Values and ethics

Something a person or group holds to be important — privacy, safety, fairness, freedom.

The reasoning about what to do when two values require opposite actions.

Everyone is in favour of all of them, so the list contains none of the disagreement.

Its reasons are stated, so somebody who disagrees can examine and answer them.

Personal values, group norms, written codes, law.

Written by the organisation and enforced by nobody — and afterwards they can be shown as evidence of care.

A legislature cannot write a rule about something nobody has seen yet, so the other three carry the years in between.

A legal duty to achieve an outcome, with the industry deciding the method — roughly the EU AI Act's approach.

Personal preference, community expectation, national rule, global agreement.

At the national rung — nothing above the state carries a penalty of its own.

They bind only the countries already willing, because declining costs nothing.

They aim the same value at different threats — commercial collection in one place, state access in another.

Consequences, duties, rights, character.

More good than harm? Is the act itself wrong? Does it take something that may not be taken? What does it make normal?

They depend on the numbers, so new evidence can reverse the verdict.

Run two on the case, show they disagree, then say which you follow here and why.

Who is in the room, what the default is, what gets measured.

Nothing reports it, so it cannot influence anything the team does next — measurement decides what improves.

Neutral about purposes, not neutral about outcomes: it does not care what you want, but it makes some results far easier.

Privacy by default, accessibility requirements and the right to repair are values deliberately designed in.