Edexcel GCSE Computer Science (1CP2) Exam Questions

• C A piece of music (1)
• The only correct answer is C. The correct answer is A piece of music.
• A is not correct because a brand name is protected by a trademark
• B is not correct because a new invention, such as a method or design, is protected by a patent
• D is not correct because a product name is protected by a trademark

• B Open-source licence (1)
• The only correct answer is B. The correct answer is open-source licence (accept open source licence, open-source software licence, open source software licence).
• A is not correct because copyright is a legal right that stops others copying the work
• C is not correct because a patent protects an invention
• D is not correct because a proprietary licence keeps the source code closed

Award one mark for any of the following up to a maximum of two marks:

• A person/organisation (e.g. the developer/company/user) is responsible for the actions/decisions/outputs of the AI system (1)
• Being able to explain/justify how the AI system reached a decision (1)
• Being open to scrutiny/having to report on the AI system's actions (1)
• Accepting blame/being held to account when the AI system causes harm or loss (1)

Naming the responsible party (e.g. the developer) on its own is not a separate mark; it must be linked to responsibility for the system's actions/decisions/outputs.

Do not accept the AI system/robot itself being described as accountable or blamed.

Do not accept 'being fair/transparent' without a person/organisation being answerable for the system.

Award one mark for any of the following up to a maximum of two marks:

• Training data is not representative of all groups / is incomplete / is limited (1)
• Training data contains human prejudice/bias (1)
• Training data is inaccurate/out of date (1)
• The rules/instructions in the algorithm are written with prejudice (1)
• The developers' own unconscious bias affects the design (1)
• Feedback loops reinforce existing bias (1)

Do not accept an outcome of bias, e.g. unfair decisions/unfair results, without a cause.

Do not accept 'the data is bad'/'the data is wrong' unless it says what is wrong with the data (not representative, prejudiced, inaccurate).

Do not award two marks for the same cause written twice.

Allow the developer/programmer being blamed as an alternative way of stating the rules/design point (1), not as a second mark.

Award one mark for any of the following up to a maximum of two marks:

• Source code (must be) made available/accessible/distributed (with the software) (1)
• Any modified version/changes (must be) released/shared under the same licence (1)
• The original author/copyright notice (must be) kept/credited (1)
• The licence/terms (must be) included/supplied with any copy/redistribution (1)
• Changes/alterations (must be) stated/documented (1)

Allow wording such as 'must share changes' for the modified version being released under the same licence.

Do not accept 'the software must be free of charge/must not be sold/cannot be charged for' (open-source software can be sold/distributed for a fee).

Do not accept 'the source code must be kept secret' (this is a proprietary licence).

Do not accept 'anyone can use it/access it' (too general).

Award up to two marks for a linked description such as:

• Cookies store a record of the pages/sites a user visits (1) so their browsing habits can be tracked over time (1)
• Cookies can track a user across multiple websites (1) so data about their activity can be shared/sold to third parties (1)
• Cookies collect personal data (1) so it can be used/sold for purposes the user did not consent to (1)
• Cookies are stored on the user's device (1) so anyone else with access to the device can see which sites they have visited (1)

Allow 'cookies store/record data about a user's visits' as the first point, even if tracking is not named.

Do not accept responses about deleting/blocking cookies, or about cookies making a website work (e.g. remembering a shopping basket), unless they are linked to a privacy issue.

Do not accept generic answers such as 'cookies can be hacked' or 'cookies contain personal data' without a development.

Do not award credit for 'cookies are viruses' or 'cookies steal data'.

Award up to two marks for a linked explanation such as:

• Consent is required by data protection legislation (1) so the gym could be fined/prosecuted if it collects data without consent (1)
• The member has a choice about whether their data is collected (1) because they can refuse/say no (1)
• The member can be told what their data will be used for (1) so they know what they are agreeing to (1)
• The member has the right to withdraw consent (1) so the gym must stop using the data if the member changes their mind (1)
• The gym builds trust with members (1) because members know their data is being handled properly (1)

For both marks, the expansion must follow/associate with the statement.

Allow 'the member has a right to privacy' as a statement (1) if it is expanded with a reason such as the member controls who can see their data (1).

Do not accept 'the gym needs it' or 'it is the law/a legal requirement' without expansion as to what the law requires or what happens if it is broken.

Do not accept 'so the gym can use the data' without saying how consent protects the member or meets the law.

Do not accept answers about keeping data accurate or secure; these are data protection requirements but they are not about consent.

