Management and the Technology Professional – B302
Case study answer 1
Multiple reasons exist for which the employees and thus head developer of First4Internet Ltd. could have been considered liable for due to their work on the production of the Sony rootkit software. These reasons can be grouped by the relevant legislation (or other source) they violate, thus explaining how it should not have been developed.
Firstly, the content of the British Computing Society’s (BCS) code of conduct is drawn upon. Although only applicable to members, (and it is unknown whether First4Internet Ltd. or Sony BMG consider themselves members) the BCS code of conduct provides guidelines that computing professionals such as those relevant here should be bound by.
It is believed that paragraph 9 of this code of conduct is broken by First4Internet Ltd. where it states:
“You shall not misrepresent or withhold information on the performance of products, systems or services, or take advantage of the lack of relevant knowledge or inexperience of others.”
The nature of the rootkit software developed can be said to break this paragraph by its’ action of hiding the files necessary for the copy protection mechanisms thus preying on the inexperience of users who purchased the affected discs. This statement can also be said to be broken by the supposed uninstaller applications released by Sony later on, due to their not performing as advertised.
Secondly, though conflicting reports are mentioned, the rootkit software installed itself regardless of whether the user had accepted or declined the software’s EULA. This action violates a couple of sections of the Computer Misuse Act 1990, namely that the access to the computer and thus to conduct the action of software installation performed, is unauthorised.
More significantly however is that in section 3 “unauthorised modification of computer material” where the rootkit software both causes unauthorised modification of the contents of the computer, (by installing the copy protection mechanisms) impairs the operation of the computer (by preventing certain actions usually associated with a computer and an audio CD, such as copying and ripping) and hinders access to that data, due to it being hidden.
Finally, on a moral basis the staff at First4Internet Ltd. would have been entirely aware of the operation of the software they were developing throughout its’ development time. This should have continually raised many issues with the actions performed by the software which (were the company staff all members of the BCS) they would have known violated a professional code of conduct, and being computer users themselves they would have disagreed with.
To summarise, it is believed that the most compelling argument against the development of the rootkit software is the threat toward the professional careers of every member of staff responsible for its’ development. Being the lead developer, he or she would have been responsible for the work carried out by all staff and therefore most likely their reputations as the events of the Sony BMG lawsuits no doubt caused.
