Legal Accountability as Software Quality: A US Data Processing Perspective

被引:9
作者
Breaux, Travis D. [1 ]
Norton, Thomas [2 ]
机构
[1] Carnegie Mellon Univ, Sch Comp Sci, Pittsburgh, PA 15213 USA
[2] Fordham Univ, Sch Law, New York, NY 10023 USA
来源
2022 30TH IEEE INTERNATIONAL REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING CONFERENCE (RE 2022) | 2022年
关键词
law; regulations; software quality; compliance; SECURITY REQUIREMENTS; KNOWLEDGE; CREATIVITY; EXPERTISE; FRAMEWORK; PRIVACY;
D O I
10.1109/RE54965.2022.00016
中图分类号
TP39 [计算机的应用];
学科分类号
081203 ; 0835 ;
摘要
Software and hardware innovation has led to new consumer products and services with significant benefits to consumers and society. These advances, however, can come with great cost to society when they fail to comply with government laws and regulations. While compliance failures do result from technical missteps in design, there is also a wide gap between the technical expertise and culture of legal analysts and software engineers, as well as competing priorities between legal requirements and business objectives. In this perspective paper, we propose changing legal compliance from a corporate oversight activity to a principal design activity, wherein lawyers and software engineers employ enhanced methods and tools tailored to bridge the cultural and knowledge gap and assess legal and business trade-offs. To that end, we describe a new software quality, called Legal Accountability, which can be evaluated alongside other qualities, such as usability, modifiability, performance and testing. Legal Accountability has five properties that lawyers and designers must attend to, including legal traceability, completeness, validity, auditability and continuity. We illustrate the quality with examples from the U.S. data processing perspective, and prior work in requirements engineering, before concluding with future and ongoing research challenges.
引用
收藏
页码:101 / 113
页数:13
相关论文
共 117 条
[1]   On Evidence Preservation Requirements for Forensic-Ready Systems [J].
Alrajeh, Dalal ;
Pasquale, Liliana ;
Nuseibeh, Bashar .
ESEC/FSE 2017: PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2017 11TH JOINT MEETING ON FOUNDATIONS OF SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, 2017, :559-569
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2010, Kanban: Successful Evolutionary Change for Your Technology Business
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2005, 3 S REQTS ENGR INFO
[4]   Goal-driven risk assessment in requirements engineering [J].
Asnar, Yudistira ;
Giorgini, Paolo ;
Mylopoulos, John .
REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING, 2011, 16 (02) :101-116
[5]  
Austin AD., 1965, William Mary Law Review, V6, P157
[6]  
Barboza LD, 2014, 2014 IEEE 7TH INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING AND LAW (RELAW), P39, DOI 10.1109/RELAW.2014.6893481
[7]  
Bass L., 2015, Software Architecture in Practice: Software Architect Practicec3-Len Bass, Paul Clements, Rick Kazman-Google Libros
[8]   Empirical Measurement of Perceived Privacy Risk [J].
Bhatia, Jaspreet ;
Breaux, Travis D. .
ACM TRANSACTIONS ON COMPUTER-HUMAN INTERACTION, 2018, 25 (06)
[9]   A Theory of Vagueness and Privacy Risk Perception [J].
Bhatia, Jaspreet ;
Breaux, Travis D. ;
Reidenberg, Joel R. ;
Norton, Thomas B. .
2016 IEEE 24TH INTERNATIONAL REQUIREMENTS ENGINEERING CONFERENCE (RE), 2016, :26-35
[10]   Challenges and practices in aligning requirements with verification and validation: a case study of six companies [J].
Bjarnason, Elizabeth ;
Runeson, Per ;
Borg, Markus ;
Unterkalmsteiner, Michael ;
Engstrom, Emelie ;
Regnell, Bjorn ;
Sabaliauskaite, Giedre ;
Loconsole, Annabella ;
Gorschek, Tony ;
Feldt, Robert .
EMPIRICAL SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, 2014, 19 (06) :1809-1855