Randy Modowski Adam Reimel Max Varner COSC 380 May 23, 2011 Accountability

Definition o Accountability vs. Responsibility Concerns Technologies Impact o Accountability Trade off Legal Aspects o ACM & SE Codes Scenario o Stakeholders, Risks, Benefits Solutions Road Map

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. Definition of Accountability

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. Accountability vs. Responsibility

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 (Causes)

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 (Problems)

Safety feature Design functionality Progress Observations and perspectives Innovations New techniques Warranties Ethical Concerns (Benefits)

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” Technologies Impact

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 Accountability Trade Off

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 Legal Aspects

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. ACM & SE Codes

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. Description of Ethical Scenario

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 Interested Parties

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 Risks

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. Scenario Benefits

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 Positive & Negative Rights

Hospital is responsible for making sure that the Therac- 25 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 1: Hospitals 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 2: AECL Accountable

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

Accountability Concerns Technologies Impact Legal Aspects Scenario Solutions Conclusion

Baase, Sara. A Gift of Fire: Social, Legal, and Ethical Issues in Computing. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Print. pporting_docs/therac_resources/Timeline.htmlhttp://computingcases.org/case_materials/therac/su pporting_docs/therac_resources/Timeline.html c_1.htmlhttp://courses.cs.vt.edu/cs3604/lib/Therac_25/Thera c_1.html e_history/Case%20History.html e_history/Case%20History.html References