations more concrete, specifying required and prohibited behavior. It may also describe violations, procedures, and consequences, for breaches of those rules. The source's diagram compares the functions: principles explain why, while conduct rules specify what. The distinction is useful, but it does not create an absolute boundary between document titles. Many professional organizations combine both functions, within a single published code. Ethics does not automatically mean optional. Ethical commitments can also be enforceable. ISC two's Code of Ethics, for example, contains mandatory canons linked with certification. Specific conduct rules still need interpretation, and cannot anticipate every situation a professional may face. Read the document's actual obligations and procedures, rather than inferring them from its name alone.
Principles and Rules
A New Situation Still Requires Professional Judgment
New or ambiguous situations make broad principles useful, because a detailed rule may not address the problem. The ethical principles explain what matters, and help evaluate responsibilities toward the people affected. Specific rules add practical guidance, about situations the organization has already considered. A combined document can connect those principles, with duties, professional conduct, and accountability. That connection helps prevent rules becoming detached, from the reasons they were established. It also gives broad values a practical expression, rather than leaving them as unsupported aspirations. The ACM code treats itself as a basis for decision-making, rather than an automatic algorithm. A practitioner still needs judgment, when several relevant principles bear on the same issue. The existence of a code therefore does not eliminate, the work of examining facts and responsibilities. Use both its guidance and its requirements, to understand the particular ethical concern. Professional judgment should connect the code to the problem, rather than merely reciting its title.
3 Professional Organizations
Each Code Connects Responsibility With Its Field of Work
The source compares three professional organizations, each with a different membership focus. ACM serves computing broadly, including computer scientists, software developers, and computing researchers. Its code emphasizes contributions to society and human well-being, alongside avoiding harm and professional responsibilities. IEEE serves electrical, electronics, and computer engineers, among other technology-related practitioners. Its code holds the safety, health, and welfare of the public paramount. ISC two serves certified cybersecurity professionals, including holders of the CISSP credential. Its Code of Ethics contains four mandatory canons, with society, public trust, and infrastructure appearing first. The wording reflects each code's professional context. The ethical purposes are related. The public concerns overlap, even when the formulation and immediate professional duties differ. Each code asks practitioners to consider responsibilities, beyond their own immediate employer or client. Compare the emphasis carefully, without assuming one profession has no concern for another's stated priority.
ACM and IEEE
Broad Computing Principles and Public-Safety Duties Overlap
ACM stands for the Association for Computing Machinery, whose code addresses the effects of computing work. The reading highlights contributions to society and human well-being, together with avoiding harm. Those principles give professionals reasons to consider people, beyond the immediate technical task. The current code also makes the public good paramount, when considering competing principles. IEEE means the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, with a related public orientation. Its code explicitly holds public safety, health, and welfare paramount, in professional responsibilities. The source emphasizes that wording, when other professional obligations appear to pull in another direction. This priority is more specific than merely saying, the practitioner should fulfill an employer's request. However, recognizing a priority does not automatically resolve every difficult case, without facts and judgment. Both codes connect technology work with its effects on people, while using distinct professional formulations. The useful comparison concerns emphasis and duties, rather than an exclusive competition between public values.
ISC2
Society, Public Trust and Infrastructure Appear in the First Canon
ISC two's first canon concerns protecting society, the common good, public trust and confidence, and infrastructure. Those concerns make cybersecurity responsibility broader, than simply satisfying the person commissioning a task. The code has four mandatory canons, rather than a long list of narrowly specified scenarios. The other canons address honest, responsible and lawful conduct, competent service, and support for the profession. Their high-level character still requires the professional, to exercise ethical judgment in the actual situation. ISC two expressly connects adherence with certification, making the commitment more than a voluntary slogan. The source contrasts its first listed wording, with IEEE's formulation about paramount public safety. Both concern the public. Their terminology emphasizes different aspects of the professional context. List position alone should not be treated as a mechanical answer, to every conflict of duties. Read the whole applicable code, and consider what its obligations require of the actual conduct. The important distinction is a profession's stated responsibility, connected with a meaningful standard for its members.
Oaths and Pledges
Personal Affirmation Reinforces the Written Commitment
An oath or pledge is a personal affirmation, of a profession's ethical principles. It is often shorter than a code, and may be recited or signed ceremonially. The source mentions moments such as graduation, certification, or licensure, when the commitment becomes personally explicit. Its purpose is to create a felt obligation, rather than merely adding another document to read. The practice echoes professional traditions, including the Hippocratic oath associated with medicine. Computing fields have also explored affirmations, and voluntary technology pledges for graduates or new employees. The reading references short software-engineering statements, alongside these experiments in personal commitment. The joint software-engineering code has short and full versions, connecting broad aspirations with practical detail. A short code is not automatically a required oath, and voluntary pledges are not universal licensing obligations. An affirmation reinforces the code's written principles, rather than replacing its requirements or the practitioner's judgment. The personal ceremony should support subsequent professional conduct.
