Level 3
A line of reasoning has been followed to produce a coherent, relevant, substantiated and logically structured response. Answers in this level will demonstrate a clear and detailed awareness of the properties of solid-state drives. The response covers a wide range of issues and is likely to cover the moral ethical, legal and cultural aspects of the question. Several of the points made will have been expanded upon using clear examples and references to real-world implications.

Level 2
A line of reasoning has been followed to produce a mostly coherent, relevant, substantiated and logically structured response. Answers in this level will identify a small number of properties of solid-state drives but may fail to develop points. The response is likely to cover at least two of moral, ethical, legal and cultural aspects of the question. Some of the points made may have been expanded on.

Level 1
There is little evidence that a line of reasoning has been followed. Answers in this level may identify some properties of solid-state drives. Answers may have attempted to identify some moral, ethical, legal and cultural issues. Points are not likely to be expanded upon but where they are, the examples may not be relevant or not relate to the points being made.

Indicative content

Area 1: Moral, ethical, legal and cultural issues

Moral (individual beliefs)
There is the potential for the technology to be misused by criminals (eg stalking, tracking partners/children/pets/strangers/property without permission).
Criminals could put them into the pockets/luggage of targets/victims/children to find out where they live.
Individuals might become over-reliant on the technology and not look after their property.
Individuals might not wish for their phones to be used to send signals on behalf of other users or in support of the company’s network, even with encryption.

Ethical (society)
Right to privacy eroded as your movements are tracked by the company.
“Big Brother” society where your every move is monitored and analysed.
Could it be used to track people in a good way, for example elderly or ill patients.
Individuals in some jurisdictions will have had to agree for their phones to relay signals in support of the company’s network but they may not want to or even know that they have agreed to such terms.

Legal
As the tag moves internationally through different countries different laws will exist about data collection and privacy.
Computer Misuse Act would be applied in the UK to prevent unauthorised access to the tag and the location data.
General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) affords protections to data subjects and provides rights relating to access, accuracy, deletion, etc.

Cultural (subgroups)
Older people might be very distrustful or fearful of this technology.
This tag would only work in an area with a high number of phones / phone coverage, therefore it is not suitable for rural locations or places with few phone users for other reasons.
Different societies may have different views on the privacy issues related to location tracking.

Area 2: Suitability of storage device

Solid-state drive properties:
Higher read and write speeds than hard disks (because there are no moving parts means they’d be more likely to keep up with the requests).
Less prone to (terminal) failure from dropping/collisions/movement (because there are no moving parts or joints), which means there is less likelihood of costs being incurred from damaged drives.
Generally more energy efficient, which can lead to reduced costs (operational and/or cooling), provide a cooler / more comfortable operating environment, and be more environmentally friendly.
Generally small in physical size, which means that the amount of space required to house them / operational cost can be reduced.
More expensive (per bit) for the same amount of memory, (which means that the company would be investing more in the purchase of the drives initially).
The lifetime of a solid-state drive is relatively fixed, due to there being an approximate maximum number of writes before it becomes unreliable/unusable.

Marks are for AO1 (understanding) and AO2 (analyse):

Image Capture:

- Light enters through / is focussed by the lens on to (an array of sensors on) the sensor chip. A. light sensors capture/record light (intensity). A. CCD as sensor.

- Each sensor produces an electrical current/signal.

- The signal represents a pixel.

- An (ADC) converts measurement of light intensity into binary/digital data.

- A (colour) filter is applied to generate separate data values for red, green and blue colour components.

- The pixels are recorded as a group/array.

Moral/Ethical Issues:

- Could the AI or computer program include unconscious bias as a result of the dataset it has access to or the programmers?

- Would the owners of the system use the system to steer customers towards more expensive/higher profit garments?

- Will the owners of the system use the data collected for other purposes?

- May put pressure on users to spend more money than they have.

- Application may include advertising for certain brands.

- Photographs may be uploaded by third parties and the result used without knowledge / consent of the person in the photograph.

