An explanation of the Doing Ethics Technique Graham R Seach Simpson, C. R., Nevile, L., & Burmeister, O. K. (2003). Doing ethics: A universal technique in an accessibility context. Australian Journal of Information Systems, 10(2), 127-133. The 'Doing Ethics' technique (DET) is a process for analysing ethical issues in any scenario. It doesn't guarantee that what you come up with will be the best solution, but it does help you to think ethically. That said, I understand that the technique may seem a little vague and perhaps lacking guidance. To that end, the following might help you to understand how to apply the technique in order to better understand ethical analysis. To gain the most from the technique, you must explore and answer all eight questions in the order in which they are posed. Each question stands alone and you cannot take the view that because you have given information in response to one question that you can omit the same information from subsequent questions. Q1. What's going on? This is a synopsis of what the case is all about. It is written in your own words, and can be taken from a variety of perspectives, for example, from the perspective of a person raising a complaint, in which case, it is a synopsis of the complaint. It can be taken from the perspective of an uninvolved observer, in which case, it is an outline of what was observed, without going into too much detail. Where you see multiple perspectives, you should describe them here. This question should target a reader who has no knowledge of the case at hand, and is a brief outline of the case. Q2. What are the facts? This is a descriptive list of all the facts of the case. It doesn't just describe the case, but lists all the facts as they are known (from all sources and perspectives), and also what one might reasonably consider to be possibilities. For example, if a person was raising a complaint, Question 1 would outline their complaint, and Question 2 would provide the detailed facts and the evidence to both support and refute the claims (facts). All facts listed here must be supported by credible evidence, of which the case itself is one source. If you choose, you may optionally assign a credibility weighting to each fact, to help with later analysis. Q3. What are the ethical and non-ethical issues? This is a list of ALL the issues that are involved in the case, whether they be ethical, legal, social or otherwise. In Question 5 we extract only the ethical issues for further analysis, but for now, simply list and describe every relevant issue you can think of. This is probably the most difficult and important question to get right, because Question 5 can only include the ethical that you have raised here in Question 3. Therefore, this question must be a complete and comprehensive list of ALL the issues. Q4. Who is affected? This is a list of all the stakeholders (people and entities) invo.

1. An explanation of the Doing Ethics Technique
Graham R Seach
Simpson, C. R., Nevile, L., & Burmeister, O. K. (2003). Doing
ethics: A universal technique in an
accessibility context. Australian Journal of Information
Systems, 10(2), 127-133.
The 'Doing Ethics' technique (DET) is a process for analysing
ethical issues in any scenario. It doesn't
guarantee that what you come up with will be the best solution,
but it does help you to think
ethically. That said, I understand that the technique may seem a
little vague and perhaps lacking
guidance. To that end, the following might help you to
understand how to apply the technique in
order to better understand ethical analysis.
To gain the most from the technique, you must explore and
answer all eight questions in the order
in which they are posed. Each question stands alone and you
cannot take the view that because you
have given information in response to one question that you can
omit the same information from

2. subsequent questions.
Q1. What's going on?
This is a synopsis of what the case is all about. It is written in
your own words, and can be taken from
a variety of perspectives, for example, from the perspective of a
person raising a complaint, in which
case, it is a synopsis of the complaint. It can be taken from the
perspective of an uninvolved
observer, in which case, it is an outline of what was observed,
without going into too much detail.
Where you see multiple perspectives, you should describe them
here. This question should target a
reader who has no knowledge of the case at hand, and is a brief
outline of the case.
Q2. What are the facts?
This is a descriptive list of all the facts of the case. It doesn't
just describe the case, but lists all the
facts as they are known (from all sources and perspectives), and
also what one might reasonably
consider to be possibilities. For example, if a person was raising
a complaint, Question 1 would

3. outline their complaint, and Question 2 would provide the
detailed facts and the evidence to both
support and refute the claims (facts). All facts listed here must
be supported by credible evidence, of
which the case itself is one source. If you choose, you may
optionally assign a credibility weighting to
each fact, to help with later analysis.
Q3. What are the ethical and non-ethical issues?
This is a list of ALL the issues that are involved in the case,
whether they be ethical, legal, social or
otherwise. In Question 5 we extract only the ethical issues for
further analysis, but for now, simply
list and describe every relevant issue you can think of. This is
probably the most difficult and
important question to get right, because Question 5 can only
include the ethical that you have raised
here in Question 3. Therefore, this question must be a complete
and comprehensive list of ALL the
issues.
Q4. Who is affected?
This is a list of all the stakeholders (people and entities)
involved in the case. You should not restrict

4. the list to those stakeholders specifically named in the case;
moreover, you must consider who/what
else might be affected by the issues listed at Question 3, and
include them regardless of the degree
to which they may be affected. In this question, you must
describe how each stakeholder is affected,
both positively and negatively, and you may optionally
comment on the degree of effect. In
answering this question, you must think broadly to arrive at a
comprehensive list of stakeholders.
Q5. What are the ethical issues and implications?
For this question, you must extract only the ethical issues
identified at Question 3. You cannot add
any issue that was not listed at Question 3. Discuss the ethical
issues in terms of classical ethical
theory, relevant codes of ethics/codes of conduct, and discuss
the implications of each issue on the
nominated stakeholders, relevant industries, and on the
community in general. You must ensure to
support any statement or claim you make with credible
evidence.