Award up to two marks for a linked explanation such as:

• The licence sets out what a user is allowed to do with the program (1) so a user cannot legally copy it or sell it on (1)
• Only a user with a valid licence key can install/use the program (1) because the program will not run without a valid key (1)
• The licence is a legal agreement between the company and the user (1) so the company can take legal action if the program is copied or sold without permission (1)
• The licence can limit the program to one computer/user (1) so the program cannot be installed on many machines without buying more licences (1)

For both marks, the expansion must follow/associate with the statement.

For the second mark, the reason must state the mechanism by which the licence protects the work, e.g. the licence terms, a licence key/activation, or a legal agreement.

A point without a linked reason can be awarded one mark only.

Allow a named type of licence, e.g. a single-user licence, as the point, provided a linked reason is given.

Do not accept 'it protects the program' or 'it stops people copying it' on its own without saying how.

Do not accept answers that describe copyright, patents or trademarks instead of licencing.

Do not accept answers about security measures such as passwords, firewalls or anti-malware, as these do not protect intellectual property.

Award up to two marks for a linked explanation such as:

• The programmer must not sell/redistribute the software for profit (1) because the licence requires it to remain free for other users (1)
• The programmer must make the source code available (1) so that other programmers can study/improve it (1)
• The programmer must share any changes they make (1) so that other users benefit from the improvements (1)
• The programmer must release a modified version under the same licence (1) so that the software stays open-source (1)
• The programmer must keep the original copyright notice (1) so that the original author is identified as the creator of the code (1)

For both marks, the expansion must follow/associate with the statement.

Allow other wordings of a restriction for the first mark, e.g. 'must not charge for it', 'must let other people use their modified version', 'must make the source code available'.

The restriction must be a condition of the licence, not a general good practice, e.g. 'it is good to share' is not creditworthy.

Do not accept 'they cannot use it for business/commercially' without a linked reason.

Do not accept 'they must pay for it' as this is not a restriction of open-source licences.

Do not accept restrictions of a proprietary licence, such as 'they cannot copy the software' or 'they cannot change the source code'.

Do not accept 'the software is free' on its own without a named restriction.

Do not award the second mark for a restatement of the point, e.g. 'so they have to share changes' or 'so the author gets credit' on its own.

Do not award marks twice for the same restriction worded in different ways, e.g. 'share changes' and 'release modified versions under the same licence'.

Indicative content

Who could be held accountable when the AI system gives a patient the wrong priority

• The software company could be held accountable because it designed the AI system and chose the data used to train it.
• The software company may be legally liable for harm caused by its product, because it has a duty of care to the hospital that bought the system.
• The hospital could be held accountable because it decided to buy and use the system in its emergency department.
• A doctor or nurse could be held accountable if they follow the AI's recommendation without examining the patient themselves.
• The hospital management could be held accountable for the policies and training that set out how the AI system is used.

Why it can be difficult to decide who is accountable

• The AI system is a 'black box', so it may not be clear to the hospital why a patient was given a low priority.
• Responsibility is shared between the software company, the hospital and its staff, so each may blame the others.
• The AI system itself cannot be held accountable because it has no understanding of the consequences and only follows its program.
• Hospital staff may not have the technical knowledge to judge whether the software company's system is working correctly.
• The training data may have come from a different hospital or country, so it is hard to say who is responsible for its limitations.

How accountability could be made clearer

• A contract between the hospital and the software company should state who is responsible for the system's recommendations.
• The AI system should be explainable, so that staff can see which factors led to a patient being given a low priority.
• A named doctor should make the final decision, with the AI only giving advice.
• The hospital should keep logs of the AI's recommendations and audit them regularly against how patients actually did.
• Staff should be trained to question a recommendation when the patient's symptoms suggest otherwise.
• The hospital could publish the results of its audits so that the use of the system can be checked by others.

Levels

• Level 0 (0 marks): No rewardable content.
• Level 1 (1–2 marks): Basic, independent points are made, showing elements of understanding of key concepts/principles of computer science. (AO1) The discussion will contain basic information with little linkage between points made or application to the context. (AO2)
• Level 2 (3–4 marks): Demonstrates adequate understanding of key concepts/principles of computer science. (AO1) The discussion shows some linkages and lines of reasoning with some structure and application to the context. (AO2)
• Level 3 (5–6 marks): Demonstrates comprehensive understanding of key concepts/principles of computer science to support the discussion being presented. (AO1) The discussion is well developed, with sustained lines of reasoning that are coherent and logically structured, and which clearly apply to the context. (AO2)
• Do not credit the AI system itself as being accountable, because it only follows its program. Credit legal liability, such as the software company's duty of care to the hospital, where it is used to explain who could be held accountable.
• Level 3 requires developed reasoning that is applied to the hospital on all three bullets. An answer that names who could be accountable and mentions why it is difficult, but gives no developed way of making accountability clearer, is limited to Level 1.