I've rarely seen a code of ethics adequately specified such that it accomplishes its aims and can be followed. This is no exception. It seems well-intentioned. It seems that it would like me to be nice, be considerate, be honest, work hard and attempt to do good. I could agree with a statement like that previous sentence.

In an attempt to explain what it means, it comes up with things like:

Ensure that users and those who will be affected by a system have their needs clearly articulated during the assessment and design of requirements; later the system must be validated to meet requirements.

I don't write requirements of that sort, nor do validation testing in the sense implied. If I want to be in the ACM, this leaves me with the choice of either concluding, "Ah, I know what they mean and I'm there in spirit" or not participating. That sorta sucks. If I agree to a set of principles, I want to diligently follow it. I prefer a high-level "Don't be a jerk" approach to such things and sound human judgment entrusted to make calls if needed about propriety or identifying jerks.