  The moral authority of ethics codes stems from an assumption that they serve
a unified society, yet this ignores the political aspects of any shared
resource. The sociologist Howard S. Becker challenged researchers to clarify
their power and responsibility in the classic essay: Whose Side Are We On.
Building on Becker's hierarchy of credibility, we report on a critical
discourse analysis of data ethics codes and emerging conceptualizations of
beneficence, or the "social good", of data technology. The analysis revealed
that ethics codes from corporations and professional associations conflated
consumers with society and were largely silent on agency. Interviews with
community organizers about social change in the digital era supplement the
analysis, surfacing the limits of technical solutions to concerns of
marginalized communities. Given evidence that highlights the gulf between the
documents and lived experiences, we argue that ethics codes that elevate
consumers may simultaneously subordinate the needs of vulnerable populations.
Understanding contested digital resources is central to the emerging field of
public interest technology. We introduce the concept of digital differential
vulnerability to explain disproportionate exposures to harm within data
technology and suggest recommendations for future ethics codes.
