Edexcel GCSE Computer Science (1CP2) Exam Questions

• A The manufacturer is legally responsible for harm caused by the robot (1)
• The only correct answer is A. The correct answer is the manufacturer is legally responsible for harm caused by the robot.
• B is not correct because checking the robot cannot cause harm is safety
• C is not correct because fair results for all workers is algorithmic bias
• D is not correct because taking responsibility for the robot's decisions is accountability

• C Patent (1)
• The only correct answer is C. The correct answer is patent.
• A is not correct because copyright protects original works such as books, music and software, not inventions
• B is not correct because licensing grants permission to use a work, it does not protect an invention
• D is not correct because a trademark protects a brand name or logo

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

• Permission/agreement given by an individual (1)
• For their personal data to be collected/used/processed (1)
• Given freely, without pressure (1)
• The individual is told/understands what their data will be used for (1)

Allow agree, agreement, approve, approval, 'a user says yes', opting in for permission/agreement.

Award the second mark only where the answer also states that permission/agreement is given; 'personal data is collected' on its own is not a definition of consent.

Do not accept 'consent is a legal requirement' (this says why consent is needed, not what it means).

Do not accept 'the user accepts the terms and conditions' on its own (it does not say what is being agreed to, e.g. the use of personal data).

Do not accept 'a company tells the user what data it will collect' on its own (no permission is given).

Do not accept 'consent can be withdrawn at any time' on its own (this is a right of the individual, not a definition of consent).

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

• A legal agreement/contract (between the supplier and the user) (1)
• Gives the user the right/permission to use the software (1)
• Sets out the terms/conditions of use, including what the user can and cannot do with the software (1)

Award both marks only where two separate ideas are given. A phrase that states both ideas, e.g. 'a legal agreement giving permission to use the software', earns both marks.

Allow examples of conditions of use, e.g. number of devices/users, whether the software can be copied or modified, for the terms/conditions point.

Do not accept a licence key/serial number/activation code on its own; these enforce a licence, they are not the licence.

Do not accept copyright on its own; copyright protects the code, it does not give permission to use the software.

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

• A licence/license is a legal agreement between the developer/owner and the user/end user/customer (1) that sets out what the user is/is not allowed to do with the software (1)
• It states how many devices/users may install or run the software (1) so the software is not installed/used on more devices/users than the developer allows (1)
• It protects the developer's intellectual property/copyright (1) by stopping the software being copied/used/redistributed without permission (1)
• It sets out the terms/conditions of use (1) that the user must agree to before using the software (1)

Allow a single unlinked point, such as 'it sets out what the user is allowed to do with the software', for one mark.

Do not accept 'it is a contract/a legal document' with no purpose given.

Do not accept descriptions of product keys, activation or how to install the software.

Do not accept answers that only describe copyright, patents or trademarks with no reference to a licence.

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

• The customer may receive more spam/unwanted marketing (1) because their email address/contact details have been sold/shared (1)
• The customer may lose money (1) because their card/bank details have been used fraudulently (1)
• The customer may have their identity stolen (1) so accounts/credit can be opened in their name (1)
• The customer may be targeted with scam/phishing messages (1) because criminals have obtained their contact details (1)

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

Allow other valid effects on the customer where a linked reason is given, e.g. feeling embarrassed/distressed (1) because their private information has been made public (1)

Do not accept 'they lose privacy' without saying what happens to the customer as a result.

Do not accept an expansion that only says the shop holds the data, e.g. 'because the shop has their email address'; the reason must say how the data was misused.

Do not accept answers about the online shop being fined or losing customers; the question asks about the effect on the customer.

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

• It may not be clear who is answerable for a decision (1) because several different people design, train and use the AI system (1)
• The company may blame the programmers/developers (1) because they wrote the code that the AI system follows (1)
• The company may blame the AI system (1) because no person checks each decision that it makes (1)
• An applicant may have no one to challenge the decision with (1) because no person made the decision (1)

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

Allow answers that name the company as the party responsible, e.g. the company is answerable for the decision (1) because it chose to use the AI system (1).

Allow blaming the programmers/developers, as deciding who is answerable is an accountability point.

Do not award marks for answers about the AI system being inaccurate/biased, or about it choosing the wrong/suitable applicants, as these are about the quality of the decision and not about who is answerable.

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.

Indicative content

Rights under each licence

• An open-source licence gives the college access to the source code, so its IT team can read it and change the software to suit administration tasks.
• An open-source licence allows the college to redistribute the software, provided that any changed versions it distributes are released under the same licence.
• The college must still keep to the terms of an open-source licence, such as keeping copyright notices, so the software is not free of conditions.
• A proprietary licence must be bought before the software can be installed, and the college must buy a licence for each computer it uses.
• A proprietary licence does not provide the source code, so the college cannot modify the software or pass copies to another organisation.
• The terms of a proprietary licence restrict copying and redistribution, so the college must keep records of its licences to remain compliant.

Benefits and drawbacks for the college

• Open-source software usually has no licence fee, so the college can install it on more computers and spend its limited funding on other resources.
• Open-source software can be adapted by the IT team, but this takes time and programming skill that a small team may not have.
• Community support for open-source software may be slower than official support, so faults could disrupt college administration for longer.
• Proprietary software costs more because a licence is needed for each computer, which uses up the college's limited funding.
• Proprietary software comes with official support and updates, which suits a small IT team and reduces disruption for administration staff.
• Proprietary software is less flexible, so staff may have to change their working practices because the college cannot alter the source code.
• A mixture could be used: open-source software for general administration and proprietary software where reliable support is essential.

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)

Level 3 responses must discuss both open-source and proprietary licences and apply benefits and drawbacks to the college; a response that covers only one type of licence is limited to Level 2.

Credit a basic point for stating that proprietary software requires a licence, but do not accept 'free', 'expensive' or 'anyone can use it' on their own; cost points must be linked to the college's funding. 'Open-source software is not copyrighted' is incorrect and earns no credit.