- Might the application recommend outfits which may be deemed inappropriate by some?

Legal Issues:

- Will the data be stored securely?

- Who will own copyright of the generated images?

- An image identifies a living person and so can be classed as personal data under the Data Protection Act / GDPR.

- How will the application authenticate that the photograph is of the person using the system or has the permission of the person whose photograph it is?

- Will there be an age authentication of the user of the system? Will there be an age restriction? How is this verified?

- How long will the images be made available for?

Cultural Issues:

- Some outfits suggested may be offensive to certain groups of users (e.g., in certain religions).

- Could the AI make inappropriate decisions about what clothes to suggest based on ethnicity / gender / disability / body-size?

- Developers may deliberately or unintentionally (due to the algorithm) influence fashion trends.

• Level of response marking with levels from 1 to 4:
• 4: A line of reasoning has been followed to produce a coherent, relevant, substantiated, and logically structured response. Answers in this level will demonstrate a clear justification of the use of lossy compression and show a developed awareness of how the benefits of lossy compression are related to one another. The response covers all four aspects (lossy, ethical, legal, cultural) of the question. A range of the points made will have been expanded upon using clear examples and references to real-world implications. (10–12 marks)
• 3: A line of reasoning has been followed to produce a coherent, relevant, substantiated, and logically structured response. Answers in this level will address the use of lossy compression but there may not always be a clearly demonstrated understanding of the benefits. The response covers at least three aspects (lossy, ethical, legal, cultural) of the question. Some points made will have been expanded on and some of these will have been expanded upon using examples but these might not always exemplify the points made or lack references to real-world implications. (7–9 marks)
• 2: A line of reasoning has been followed to produce a mostly coherent, relevant, substantiated, and logically structured response. The response lists some issues that focus on only two or three aspects (lossy, ethical, legal, cultural) of the question. Some points made will have been expanded upon but lack clear examples or may not wholly relate to the points being made. (4–6 marks)
• 1: No evidence that a line of reasoning has been followed. Answers in this level may identify a point relating to the use of lossy compression but this part of the question may not be addressed at all. The response will attempt to identify some issues raised by the question; points are not likely to be expanded upon but where they are, examples may be irrelevant or not relate to the points being made. (1–3 marks)
• Indicative content for lossy compression justification:
• Scale/volume of data: the company has a large volume of audio to store due to the number of users;
• Size of files: lossy compression reduces file size for transmission/storage, offering greater compression than lossless;
• Audio quality: files retain enough quality to allow analysis, removing unnecessary/redundant data while maintaining usability.
• Indicative content for ethical, legal, and cultural issues:
• Ethical issues, such as:
• The company has a justifiable goal of improving algorithms, benefiting customers, especially individuals who may rely on voice controls.
• The company may capture illegal activity, raising questions about reporting responsibilities.
• Employees could misuse recordings, and inappropriate material exposure may affect employee welfare.
• Concerns about privacy erosion in homes and obtaining informed consent for data collection.
• Potential for distrust between users and the company, and risks of data misuse.
• Legal issues, including:
• Compliance with data laws like GDPR or Data Protection Act, ensuring data security, integrity, confidentiality, and availability.
• International legislative compliance for data transmission and storage, and risks of legislative circumvention.
• Cultural issues, such as:
• Data use for algorithm improvement, allowing for better support of dialects, languages, or disabilities.
• Respecting cultural norms or expectations of privacy across different regions.

Level of response question

Examples could include:

Note: Some points may fit under more than one heading. These have been indicated with a #.