5. Q6. What can be done about it?
This question elicits a general idea of what can be done to
resolve the case, whether those ideas are
practical, possible, or not. Describe in your own words
generally what kind of resolutions there
might be. You need not go into great detail to answer this
question, as its purpose is to provide a
basis for answering Questions 7 and 8, but you do need to think
broadly and laterally to come up
with several alternatives - at least four. Be creative; the most
obvious courses of action are not
always the only ones.
Q7. What are the options?
This question requires that you list and describe (in detail) all
the possible options that might be
available to resolve the case. This question is based upon the
alternatives you described in Question
6, and your responses here can only include your alternatives
from Question 6. It is possible that not
all the options will result in a positive outcome for all
stakeholders, so you must describe the
perceived positive and negative outcomes of each option. List

6. and describe at least three different
options. The answer you give at Question 8 can only be one of
the options given here at Question 7.
Q8. Which option is best - and why?
In answering this question, you need to assess which of the
options described in Question 7 is the
best. You are recommending a single option from those
described in Question 7. You must argue
one option against the other, weighing up their benefits and
detriments, providing a solid basis in
fact and reasonable (and supportable) conjecture. In other
words, you must clearly demonstrate
why your chosen option is better than any of the others. You
must add some of your own
intellectual property, as an ICT professional, into answering
this question. You may reiterate
arguments from previous questions to help argue your case.
What’s going
on?

7. What are the
facts?
What are the
issues?
Who is
affected?
What are the
ethical issues
and
implications?
What can be
done about
it?
What options
are there?
Which option
is best – and
why?
Prepared by: Assoc. Prof. Nalin Sharda Moderated by: Dr.
Imran Jokhio July, 2017

8. Assessment Details and Submission Guidelines
Unit Code MN501
Unit Title Network Management in Organisations
Term, Year Term‐2, 2017
Assessment
Type
Assignment‐1
Assessment Title Ethical issues for IT security personnel
Purpose of the
assessment
(with ULO
Mapping)
The purpose of this assignment is to develop skills in
research, critical analysis and
academic writing of high standard. In this assignment students
will:
Identify potential ethical and social issues related to IT adminis
tration ethics.
Discuss ethical and social issues pertaining to IT systems‐admin
istration.
Interpret professional codes of ethics developed by various indu
stry bodies.

9. Discuss ethical behaviour in accordance with professional codes
.
ethical solutions to ensure that the society benefits.
Students must be able to generate ideas at abstract levels
and support their
arguments with strong reasoning. Students must strengthen criti
cal thinking skills by
answering the assignment.
Weight 10%
Total Marks 100
Word limit 500 ‐ 1000
Due Date Week‐7 Thursday 5.00 PM.
Submission
Guidelines
All work must be submitted on Moodle by the due date along wi
th a completed
Assignment Cover Page.
The assignment must be in MS Word format, 1.5 spacing, 11‐pt
Calibri (Body) font
and 2 cm margins on all four sides of your page with appropriat
e section headings.
Reference sources must be cited in the text of the report, and lis
ted appropriately
at the end in a reference list using IEEE referencing style.

10. Extension an extension of time to submit work is
required, a Special Consideration
Application must be submitted directly to the School's Administ
ration Officer, in
Melbourne on Level 6 or in Sydney on Level 7. You must subm
it this application
three working days prior to the due date of the assignment. Furt
her information is
available at:
http://www.mit.edu.au/about‐mit/institute‐publications/policies‐
procedures‐and‐
guidelines/specialconsiderationdeferment
Academic
Misconduct
Misconduct
is a serious offence. Depending on the seriousness of the
case, penalties can vary from a written warning or zero marks to
exclusion from
the course or rescinding the degree. Students should make
themselves familiar
with the full policy and procedure available
at:http://www.mit.edu.au/about‐
mit/institute‐publications/policies‐procedures‐and‐guidelines/Pl
agiarism‐
Academic‐Misconduct‐Policy‐Procedure.For further
information, please refer to
the Academic Integrity Section in your Unit Description.
MN501 Network Management in Organisations Page 2 of 4

11. Prepared by: Assoc. Prof. Nalin Sharda Moderated by: Dr.
Imran Jokhio July, 2017
Assignment Description
Debra Shinder writes, “In fact, many IT pros don't even realize t
hat their jobs involve ethical issues. Yet we
make decisions on a daily basis that raise ethical questions [1].”
Debra poses the following ethical scenarios.
0)
IT and security consultants who do work for multiple companies
have even more ethical issues to
deal with. If you learn things about one of your clients that mig
ht affect your other client(s), where
does your loyalty lie? Should you use the information
gained from Client‐A for the benefit of the
other client, Client‐B?
1)
Then there are money issues. The proliferation of network attac
ks, hacks, viruses and other threats
to their IT infrastructures have caused many companies to "be a
fraid, be very afraid." As a security
consultant, it may be very easy to play on that fear to convince
companies to spend far more money
than they really need to. Is it wrong for you to charge hundreds
or even thousands of dollars per
hour for your services, or is it a case of "whatever the market wi
ll bear?"
2)
Is it wrong for you to mark up the equipment and software that

