When a piece of software that people rely on stops working properly, it may be quite inconvenient for those individuals. Companies sell software of which they are aware to have bugs that might result in the program's malfunction; the question is, do these companies have a moral duty to reveal this information? Should they be required to compensate their clients financially in the event that their software malfunctions and results in monetary losses for those clients? Why shouldn't the software business be forced by law to guarantee its products? Manufacturers of consumer items are obligated to guarantee their products.

When a piece of software that people rely on stops working properly, it may be quite inconvenient for those individuals. Companies sell software of which they are aware to have bugs that might result in the program's malfunction; the question is, do these companies have a moral duty to reveal this information? Should they be required to compensate their clients financially in the event that their software malfunctions and results in monetary losses for those clients? Why shouldn't the software business be forced by law to guarantee its products? Manufacturers of consumer items are obligated to guarantee their products.

Principles of Information Systems (MindTap Course List)

13th Edition

ISBN:9781305971776

Author:Ralph Stair, George Reynolds

Publisher:Ralph Stair, George Reynolds

Chapter9: Business Intelligence And Analytics

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 3CTQ1

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

When software doesn't work as intended, it may cause headaches for its users. When companies release software to the public, it is possible that it contains bugs that might cause the program to crash. Should these companies be held to an ethical standard that requires them to provide this information? Should they be required to compensate clients for financial losses brought on by software malfunctions? Manufacturers of consumer goods are mandated by law to provide guarantees on their wares; why shouldn't the software sector do the same?
Users may experience significant disruptions in their daily lives if the software they rely on crashes. When companies release software to the public, it's possible that it contains bugs that might cause the programme to crash. Should these companies be held to some kind of ethical standard that requires them to make this kind of information public? Should they be required to compensate clients for financial losses brought on by software malfunctions? Why shouldn't the software sector be obliged to guarantee its products as the consumer goods industry is?
oung, technically oriented hackers argued that, if the owners of a computer system want to keep outsiders out, it is their responsibility to provide better security. Ken Thompson, one of the inventors of UNIX, said, "The act of breaking into a computer system has to have the same social stigma as breaking into a neighbor’s house. It should not matter that the neighbor’s door is unlocked." Which position do you agree with more? Give your reasons
Users may suffer greatly if a piece of software goes astray. What if a firm knows that their software has flaws that might lead it to fail? Should they be held liable for the financial losses their consumers incur if their scheme fails? Similarly to consumer goods, should they be required to provide warranty coverage for their software?
Robots may be designed to do jobs that are potentially dangerous, offensive, or boring in place of humans. Please provide an example of a task that you think a robot could do more effectively than a human. Why, in your opinion, would it be preferable for individuals to assign this duty to a computer as opposed to another person?
Do you feel it is ethical for a company to provide you with free (or practically free) software in return for the information they collect about you? Are they accountable for the information that they get as well as the way that it is utilized? Maintain the ability to argue for your stance. Please provide an explanation of why you hold the perspective that you do.
Neither the operating system nor the majority of applications are released without some sort of initial hiccup. Tens of thousands of bugs have been found in popular applications. Vendors of software frequently release updates that fix previously discovered bugs. On the second day following the disclosure of a new vulnerability, cybercriminals launch zero-day attacks. No one can argue against the immorality of these criminals' actions, but what responsibility does a software firm have if its incompetence or haste to market causes harm to its customers? Users also have a responsibility to install any necessary security patches on their computers.
Most hackers start their careers breaking into computer systems as teenagers. What can we as a community of computer professionals do to reduce the temptation to become a hacker? What is the difference between a white hat hacker and a black hat hacker? Is there such a thing as a gray hat hacker?
Many everyday items (such as amusement park rides, autos, elevators, and ovens) that you would not normally associate with a computer or information system are now computers or information systems. Are there any hazards, in addition to the benefits? Would you feel more or less comfortable riding a computer-controlled roller coaster, for example? Do the benefits of increased computerization of everyday activities outweigh the risks? What are your arguments for and against?
Do you think it is moral to get free (or almost free) software in return for your personal information? Are they held accountable for the information they get and how they utilize it? Be able to support your claims. Provide an explanation of why you have a certain opinion.
Do you agree that it's reasonable to provide a username and email address in exchange for free or almost free software? Is there a way to make sure they're accountable for the data they acquire and how they utilise it? Be prepared to defend your stance at any time. Your claim must be backed up with proof.
What exactly do you expect when you claim software is of high quality? What role does protection play in your quality definition? Is it possible for an application to be vulnerable but still being "good?