Researcher profile

Marc Cheong

Marc Cheong contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 13 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
2works
0followers
3topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

2 published item(s)

preprint2024arXiv

Ethical Considerations Towards Protestware

A key drawback to using a Open Source third-party library is the risk of introducing malicious attacks. In recently times, these threats have taken a new form, when maintainers turn their Open Source libraries into protestware. This is defined as software containing political messages delivered through these libraries, which can either be malicious or benign. Since developers are willing to freely open-up their software to these libraries, much trust and responsibility are placed on the maintainers to ensure that the library does what it promises to do. Using different frameworks commonly used in AI ethics, we illustrate how an open-source maintainer's decision to protest is influenced by different stakeholders (viz., their membership in the OSS community, their personal views, financial motivations, social status, and moral viewpoints), making protestware a multifaceted and intricate matter.

preprint2021arXiv

Computer Science Communities: Who is Speaking, and Who is Listening to the Women? Using an Ethics of Care to Promote Diverse Voices

Those working on policy, digital ethics and governance often refer to issues in `computer science', that includes, but is not limited to, common subfields of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Computer Science (CS) Computer Security (InfoSec), Computer Vision (CV), Human Computer Interaction (HCI), Information Systems, (IS), Machine Learning (ML), Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Systems Architecture. Within this framework, this paper is a preliminary exploration of two hypotheses, namely 1) Each community has differing inclusion of minoritised groups (using women as our test case); and 2) Even where women exist in a community, they are not published representatively. Using data from 20,000 research records, totalling 503,318 names, preliminary data supported our hypothesis. We argue that ACM has an ethical duty of care to its community to increase these ratios, and to hold individual computing communities to account in order to do so, by providing incentives and a regular reporting system, in order to uphold its own Code.