What is going on?
1.What is going on?
Under the give scenario, Departments of Health, Aged Care and the Health Insurance Commission are outsourcing their work to the IT software companies. IBM GSA was one of the tenderer who was selected to work for the organization. While the process of tender was going on, the company IBM-GSA received a computer disc that was having information about the pricing of other tenderers competing with management, resulting to which the company revised its tender that made the minister of department to select the company for its operations. The minister post three years of this event explained that this event of $350 million should have been canceled as he thought that the project would not successfully run with integrity now. But the contract continued as the probity auditor was unable to hold the rights to his power to run properly in this event.
2.What are the facts?
- Department of Health, Aged Care and Health Insurance Commission wants to outsource their work with IT organization.
- Three tenders are raised for the organization.
- IBM-GSA being one of the tenderer received information of the pricing of other two tenderer.
- IBM-GSA revised the tender amount (Caron, et. al., 2016).
- Later minister admit tender should be cancelled
- Limited power in the hands of probity auditor
3.What are the issues?
- Continuation of the contract even if the company IBM-GSA gained information about the price that other two tenderers are quoting.
- Accepting the revised price from IBM-GSA after attaining information that the company knows the private information about the contract. And giving the contract to IBM-GSA knowing that the company has not initiated the tender process with integrity.
- Levying the call made by oppositions to halt the tender process.
- Less participation of Probity auditor in the contract(Vella, et. al., 2017).
4.Who is affected?
- Other two companies competing with IBM-GSA in the tender.
- Probity Auditor
- Department of Health, Aged Care and Health Insurance Commission
This leads to ETHICAL Analysis
5.What are the ethical issues and implications?
- According to the deontology theory of ethics, a person or organization should always initiate the activities that are right irrespective of the outcomes of the event. So, the minister of the department should have cancelled the tender.
- The tender was received to the organization IBM-GSA due to their unethical means in the environment. Eve after gaining the information about the activities of the company, the probity officer was unable to stop fulfillment of their actions (Warren, and Burmeister 2017).
- According to deontology theory the department of health should have halted the contract to implement rightness in their activities irrespective of outcomes.
6.What can be done about it?
- Probity auditor should be given more power to control, monitor and penalize the tenderers if they implement activities with their wrongful actions.
- The minister should maintain confidentiality of the private and price sensitive information.
- Cancel the transaction if found that the tender is quoted through wrong activities.
7.What options are there?
- Implementation and fulfillment of rules and guidelines
- Giving more power to respective authorities
- Do no delay in implementation of a decision (Al-Saggaf, Burmeister, and Schwartz 2017).
8.Which option is best and why?
- Halting the contract and providing it to the organization that actually placed the right amount of tender at the first place and providing more power to probity auditor
According to Utilitarian theory, the matter is ethical if the minister agrees to halt the process of tender according to the appeal of other two parties and thoroughly go through the case. As the aspect reduces the utility of other tenderer, so the department should not give the tender to IBM-GSA.
Therefore the action is unethical because the department gave the tender to the company IBM-GSA even after knowing that they have gained knowledge about the amount quoted by the other tenderers. This made the company perform unethical activities and the department quietly looking at implementation of unethical act by IBM-GSA is also unethical (Kahane, et. al., 2015).
According to deontology theory, the matter is ethical if the organization follows the rule of law and do not perform any act that aims to break it. Under this case IBM-GSA on gaining information of tender should have stated it to the department and should have asked them to take ethical actions.
Therefore the action is unethical because neither the company nor the minister took any action against the act. Even on knowing that IBM has raised the tender through wrongful means, still the department gave the tender to them which was unethical (Paquette, Sommerfeldt, and Kent 2015).
According to virtue theory, the matter is ethical if the company IBM-GSA did not make use of the information received by them. Looking at the ethical thinking theory, the company should’ve informed the department prior to the revelation of the decision.
What are the facts?
Therefore the action is unethical because IBM-GSA did not perform the actions according to the ethical thinking present in the theory of virtue. Also, the minister on knowing that the company has information about tender remained silent explained that their thinking was also unethical (Rohr 2017).
According to contract theory, the matter is ethical if the company also ethical fulfills their responsibility of trust and integrity against the tender. IBM-GSA should not have changed the amount of their tender even after gaining information about other tenderers, so as to remain in competence. The company should have followed to contract of secrecy and responsibility in the environment.
Therefore the action is unethical because neither the organization nor the department performed their contract in the environment. The company raised by amount of tender by unethical means and the organization on the other hand gave the tender to them knowing the fact that the company has performed unethical activities (Martin 2016).
- What is going on?
