"Ethics essay" solutions/comments:

#1 Claiming that ISU is happy with Krusty drives is dishonest in two ways. The
   specifics are in section 1.3:

   "...circumstances that might lead to conflicts of interest..."

   I should mention that Krusty is my uncle. The second is:

"Membership in volunteer organizations such as ACM may at times place
 individuals in situations where their statements or actions could be interpreted
 as carrying the 'weight' of a larger group of professionals. ..."

   I was claiming to represent ISU (which is not a volunteer organization, but
the intent seems clear,) when I'm really speaking for myself.

#2 3.4 specifically says you should talk to the police _while_ you are designing
   their computer. Other parts of the code address trying to make good products,
   but 3.4 is more specific and obviously wasn't done. Maybe they did their best?
   Another section mentions negative consequences, which isn't the same thing
   as not working well (a negative consequence might be stalling the engine during a
   database search, which might be fixed with a "please stop cruiser" alert,
   then stopping the search when it's taken out of Park.)

#3 Donors to Mr. Schindler might no problem with their names begin public, but
   if that were the case, why would someone _pay_ for the names? The implication
   is that they don't want their names revealed. This would fall under:

   Under privacy, 1.7: "...personal information gathered for a specific
                        purpose not be used for other purposes [without consent]"

   We don't know they didn't consent, but I have a hard time imagining what
   the "may I _sell_ your name to fund-raisers?" request would look like.

   The rules on retention (also under privacy) mention letting it out by
   mistake. For example, if he hired a guy to store the names on on a web
   database which was so poorly secured anyone could see the donor list.
   The other rule on retention applies to saving way more data than you
   need -- like credit card numbers long after you've used them, which is
   just asking for trouble.

#4 The GPL is a relatively widely known "computer thing." It would be ridculous
   to say someone has failed to "Acquire and maintain professional competence" if
   they didn't know every little computer tidbit, but this theoretical coworker must
   think GPL'd software is big enough that anyone calling themselves a professional
   needs to know the basic idea.

   The GPL is also a copyright, which is sort of like a law. It might then fall
   under 2.3: "Know and respect existing laws pertaining to professional work."
   Of course, your shop might never use anything open source, making this a
   non-issue.

   1.5 and 1.6, about stealing ideas, _could_ be a result of not knowing how the
   GPL works, but only because I already failed at the above two things.

#5 Really, anything with a quote from the document to back it up. My opinion was
   that docommoditizing protocols was his main beef, which is about making other
   products worse, not making their's better, and falls under 1.1 "Contribute to
   society," which is extremely vague. The "FUD" comments might also be construed
   as deliberately dishonest, regarding capabilities of computer systems, under
   the "provide appropriate professional review" (assuming that honesty is
   'appropriate.')
   Of course, if you interpret the code too broadly, anything can seem unethical.

   Discrimination is about groups of people. No code that dumbs down the interface
   for female-sounding names, or runs a criminal check for users that "sound black."
   Discriminating against companies that have records of shoddy products is good.
   If they honestly believed Open Source would lead to worse long-term software
   (which doesn't seem to be the case in that memo,) then they should fight it.