Source Enforcement Model
Review the Claim Before Determining a Consequence
The source's enforcement diagram presents five stages, for understanding review of an alleged violation. First, a complaint or suspected violation is reported, so the professional body receives the concern. Second, the claim is examined; the source describes the organization investigating what has been reported. Third, the accused member responds, and a hearing may follow under the relevant procedure. Fourth, a review body determines whether a violation occurred, based on the available evidence. Fifth, an appropriate sanction is applied, if the finding and applicable rules justify it. This model distinguishes allegation, review, response, determination, and consequence, rather than collapsing them together. It is an introductory overview, not a promise that every body uses the same investigation powers. Some organizations rely on written evidence, rather than conducting their own investigation or holding a hearing. A reported concern starts consideration. It is not, by itself, a confirmed finding of misconduct. For an actual case, the organization's own rules determine, how the review and decision proceed.
ISC2’s Actual Procedure
Written Evidence and Response Support the Review
ISC two's published process illustrates why the general diagram, needs qualification for a particular organization. The committee considers written complaints, identifying the relevant canon and supplying supporting evidence. The respondent receives notice, with an opportunity to provide information in response to the allegation. Written submission requirements apply, rather than an assumption that any informal accusation is sufficient. The committee evaluates the material, and recommends action to the board under its process. The board determines discipline, rather than the original complainant selecting a consequence. ISC two explicitly states that its committee, is not an investigative body. It also states it cannot compel testimony, and relies on evidence submitted voluntarily. The review needs sufficient supporting material, to justify proceeding beyond a bare allegation. These details preserve fairness and evidentiary assessment, instead of treating the source model as an exact procedure. They also explain why reading the actual professional body's rules, is part of using its code responsibly.
Sanctions and Professional Consequences
Certification Loss Can Affect Work Beyond Reputation
A sanction is a consequence, authorized for a confirmed violation of a professional code. The source gives a range, from warnings to suspension, and removal from the organization. Different bodies have different options, so the range is not every organization's identical sanction ladder. The available consequences depend on its policy, the findings, and the nature of the violation. For a certifying body, the effect can extend beyond reputation, to loss of a professional credential. ISC two's code identifies possible certification revocation, following its review of knowing or intentional violations. The source uses CISSP to illustrate, why that consequence can matter for a practitioner's work. Some roles require a particular credential, making its loss relevant to eligibility for those roles. That does not mean revocation automatically creates a legal ban, on every form of cybersecurity employment. The practical point is a concrete professional consequence, beyond the disapproval of colleagues alone. Accountability has weight when the organization can apply, an authorized consequence through a justified process.
4 Key Terms and Takeaways
Keep Guidance, Commitment and Accountability Connected
Review four key terms, which distinguish guidance, commitment, and consequences in professional practice. A code of ethics supplies broad principles, supporting judgment and the profession's standards. Those commitments may also be mandatory; the title alone does not make them optional. A code of conduct states specific behavioral requirements, together with applicable enforcement provisions. A professional oath or pledge is a personal, ceremonial affirmation, reinforcing professional principles. A sanction is an authorized consequence, for a confirmed violation of the code. The first takeaway distinguishes principles from rules, while recognizing that one document can combine their functions. The second compares ACM, IEEE, and ISC two, preserving both distinct emphases and shared public responsibilities. The third explains the personal commitment, which an oath adds to written principles. The fourth connects structured review with consequences, including the professional effects of certification loss. Together, they link a code's ethical reasons, with the conduct and accountability expected from practitioners.
Review and Apply
Explain the Function and the Limits of Each Mechanism
The first review asks about ethics and conduct, comparing broad principles with specific behavioral rules. Explain their functions, while recognizing combined documents and mandatory commitments within codes of ethics. The second compares IEEE and ISC two, using the wording of their highlighted public responsibilities. IEEE names paramount safety, health, and welfare; ISC two first names society, public trust, and infrastructure. The third asks what an oath adds: a personal affirmation, at a significant professional moment. It strengthens commitment to the written code, rather than replacing that code or ethical judgment. The fourth asks about revocation, linking credential loss with roles that require the credential. That concrete effect goes beyond reputation, without implying a universal legal prohibition on work. The fifth asks for the source's review stages: complaint, examination, response, determination, and justified sanction. Qualify that introductory model, with the actual procedure of the body considering the case. For every answer, connect the mechanism with its function, and preserve the evidence needed for accountability.
About Ethics in Technology at UPI Study
Ethics in Technology (Computer Science 195) is a self-paced online course of 116 video lessons in 15 chapters, from cybersecurity basics, privacy and surveillance to big data, hacking, malware, network defense, intellectual property, cybercrime, encryption, emerging technology and digital citizenship. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Computer Science courses
Compare: Cybersecurity vs Ethics in Technology · Which ethics course?
Why take it here
Why students take Ethics in Technology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Ethics in Technology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About The Formal Rules and Pledges That Define Acceptable Professional Behavior
What is the difference between a code of ethics and a code of conduct?
How do the ACM, IEEE, and ISC2 codes of ethics compare?
Why do some professions use an ethics oath or pledge?
Can you lose your CISSP for violating the ISC2 Code of Ethics?
About the Ethics in Technology course
How many college credits is Ethics in Technology?
How much does Ethics in Technology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Ethics in Technology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Ethics in Technology.
116 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →