Ethics and Professional Practice Assessment item 2
Instructions

Answer the following questions. All questions carry equal weight (5% of all assessments in this subject).

1. Consider the following scenario:

Google Inc., perhaps the most well-known search engine company in the world, also owns and/or operates several subsidiary services and Web-based applications. These include, Gmail, Google Maps, Google+, Google Calendar, Google Chrome, Picasa, AdSense/Adwords, and so forth. In the past, each had its own privacy policy. In 2012, however, Google replaced the individual policies with one comprehensive privacy policy across all of its services. When it implemented this change, Google also announced that the company would share user account data across all its services. Critics note that a user’s search engine history could be shared with YouTube, or vice versa, and that a user’s Google+ account data might be shared with Adwords to generate more targeted advertising.

Source: Tavani, H. T. (2014). Ethics and Technology: Controversies, Questions, and Strategies for Ethical Computing (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons Publishers., pp.166
Analyse the above case using the philosophical ethics perspective.
2. Although Kant’s version of deontology has at least one significant flaw, some philosophers believe that a deontological account of morality is nonetheless the correct kind of ethical theory. (Tavani, 2014)

Critique the concept of Act Deontology using suitable examples.
3. Explain some virtues and shortcomings of the Australian Computer Society Code of Ethics.

4. The term “Dataveillance” was coined by Roger Clarke in the eighties (http://www.rogerclarke.com/DV/ ). Explain the ethical implications of “Dataveillance” in a modern day context using suitable examples.

Referencing
All sources of information must be appropriately referenced using the APA style

Marking criteria
Question#
STANDARDS
FL
PS
CR
DI
HD
Q.1
1. Major omissions in the application of the ethical perspective and the analysis.

(Value: 45%)
2. Either no evidence of literature being consulted or cited references irrelevant to the assignment set.

(Value: 30%)
3. Unsubstantiated/ invalid conclusions based on anecdote and generalisation only, or no conclusions at all.

(Value: 15%)
4. Writing style not fluent or well-organised, and many grammatical and spelling mistakes.

(Value: 10%)

1. Mostly correct application of the ethical perspective; includes reasonable level of analysis. Some omissions.

(Value: 45%)
2. Some evidence of research.

Some mistake in referencing style.

(Value: 30%)
3. Limited evidence of findings and conclusions supported by theory/literature.

(Value: 15%)
4. Writing style not always fluent or well organised and grammar and spelling contain errors.

(Value: 10%)
1. Correct application of the ethical perspective and mostly comprehensive analysis with suitable examples;

(Value: 45%)
2. Clear evidence of research relevant to the subject; uses indicative texts identified.
Referencing style correctly used. Minor omissions only.

(Value: 30%)
3. Evidence of findings and conclusions grounded in theory/literature.

(Value: 15%)
4. Mostly fluent writing style appropriate for the assignment with mostly accurate grammar and spelling. Minor omissions only.

(Value: 10%)
1. Demonstrated clear understanding of the relevant ethical perspective.

Correct application of the ethical perspective and mostly comprehensive analysis with suitable examples. (Value: 45%)
2. Clear evidence of research relevant to the subject; able to critically appraise the literature and theory gained from a variety of sources.

Referencing style correctly used.

(Value: 30%)
3. Good development shown in summary of arguments in the conclusion based in theory/literature.

(Value: 15%)
4. Mostly Fluent writing style appropriate for the assignment with accurate grammar and spelling.

(Value: 10%)
1. Demonstrated clear understanding of the relevant ethical perspective.

Correct application of the ethical perspective and comprehensive analysis with suitable examples.

(Value: 45%)
2. Referenced a wide range of high quality sources which have been thoroughly analysed, applied and discussed, developing own ideas in the process.

Referencing style correctly used.

(Value: 30%)
3. Analytical and clear conclusions drawn, well grounded in theory and literature showing development of new concepts.

(Value: 15%)
4. Fluent writing style appropriate for the assignment with accurate grammar and spelling.

(Value: 10%)
Q.2
1. Major omissions in the answer.

(Value: 45%)
2. Either no evidence of literature being consulted or cited references irrelevant to the assignment question.

(Value: 30%)
3. Unsubstantiated/ invalid conclusions based on anecdote and generalisation only, or no conclusions at all.

(Value: 15%)
4. Writing style not fluent or well-organised, and many grammatical and spelling mistakes.

(Value: 10%)

1. Correct and mostly complete answer. Some omissions.

(Value: 45%)
2. Some evidence of research. Some mistake in referencing style.

(Value: 30%)
3. Limited evidence of findings and conclusions supported by theory/literature.

(Value: 15%)
4. Writing style not always fluent or well organised and grammar and spelling contain errors.

(Value: 10%)
1. Correct and mostly comprehensive explanation grounded in theory/literature.

At least two suitable examples used to explain concepts.

(Value: 45%)
2. Clear evidence of research relevant to the subject; uses indicative texts identified.

Referencing style correctly used. Minor omissions only.

(Value: 30%)
3. Evidence of findings and conclusions grounded in theory/literature.

(Value: 15%)
4. Mostly fluent writing style appropriate for the assignment with mostly accurate grammar and spelling. Minor omissions only.

(Value: 10%)
1. Demonstrated clear understanding of the relevant ethical theory in the given context.

Mostly comprehensive explanation grounded in theory/literature.

At least two suitable examples used to explain concepts.

(Value: 45%)
2. Clear evidence of research relevant to the subject; able to critically appraise the literature and theory gained from a variety of sources.

Referencing style correctly used.

(Value: 30%)
3. Good development shown in summary of arguments in the conclusion based in theory/literature.

(Value: 15%)
4. Mostly Fluent writing style appropriate for the assignment with accurate grammar and spelling.

(Value: 10%)
1. Demonstrated clear understanding of the relevant ethical theory in the given context.
Comprehensive explanation grounded in theory/literature.

More than two suitable examples used to explain concepts.

(Value: 45%)
2. Referenced a wide range of sources which have been thoroughly analysed, applied and discussed, developing own ideas in the process.

Referencing style correctly used.

(Value: 30%)
3. Analytical and clear conclusions drawn, well grounded in theory and literature showing development of new concepts.

(Value: 15%)
4. Fluent writing style appropriate for the assignment with accurate grammar and spelling.

(Value: 10%)
Q.3

1. Major omissions in the answer.

(Value: 60%)
2. Either no evidence of literature being consulted or cited references irrelevant to the assignment set.
(Value: 30%)
3. Writing style not fluent or well-organised, and many grammatical and spelling mistakes.

(Value: 10%)

1. A correct analysis provided. Some omissions.

(Value: 60%)
2. Some evidence of research. Some mistake in referencing style.

(Value: 30%)
3. Writing style not always fluent or well organised and grammar and spelling contain errors.

(Value: 10%)
1. A reasonably compete analysis including the virtues and shortcomings clearly identified grounding in theory/literature. Examples used in explanation. Some omissions.

(Value: 60%)
2. Clear evidence of research relevant to the subject; uses indicative texts identified.

Referencing style correctly used. Minor omissions only.

(Value: 30%)
3. Mostly fluent writing style appropriate to the assignment with mostly accurate grammar and spelling. Minor omissions only.

(Value: 10%)
1. A comprehensive analysis including the virtues and shortcomings clearly identified grounding in theory / literature. Suitable examples used in explanation.

Minor omissions only.

(Value: 60%)
2. Clear evidence of research relevant to the subject; able to critically appraise the literature and theory gained from a variety of sources.

Referencing style correctly used.

(Value: 30%)
3. Mostly Fluent writing style appropriate to assignment with accurate grammar and spelling.

(Value: 10%)
1. A comprehensive analysis including the virtues and shortcomings clearly identified, grounding in theory/literature. Suitable examples used in explanation.

(Value: 60%)
2. Referenced a wide range of sources which have been thoroughly analysed, applied and discussed, developing own ideas in the process.

Referencing style correctly used.

(Value: 30%)
3. Fluent writing style appropriate to the assignment with accurate grammar and spelling.

(Value: 10%)
Q.4
1. Major omissions in the answer.

(Value: 55%)
2. Either no evidence of literature being consulted or cited references irrelevant to the assignment set.

(Value: 20%)
3. Unsubstantiated/ invalid conclusions based on anecdote and generalisation only, or no conclusions at all.

(Value: 15%)
4. Writing style not fluent or well-organised, and many grammatical and spelling mistakes.

(Value: 10%)

1. Mostly correct analysis. Some omissions.

(Value: 55%)
2. Some evidence of research. Some mistake in referencing style.

(Value: 20%)
3. Limited evidence of findings and conclusions supported by theory/literature.

(Value: 15%)
4. Writing style not always fluent or well organised and grammar and spelling contain errors.

(Value: 10%)
1. Mostly comprehensive analysis grounded in theory/literature. At least three suitable examples used to explain concepts.

(Value: 55%)
2. Clear evidence of research relevant to the subject; uses indicative texts identified.

Referencing style correctly used. Minor omissions only.

(Value: 20%)
3. Evidence of findings and conclusions grounded in theory/literature.

(Value: 15%)

4. Mostly fluent writing style appropriate to the assignment with mostly accurate grammar and spelling. Minor omissions only.

(Value: 10%)
1. Correct and comprehensive analysis grounded in theory/literature. At least three suitable examples used to explain concepts.

(Value: 55%)
2. Clear evidence of research relevant to the subject; able to critically appraise the literature and theory gained from a variety of sources.

Referencing style correctly used.

(Value: 20%)
3. Good development shown in summary of arguments in the conclusion based in theory/literature.

(Value: 15%)
4. Mostly Fluent writing style appropriate to assignment with accurate grammar and spelling.

(Value: 10%)
1. Correct and comprehensive analysis grounded in theory/literature. More than three suitable examples used to explain concepts.

(Value: 55%)
2. Referenced a wide range of sources which have been thoroughly analysed, applied and discussed, developing own ideas in the process.

Referencing style correctly used.

(Value: 20%)
3. Analytical and clear conclusions drawn, well grounded in theory and literature showing development of new concepts.

(Value: 15%)
4. Fluent writing style appropriate to the assignment with accurate grammar and spelling.

(Value: 10%)