1.2 A computing professional should avoid harm
In this document, “harm” means negative consequences to any stakeholder, especially when those consequences are significant and unjust. Examples of harm include unjustified death, unjustified loss of information, and unjustified damage to property, reputation, or the environment. This list is not exhaustive.
This seems too vaguely worded to have a clear normative meaning. An example where this problem is evident is in the defence industry, where computing professionals may be working on weapons designed to cause bodily harm. Can they possibly “avoid negative consequences to any stakeholder” if they’re in that line of work?
I also believe that “unjustified” may not be an adequate choice of qualifier at all. For stating that
examples of harm include unjustified death
implies that some deaths are justified. How does a computing professional get to decide which deaths are justified and which aren’t? Killing in war, manslaughter (such as the one resulting from self-driving cars preserving the lives of their passengers), or euthanasia are examples of situations where I wouldn’t be comfortable with a computing professional deciding that a death is justified.