Moral/Ethical

• It is unethical to collect data about people without them knowing what the data is to be used for. #
• It is unethical to have residents wear a device if they don't have a full understanding of its capabilities.
• If the device is in testing, it may not be as reliable as the PERS devices.
• The observers may watch the streams for reasons other than monitoring. #
• It may not be ethical to have your actions monitored in more detail than just your essential life signs.
• Could be an invasion of privacy. #
• Who controls the data? Should a resident be able to press a button to stop the recording?
• Need to consider exactly what data should be recorded/stored. #

Legal

• Will the data be stored securely? #
• If the data is being life blogged, who will be able to see it?
• Will the data be stored in compliance with the data protection regulations?
• Who will be responsible if the devices go wrong and someone dies? #
• Will the data be shared with doctors?
• What happens if the observers see something (eg an illegal act) being carried out on the life blogger cameras? #
• How long will data be stored?
• Can monitor staff/visitors via camera in case of abuse allegation. #
• Do visitors need to be told about cameras? #
• What happens to data when the resident dies? How long can the data be kept for?
• Can next of kin get access to data?
• Who owns the data – the company/home/residents? #
• In what country will the data be stored?

Cultural

• Some people from some cultures may not like being videoed (particularly without their knowledge).
• Residents may not want staff of the opposite gender viewing images of them in certain situations. #

Examples of points covered in depth

Level of response question

Examples could include:

Ethical

• Law enforcement officers may see disturbing images/messages on the phone which could affect the way they feel.
• This may be seen as a breach of privacy.
• Personal data such as photos of family may be lost.
• Law enforcement officers may misuse the phones for their own purposes.
• Law enforcement officers may be able to use the phone to contact (potential) victims and offer support.
• Law enforcement officers may use the phones to perform "stings" on other criminals.
• The ethical issue is one of creating "a slippery slope." If the law enforcement officers are granted access in this case, where will it stop? Will foreign governments have similar access – or the right for the encrypted data to be shared
• This could cause increased conflict between law enforcement officers and the public.
• People may have private photos/data which while legal may go against their culture or the cultural beliefs of the law enforcement officer.
• Breach of trust between manufacturer and client (count as legal if contract rather than trust).

Legal

• Relevant legislation identified with reference to personal information or privacy.
• Law enforcement officers may be able to make a decision not to press charges based upon evidence on the phone // May have to let people they believe to be guilty go free if they cannot access data.
• This may be in breach of (human rights of) privacy.
• Law enforcement officers may be able to use the data to solve other crimes.
• Law enforcement officers may be able to use the data to prevent further criminal activity.
• Allowing access to encrypted information stored on the phone may undermine the very freedoms and liberty that the law is meant to protect.
• Providing access to phones may also create a vulnerability that hackers (from hostile countries) can exploit.
• A legal issue when a judge gives permission for a phone's encrypted data to be accessed and it can't/it is refused.
• If we have the technology to prevent terrorist attacks by gaining valuable data from the attackers' electronic devices then access to encrypted data should be allowed.
• The police may not keep the data as secure as the user wants.
• Law enforcement officers may edit the data on the phone.
• What level of authority/who is needed to give permission to a law enforcement officer to access data?
• Manufacturers may be breaking the law by refusing to allow access.

Students may be awarded marks for individual issues or expansions upon issues.

Expansion points may include further details on how the issue may arise or the impact of the issue occurring. Examples of expansion points could include:

• Law enforcement officers may accidentally lose data through inexperience.
• While it may be a breach in human rights privacy, this may be outweighed by lives saved.
• If personal data is lost, the owner of the phone may lose income from missed business appointments.

Level of response question

Note: The following notes are indicative content only and should not be used as a checklist.

Moral:

• The developers may have to take on board the responsibility should an accident occur.
• The developers may need to develop systems that cause the vehicle to make moral decisions in times of crisis e.g. if a crash is inevitable, what does the vehicle choose to crash in to.
• The developer will have to accept that they are perpetuating or increasing use of vehicles which may have a negative impact on the environment.
• The ability to keep them protected from hackers who might want to take over their controls while someone is on-board.

Ethical:

• The developer may be putting taxi drivers out of business.
• By developing self-driving taxis, other similar businesses may follow suit causing further ethical considerations.
• Customers may not realise the taxi is computer-controlled until they enter the vehicle leaving them in a dilemma.
• If a customer is taken ill the taxi may not be able to deal with the situation.

