/* Please note that, I am taking the liberty of making some minor corrections and posting my earlier reply */
This is further to my earlier replies on Principle 4.2. Also, I read the other replies.
Normally professionals are observing. They are intrinsically good and well-meaning. However, there is a need to acknowledge that there are “Bad Apples” in any given pack and IMHO due to drastic lowering of entry level skills in deploying Computing Machinery the percentage of “Bad Apples” is on the raise.
We need a Code of Ethics to serve as a first class deterrent. “Top-Down Methods” involving higher authorities seldom yield longevity of professionalism. IMHO, Code of Ethics such as the one we are evolving serves as a first class method to facilitate “Bottom - Up Methods” even for Members at large.
I wish to add that “Code of Ethics” is better seen in a positive standpoint. The way members are inducted into ACM, the way they are nominated to various positions of governance, the process of election, the process of nominations for awards and selection for awards are all very good indicators of the ethical standards as well. Only a standing ethics committee may be necessary if at all. It can also be formed as a case arises. Usually there are not many violators of the code of ethics in a given professional society. Any expenses can be accounted as a per case basis.