12. you get for the customer when you
pass the cost through? What about kickbacks from equipment m
anufacturers? Is it wrong to accept
"commissions" from them for persuading your clients to
go with their products? Or what if the
connection is more subtle? Is
it wrong to steer your clients toward the products of companies
in
which you hold stock?
3)
Another ethical issue involves promising more than you can deli
ver, or manipulating data to obtain
higher fees. You can install technologies and configure
settings to make a client's network more
secure, but you can never make it completely secure. Is it wrong
to talk a client into replacing their
current firewalls with those of a different manufacturer, or swit
ching to an open source operating
system – which changes, coincidentally, will result in
many more billable hours for you – on the
premise that this is the answer to their security problems?
4) What if a client asks you to save money by cutting
out some of the security measures that you
recommended, yet your analysis of the client's security needs sh
ows that sensitive information will
be at risk if you do so? You try to explain this to the client, but
he/she is adamant. Should you go
ahead and configure the network in a less secure manner? Shoul
d you "eat" the cost and install the
extra security measures at no cost to the client? Should you refu
se to do the job?
Investigate and reflect upon one of the above scenarios using Et

13. hical Guidelines published by organisations
such as: EA, ACS, ACM and IEEE.
Students with ID ending with 0 or 5, answer scenario number 0
Students with ID ending with 1 or 6, answer scenario number 1
Students with ID ending with 2 or 7, answer scenario number 2
Students with ID ending with 3 or 8, answer scenario number 3
Students with ID ending with 4 or 9, answer scenario number 4
[1]
D.Shinder, ‘Ethical Issues for IT security professionals’, 2005. [
Online]. Available
http://www.computerworld.com/article/2557944/security0/ethic
al‐issues‐for‐it‐security‐
professionals.html [Accessed 28‐July‐2017]
MN501 Network Management in Organisations Page 3 of 4
Prepared by: Assoc. Prof. Nalin Sharda Moderated by: Dr.
Imran Jokhio July, 2017
Marking criteria:
You must use the following aspects as headings for your answer
.
Marks are allocated as follows:
Aspects Description of the section Marks

14. Introduction Introduce the ethical issues in 3‐5 sentences 10
Identification Identify at least 2 important ethical issues 20
Analyse Analyse the above identified issues 20
Evaluate/justification
Evaluate the issues and write justification of your evaluation
20
Conclusion Write clear conclusion in 2‐3 sentences 20
Reference style Follow APA or IEEE reference style 10
Total 100
MN501 Network Management in Organisations Page 4 of 4
Prepared by: Assoc. Prof. Nalin Sharda Moderated by: Dr.
Imran Jokhio July, 2017
Marking Rubric for Assignment‐1:Total Marks 50
Grade
Mark
HD

15. 80‐100%
DI
70‐79%
CR
60‐69%
P
50‐59%
Fail
<50%
Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Introduction
All topics are
pertinent and
covered in depth.
Ability to think
critically and
source material is
demonstrated
Topics are
relevant and
soundly
analysed.
Generally
relevant and
analysed.

16. Some relevance
and briefly
presented.
This is not
relevant to the
assignment
topic.
Identification
Demonstrated
excellent ability to
think critically and
sourced reference
material
appropriately
Demonstrat
ed excellent
ability to
think
critically but
did not
source
reference
material
appropriatel
y
Demonstrated
ability to think
critically and

17. sourced
reference
material
appropriately
Demonstrated
ability to think
critically and did
not source
reference
material
appropriately
Did not
demonstrate
ability to think
critically and
did not source
reference
material
appropriately
Analyse
Logic is clear and
easy to follow with
strong arguments
Consistency
logical and
convincing
Mostly
consistent

18. logical and
convincing
Adequate
cohesion and
conviction
Argument is
confused and
disjointed
Evaluate/justific
ation
Excellent use of
creditable sources.
Accurate
referencing.
Obvious that
outstanding effort
made
Extremely
good effort
Good effort
made but not
outstanding
Made some
effort. For
example, Web
searches only

19. Very little
attempt to
reference. Lazy
effort with
inaccuracies
Conclusion
Logic is clear and
easy to follow with
strong arguments
Consistency
logical and
convincing
Mostly
consistent
logical and
convincing
Adequate
cohesion and
conviction
Argument is
confused and
disjointed
Reference style

20. Clear styles with
excellent source of
references.
Clear
referencing
style
Generally good
referencing
style
Sometimes
clear
referencing
style
Lacks
consistency
with many
errors