Legal:

• Legal responsibility for accidents may be called into question.
• If videos/images are taken during driving these may infringe the privacy of the occupants.
• Passengers may find it easier to defraud or not pay the taxi company.

Cultural:

• Some cultures may dislike the assignation of human virtues on machines.
• The culture of the 'cabbie' may be damaged.
• As most accidents are caused by driver error and so the use of driverless cars, in theory, would improve safety. How can the public be persuaded of this?
• Driverless cars would, in theory, reduce congestion and so how can this be communicated to improve uptake?

Level of response question

Points may include:

Ethical:

• Consider if material in images could be of harm to children
• Identifying and requesting permission from any members of public caught on the images.
• Members of the public may not be as happy being photographed in a building as they are on the streets.
• Recording of adverts could lead to unfair product placement
• Considering what harmful uses users of the system might use the captured images for.
• Considering how often Google should update the image data.
• Dealing with copyrighted information that might have been inadvertently captured.
• Considering that access via Street View might reduce the number of paying customers for museums.
• Are young people being dissuaded from leaving home to visit public buildings leading to poor health.
• Need to consider which areas of a building are appropriate to film (eg toilets, offices, research laboratories)

Legal:

• Does Google need permission to film in what might be a private building.
• It may not be legal to film people without permission (on private land).
• Aspects of data protection legislation might apply.
• Copyrighted information might be inadvertently captured and may lead to legislation breach.
• Consider if material in images is legally allowed to be viewed by children.
• Could be a risk of identifying items to steal leading to liability for crimes being carried out.
• Ability to identify locations and access could be used for crime or to carry out acts of terrorism.
• Street View is a worldwide service so would need to consider different legal systems.
• Consideration to the security of information storage needs to be made.
• Laws for certain buildings or areas of buildings may be more restrictive than others.

Cultural:

• Some images of people or exhibits may be offensive to certain cultures.
• Taking images inside religious buildings for some purposes may be considered inappropriate.
• Some cultural beliefs may not allow photography of people.
• Do people have the right to request the deletion of their images?
• Could the culture of visiting places such as museums (e.g. family/school day trips) be affected by access them online?
• Need for balance between cultural sensitivities and freedom of expression.

NE. Without suitable context: Faces need to be blurred out, must comply with laws, invasion of privacy.
R. Reference to private homes, implication that will be used for live monitoring.

Indicative Content:

• Risk of inaccurate diagnosis.
• Will patients trust a computer system to diagnose them?
• Who is responsible for the accuracy of a diagnosis // if a diagnosis is incorrect?
• Does responsibility lie with the people who programmed / designed it or the people operating it? // AI systems themselves cannot be held responsible.
• Should patients be informed if their diagnosis will be made by a computer system?
• Should patients have the option to ask for the diagnosis to be done by a person instead? // Will patients accept diagnosis or want it to be confirmed by human (thus removing some benefits of system)? // Should diagnoses be double-checked by a human?
• A human doctor may feel a moral responsibility that an AI system would not.
• Data may be of a confidential / private / personal nature // Data Protection Act / GDPR may apply (A. one example of provisions of these laws eg keeping data securely, patients having right to view data).
• Appropriate security would be required for the system as it would store personal data.
• Is it legal for an AI system to diagnose (without human assistance)?
• AI system will need training with data – how will this be obtained?
• Consent would be needed from patients to use their data for training.
• Choice of training data may affect reliability / effectiveness of system // algorithmic bias may develop (eg if one group of people not represented / underrepresented).
• Should system explain reasoning (if possible) to increase confidence in diagnosis?
• System could be used by GPs, reducing demand for more specialist doctors.
  A. may result in medical staff being made redundant
• How much evidence of the reliability of a system is needed before humans are no longer involved in the diagnosis?
• Could relying on computer systems risk missing diagnosis of very rare / new conditions?
• Could relying on computers de-skill medical staff?
• Would a doctor feel confident to over-rule a diagnosis by the computer system?
• If computer system could diagnose conditions that were not spotted by doctors, would this undermine faith in doctors?
  A. AI systems may be able to diagnose some conditions more reliably than humans
• Could be used to make diagnosis of some conditions possible in poorer countries (where there are fewer doctors).
• If cost of system is high, benefits of it may not be available to all people // in poorer countries.
• Are there some conditions that AI could be trusted to diagnose but others that it could not be?
• Would it be acceptable to use AI if it missed some cases but detected many others?
• System may detect issues / potential issues which would actually never turn into a condition that needed treating.
• If more conditions diagnosed, may increase demand for treatments // may put pressure on hospital services.
• System could go back through old cases and identify potential missed diagnoses.
• Should patients be asked before old cases re-examined?
• If data transferred between countries different laws may apply.
• Should medical data be shared if it can help diagnose other patients?

