Case 10: Jake and Privacy Who has moral responsibility for deciding what to do? In this case we are introduced to Jake Markos, a computer programmer at ALAC Marketing. Jake is posed with the ethical dilemma of whether or not to include secret spyware in a survey software he’s developing for the Diabetes Foundation, with the intention of attaining and marketing to the foundations donor’s emails. Jake is very much an introverted person and likes his job at ALAC because it challenges him, he can work alone for the most part and dreads the process of job hunting. Jake encountered this ethical dilemma when his boss, Nathan Brooke who is well aware of Jakes capabilities and vulnerabilities, suggests that he should include an extra line of code within a surveying software Jake had been working on.. Nathans intention was to acquire the email information of the wealthy donors of the Diabetes Foundation in order to market Circulex, an expensive pharmaceutical drug beneficial to diabetic’s blood flow, to them. The Circulex contract was a very profitable one for ALAC and Nathan’s main objective was to satisfy it. After suggesting Jake add in the spyware to the foundations survey, Nathan then went on to suggest that if Jake didn’t do it he would have to look for work elsewhere. Knowing Jake’s docile, introverted personality traits and essentially threatening him with termination, we can already see Nathan manipulating Jake into doing the task, regardless of Jakes moral hesitations.
Apply the ethical decision making model presented in week one lectures (adapted from Beemsterboer, 2010; Velasquez et al, 2009) to the case study.
In 1984 George Orwell describes how no matter where you go in Oceania there is
case could have been legal by the constitution, but it was not part of the
Troutini is an upscale restaurant located in downtown Troutdale. This restaurant serves New American cuisine and it has an extensive selection of imported and domestic beers, wines and creative cocktails and drinks. Treat yourself to a nice meal and time at Troutini. Serving lunch and dinner, this restaurant is good for small to large groups, dates and other special occasions.
In this case Jake Markos is the moral agent and is contemplating on whether or not he should embed spyware into the Diabetes Foundation website that allows his company, ALAC marketing, to collet email addresses and use them to market a product. Other moral agents presented in this case are Nathan Brook, Jake’s boss, Maia Herrick, Nathan’s assistant manager, and ALAC Marketing. In this case, ALAC is the least important moral agent because it possess vicarious moral sensitivity and responsiveness thus, if we examine the sensitivity and responsiveness of its individual employees we would understand ALAC’s position regarding Jake’s dilemma. This is also, in part, due to the fact that corporations employ highly organized holistic decision-making and although corporations are morally accountable it does not mean that individuals who are employed by the corporation are not also morally accountable.
According to Dictionary.com confidentiality is “the right of an individual to have personal, identifiable medical information kept private.” The definition for this term is widely known in health care, but when it is applied to adolescents many people do not understand the basics. Doctors are responsible for informing adolescent patients and their parents the privacy a minor is given according to federal and state laws, but in some cases doctors fail to do so. This results in the misunderstanding of minor’s privacy rights, which can lead to the adolescent patient not disclosing significant information, and the parents assuming they have the right to all of their child’s medical records. Because of this, it is important for adolescents and their parents to understand the nature of confidentiality in health care.
Brenda Franklin had been serving Allied Tech for the past 8 years. As any other organisations, Brenda used to be a part of the lunch hour conversations with her colleagues. One day when her colleagues were discussing about corruption and politics, something occurred to her. As a result she prepared a list called “Ethically Dubious Conduct” and pasted it on the common notice board. Her colleagues were taken by surprise. Brenda was now anticipating the next lunch where she was expecting her list to be analysed among her colleagues.
Most Americans feel trapped by the government. They believe that the government is spying on them just to do so and that there is absolutely no reason for it. However this is wrong because the government has several reasons to spy on us Americans. Even though this may seem outrageous, it is needed and there are ways the United States’ citizens have privacy. With all of these false accusations it is simple to see why people would be supportive of our right to privacy. On the other hand, the government eavesdropping on the people of the United States has helped save many lives and justice being served. The United States of America is a free country, so we should have the option to be spied on by the government; however, as citizens we do
In 1787, the constitution was born. The constitution has been America’s guideline to the American way of life. Our US constitution has many points in it to protect America and it’s people from an overpowered government, our economy, and ourselves. The only thing the constitution doesn’t directly give us, is our right to privacy, and our right to privacy has been a big concern lately courtesy of the National Security Agency (NSA).(#7) Although our constitution doesn’t necessarily cover the privacy topic, it does suggest that privacy is a given right. Some people say that the right to privacy was so obvious, that our founding fathers didn’t even feel the need to make a point about it.(#9) It also didn’t help
Privacy threats are currently the biggest threat to National Security today. The threats are not only concerning to the government, however. An alarming 92% of Americans are concerned that the power grid may be vulnerable to a cyber-attack (Denholm). Although this is a more recent development to the cyber threats we have experienced, this is not the first time that privacy threats have stepped into the limelight as people are forced to watch their every online move.
The attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator
Crime is overwhelmingly present in popular culture, which encompasses the ideas, perspectives, attitudes, images, and other phenomena within the mainstream of a given culture. Behaviors become crimes through a process of social construction. Popular culture reinforces the construction of crime by increasing public awareness certain criminal behavior and associating certain attitudes with crime. In Western culture, for example, sex crimes are perceived as particularly malicious offenses committed by sick and perhaps sociopathic individuals whose actions are inhuman and beyond redemption. The attitude towards individuals who have committed sex crimes, however, is the product of a socially constructed panic stimulated by media depictions.
Digital privacy concerns, which have been a major issue in our country since 2001, increasingly violate our basic human rights as global citizens. The growing amount of government surveillance has manifested in the enactment of acts such as SOPA and CISPA. Although their intent on stopping digital piracy and attacks were clear, both were immediately met with harsh criticism; they allowed big corporations to violate our privacy rights by sharing our personal information with both other companies and the government. Our President, although publicly expressing his acknowledgement of the issue, failed to discuss an array of other pressing dilemmas regulated by the recently exposed National Security Agency (NSA), especially those involving
Ever since day one, people have been developing and creating all sorts of new methods and machines to help better everyday life in one way or another. Who can forget the invention of the ever-wondrous telephone? And we can’t forget how innovative and life-changing computers have been. However, while all machines have their positive uses, there can also be many negatives depending on how one uses said machines, wiretapping in on phone conversations, using spyware to quietly survey every keystroke and click one makes, and many other methods of unwanted snooping have arisen. As a result, laws have been made to make sure these negative uses are not taken advantage of by anyone. But because of how often technology changes, how can it be
Privacy laws are established because people have a right to privacy, to an extent. For many years people have argued over their privacy rights, from online videos, to people spying on them, even people stealing internet. People think that they should be completely secluded from others seeing what they’re doing, but in all reality, there’s no stopping people from seeing what you are doing. With more people using the flaws within our media and lives, we as a society must come to accept the fact that people are watching us.