Management and the Technology Professional – B302

Case study answer 1

Being a lead software developer the most outstanding reasons as to why this method of security should not be implemented, is the risk of having this program being a means or a through path to a possible attack on a user’s network or systems. I could face a possible law suit based on negligence of the professional codes of conduct. Under section 9 Duty to Relevant Authority from the British standard code of conduct. Through this some personal ethics have been crossed. As lead developer implementing this software should have clearly stated any possible side effects of the program. Knowing that hiding the root kit program deep amongst the computer operating system in turn will be seen as an act of deceit, this could tarnish my reputation as a lead developer. Additionally under the UK legislation 3.1a “he does any act which causes an unauthorized modification of the contents of any computer;” If it came to legal dispute as being the lead developer of the software I could be fined and be removed from developing software in the coming future.
The consequences of allowing this program to be implemented in order to protect products from piracy are that even, though it is in the best interest of targeting the “bad user”. My decision of letting it install itself deep within the user’s system without their consent reflects an unprofessional decision making process on my part. When users find this program and they eventually will an answer will have to be provided. The ones who will suffer the most out of it would be the honest user. Therefore losing its reputation amongst society Eisner Said “the people they’re trying to stop from stealing music are always going to find a way around these types of technologies.” Eventually regardless of what measures are taken to secure assets someone will find a loop hole and exploit it. The quote shows how dishonest acts of the corporate world will have a domino effect with negative outcomes. My decisions in developing the software could have contributed towards these negative outcomes instead of aiding towards positive.
The quality management of the program was severely negated from my part. Seeing as how the software was put into production goes to show that First4Internet were in accordance and fully aware of how the program operated. Unless First4Internet LTD withheld some information from Sony about the software’s full capabilities which would in turn be putting my position at risk. Though Sony had the right to protect their assets the method used was not viable, as it breached professional codes of conduct.