Level 4 (10–12 marks): A line of reasoning has been followed to produce a coherent, relevant, substantiated and logically structured response. The response covers all three areas indicated in the guidance below and there is sufficient detail to show that the student has a good level of understanding of at least two of these.

Level 3 (7–9 marks): A line of reasoning has been followed to produce a coherent, relevant, substantiated and logically structured response which shows a good level of understanding of at least one area indicated in the guidance below and a satisfactory understanding of at least one other area.

Level 2 (4–6 marks): A limited attempt has been made to follow a line of reasoning and the response has a mostly logical structure. Either a good level of understanding has been demonstrated of one area or some understanding had been demonstrated of at least two areas.

Level 1 (1–3 marks): A few relevant points have been made but there is no evidence that a line of reasoning has been followed. The points may only relate to one or two of the areas from the guidance. There is insufficient evidence of a good understanding of any of the three areas.

Area 1: How RFID works

• RFID tag contains (transmission) circuitry and antenna
• Memory on tag stores (customer) data
• RFID reader (at till) transmits / sends signal // emits electric / electro-magnetic field
• Signal activates / energises / induces current in RFID tag
• RFID tag transmits / sends data by radio (wave)
• RFID reader converts radio (wave) / signal back into (binary) data
• RFID tag (on a card) is a passive device
• RFID transmits over very short range

Area 2: How barcode works

(reflected light method)

• A light source / laser is directed at bar code // bar code is illuminated
• (Moving) mirror / prism moves light beam across bar code // user moves reader across bar code // user moves the bar code across the reader
• Light reflected back
• Black / white bands reflect different amounts of light // black reflects less light // white reflects more light
• Light sensor / photodiode / CCD (measures amount of reflected light)
• Light reflected converted into an electrical signal A. convert reflection to (binary) numbers / characters / ASCII

(CMOS/CCD/camera method)

• Grid of (pixel) sensors // CMOS/CCD sensor
• Each sensor measures light intensity of a point
• Sensor outputs a voltage dependent upon light intensity
• Voltages turned into binary data // voltages passed through Analogue-to-Digital Converter (ADC) // voltages turned into a digitised version of the image / barcode
• Image processing software analyses image
• This identifies black / white bands in barcode (which are turned into numbers)

Note: Students only need to describe one of the two methods for barcodes.

Area 3: Ethical and legal issues

(ethical)

• Customers may believe that data about what they buy/spend is personal // invasion of privacy
• Purchase of some items might be considered sensitive // some data might be considered to be sensitive (accept relevant examples)
• Will people fully understand what will be done with the data, even if they are told it is being collected
• Customers need to decide whether to allow the store to collect data about them (is it worth it for the return that they may get eg incentives / vouchers?) //do people feel forced to consent to benefit from offers
• Can company be sufficiently confident that any other companies they share the data with will process the data legally / fairly/for the purposes that they said they would?
• Risk of the supermarket carrying out actions that might reveal to other members of a shopper's household things that the supermarket has deduced that the householders don't know
• Should ethical consideration be given to the products promoted to people using the data collected about them or is it okay to promote a product to anyone?
• Are there some types of customers who should not be targeted with promotions at all // is it ethical to promote products to vulnerable customers?

(legal)

• Naming a relevant law – GDPR, Data Protection Act
• Need to inform customers of what will be done with data // consent required to collect data R. customer has not consented
• Data must be kept securely
• Need to consider what purposes data should be used for
• Consideration of who should be able to access the data // there are rules about who the data can be shared with
• Possible negative impact if data stolen or leaked // information could be misused
• Limit on time-period that the data can be kept for
• Need to ensure that collected data is accurate
• Ensure data only transferred to countries it is legally allowed to go to // if transferred abroad, different laws may apply
• The supermarket should let the customers see/edit data about them
• Use of RFID might make data vulnerable to theft

Area 1: How it could work:

• members could specify their interests / views and stories could be matched to these;
• consider basic facts about member eg age, gender, location;
• consider what stories have been read by friends of the member;
• analyse the type of stories that the user has read before;
• analyse the information that a member shares about themselves to identify characteristics/interests etc;
• track how popular a story is to display the most popular ones;
• look at member's search history;
• look at member's reaction to other similar stories eg likes;
• show stories viewed by others with a similar profile to this user;
• display articles that have been more popular // had more hits // received more positive feedback;
• compare keywords in articles with keywords in articles previously viewed by the member;
• how can the algorithm avoid displaying click-bait?;

Area 2: Legal

• who owns the copyright in the story?;
• is it legal for the company to reproduce a news story that someone else has written?;
• is the company legally responsible for the content/accuracy of stories?;
• do contracts need to be signed between the company and the organisations/ individuals that stories will be displayed from?;
• do laws in some countries prevent some types of stories being displayed? // need to ensure laws in different countries are followed;
• need to ensure that stores are age-appropriate;
• need to notify members about how their information is being used to select stories;

Area 3: Ethical / Moral

• by choosing what news stories to display, will the service influence the views of members?;
• how should the company deal with governments/organisations who might want to influence/control which stories are displayed?;
• should the company accept payments to promote stories?;
• how should the company deal with complaints / issues raised by members (in a timely fashion)?;
• will the reproduction of news stories adversely (or positively) affect the number of people who go to read the original stories from their authors?;
• how can / should reliability of stories be checked / shown (fake news)?;
• how can / should the company assess bias / prevent spread of propaganda;
• does the company have a duty to try to provide balance?;
• should a method be provided so members can request their data is not analysed for this purpose? // importance of consent;
• should the company let them know that the news they are seeing is being tailored to them / not everyone sees the same news?;

Area 2 or 3: Legal OR Ethical / Moral

• should the company have people who read/check each story?; Is it practical to do this?;
• how should the company select which organisations/individuals it will display stories from?;

Max 4 if all points are from one area

One mark per challenge that is explained.

• Information can be combined/processed/transferred in ways that were not previously possible; A. an example of this NE. there is a lot more data
• Technology evolves quickly (so difficult for law to keep up with changes) // new types of crime become possible // some crimes are easier // future problems may not be understood;
• Global nature of Internet means crimes may be committed in one country from outside its direct jurisdiction // laws are often national/local whilst the Internet is global // digital crime can be committed from a great distance // different countries have different laws;
• Some crimes may be committed by states rather than individuals;
• Different countries/cultures may have different attitudes to principles important to computer science (such as copyright, intellectual property, privacy); Note: this point relates to attitudes not legislation
• Methods such as encryption make it harder to monitor criminal activity // electronic evidence may be harder to gather than physical evidence // can be harder to identify culprits online (eg by use of proxies, VPN) // peer-to-peer systems make it harder to identify criminal; NE. hard to catch criminals
• Individuals may have access to large amounts of sensitive information that may be of public interest // conflicts between freedom of speech/information and privacy/state secrets;
• Technology companies (can use their wealth) to lobby for their own interests // concern over influence of companies on legislators;
• Resources required to enforce legislation may not be available;

NE. Copyright, Data Protection, Misuse, Hacking

Refer responses containing other relevant points to team leaders.

Max 3

Guidance – Indicative Response

1. How it was possible for data to be collected

WiFi signals can travel outside of property // over wide area // limited control over range

Any WiFi receiver in range can read the data packets NE. The receiver in the car can read the packets

No need to physically "tap" into a WiFi connection, unlike a cabled connection

A protocol that does not encrypt the transmissions may have been used // unencrypted data sent. NE. Network not secure

2. Steps to prevent

Use a protocol that encrypts data transmissions

A. Encrypt the transmission

R. Password protection

Example of secure protocol eg WPA, WPA2

Disable broadcast of SSID to make network harder to identify (Note: Accept this point even though the SSID would be in other data packets)

Limit power of transmitter so data does not travel outside premises (although in practice this might be hard to achieve)

Use cabled network instead of WiFi.

R. MAC address filtering (as cars were not connecting to networks just intercepting transmissions)

3. Legal and ethical issues

If the data is being transmitted through the air, who does it belong to, if anyone? // Should data transmitted by WiFi be treated like a broadcast (eg TV) or a private communication (eg telephone call)?

Is it wrong to intercept data if people freely choose to transmit it wirelessly? A. Is it ethical to collect data from people without their permission?

Is it legal to intercept data if people freely choose to transmit it wirelessly? What laws apply in this scenario? Is this really hacking?

Are the ethics or laws different for intercepting data transmitted wirelessly than by cable?

Is there a difference between collecting statistical data eg channel number, signal strength, SSID and collecting the payload data?

Was the data just collected or was there an intention to process it as well?

What should the company have done when it realised that the data had been collected? // Should the data have been immediately deleted, or kept so that the company could contact and apologise to people it had collected data from? // What should be done with the data now?

What should the company have done if it inadvertently discovered evidence of illegal activity in the collected data?

Legality/ethicality may depend on the nature of the data gathered // (In the UK) would some of the collected data count as "personal data" (under the Data Protection Act) // could some of the data have been sensitive (accept example eg bank account details, details of minors) NE. Data may be private

To what extent is the company financially liable for collecting the data? Or any consequences of its use?

Could the legal situation be different in different countries where the company operated?

Was the collection of data intentional or just an accidental side-effect of a reasonable process?

What was done to ensure (existing) policies are followed?

Should there have been more oversight of code development?

Could intellectual property have been inadvertently stolen?

Is it ethical to collect/store information secretly from people // without them knowing?

Is it ethical to collect data if there is no (legitimate) purpose for doing so?

Were the developers in breach of their contracts with the company / company guidelines?

Relevant Legislation

Students may name specific pieces of legislation that could have been breached as part of their response. Determining whether or not a breach has actually occurred would probably require more information than is provided in the question and detailed knowledge of the legislation, which is not required by the specification. Therefore, up to two points can be given for students naming relevant pieces of legislation that could have been breached, regardless of whether or not this can be ascertained with certainty. Relevant pieces of legislation include:

• The Data Protection Act
• The Computer Misuse Act
• The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act
• The Communications Act

Points should be given for assertions that legislation has definitely been breached, even if this is only a possibility in the context rather than a certainty.

Responses that reference other legislation should be referred to Team Leaders.

A. As an alternative to naming the Data Protection Act, a response could instead question whether privacy laws have been breached, or if a breach of privacy has occurred.

4. Lessons

Improved training for developers in what is legal / ethical (accept company needs to improve understanding of legal/ethical issues)

Need to review guidelines that developers are expected to follow

Need for scrutiny of code / supervision by people outside of development team

Developers could be required to check each other's code

Developers could be required to log changes made to code and reason

Should only collect data that is absolutely necessary // that has a clear purpose // need to review collected data to see why it is being collected and stored // need to fully consider the purpose of any data collection before doing it

Could/should remove equipment for Wi-Fi data capture used in cars to collect mapping data.

NE. Further testing should be carried out unless there is a clear explanation of the mechanism by which testing will check that the software has no additional functionality is described eg inspection of collected data files to verify purpose of contents