Anna is a programmer who is working in a small IT organization that works in developing software for web based services. She joined other additional tertiary course study that helped her gain knowledge about ICT’s impact in different countries and communities. In the course of her job she developed a user interface for the remote communities. With the help of this psychology, she helped the aboriginal people to connect with the software by looking at the culture images. The system performed successfully in the external market ad Anna received employee of the month award and the company received national award for this software. However, the praises that Anna should receive was taken over by Brian, her manager.
- What are the facts?
- Anna developed software for the aboriginal user to get attach with the software culturally.
- Software became famous
- Anna received best employee award and company received national business award.
- Anna’s work credit was taken over by Brian.
- What are the issues?
- Issue in this case is the issue of hiding the real person behind the success of the software.
- Hiding the truth from the customers present in the market is the real ethical issue (Carbonell 2016).
- Who is affected?
- Anna is the first person who is affected with such activity implemented in the environment.
- Customers at large are also affected with the issue as they did not get real information of the person who developed the software.
- What are the ethical issues and implications?
- According to the theory of justice, it is important for the people or organizations prevailing in the society to initiate their activities in such a way that result of justice and fairness is received to the community (Luppicini, and So, 2016).
- The current organization in which Anna is working should adequately satisfy her by providing her monetary as well as non-monetary reward for the achievements made by her the services that she provided in the market to increase the satisfaction level of the customers in the market. The manager took all the praises and rewards that Anna should receive in the market.
- What can be done about it?
- The manager and other employees should consider the work done by Anna and they should provide her services according so as to increase her satisfaction level and motivate her to work more for the organization.
- While receiving National Business Award, Brian should come forward and tell people about the accomplishment of the company on a whole and contribution of Anna in the software development (Humphery, and Jordan 2016).
- What options are there?
- One option is to make the success of Anna as the success of the organization and move smoothly by promoting the company with respect to the software developed by Anna.
- Another option is to praise Anna and tell the market about her hard work and contribution in the success of the project.
- Which option is best and why?
- According to the theory of justice explained above, it is important for Brian to identify the caliber and work done by Anna on the project and help the customers present in the market to know the real person who created and developed the software for the assistance of aboriginal people present in the society (Wolf, and Fresco 2016).
According to Utilitarian theory, the matter is ethical if Brian would have understood the hard work done by Anna and gave her the utility in the environment by praising her. This act would have increased the satisfaction of Anna and many other employees at large.
Therefore the action is unethical because Brian stole the appreciation from Anna which she should get because of her hard work on the project. This act also decreased the satisfaction of the employees and Anna from the organization. Thus, this act is unethical (Kahane, et. al., 2015).
According to deontology theory, the matter is ethical if Brian would have considered the right activity in the environment and announced publically that the main reason of their success through the software is due to hard work done by Anna. Brian should have followed the rules in order to be right.
What are the issues?
Therefore the action is unethical because Brian overtook the success and respect that Anna was supposed to get her work. As she has worked on the software, so she should get identification in the market but Brain did not let people know about Anna (Paquette, Sommerfeldt, and Kent 2015).
According to virtue theory, the matter is ethical if Brian had though ethically with respect to the interest of the organization at large. He should’ve have told people about the work done by Anna and praised her in the environment.
Therefore the action is unethical because Brian became selfish on looking at the growth and success and did not perform ethically. He should’ve have told people that the software is developed by Anna and she should get the rewards in the environment as she is the real reason behind the growth of the company (Rohr 2017).
According to contract theory, the matter is ethical if Brain would have told the truth to the public. It is the responsibility of every person present in the society to let people know about the right and wrong behind the case. However this did not applied the social contract theory in his actions and took the reward from Anna.
Therefore the action is unethical because Brian kept it secret from the public that the software was developed by Anna. The customer believes that he has made the software that is wrong. He should not have hided anything from the public according to this ethical theory (Martin 2016).
- What is going on?
- Andrew is the new software developer of the Government health department who started working on a project that was underway from last 9 months. He has replaced a novice developer who was working on this project earlier but has shifted to new project in another organization. Andrew found out the software is all corrupted and information is also getting lost from it, it is complete even then also the organization is using live data on it. He analyzed that the former developer was not having adequate knowledge of the system due to which he developed the system into more complex structure. He further spent a long time in retrieving the data by failed in that as well. Lastly, he suggested it to his supervisor that they need to change the technologies and quality control measure so as to safely develop the software as well. However, the supervision rejected to his suggestion stating that the department will not agree in changing the technology.
- What are the facts?
- Incapacity of old employee to develop software
- Poor and inefficient software
- Corruption in data with the use of software
- Important to change whole technology and quality control to develop software
- Unwillingness of supervisor and department to change.
- What are the issues?
- Andrew wants to change the quality control measures and technologies formerly used by the department in order to increase the effectiveness of the software but the supervisor is not allowing for the same (Babe 2018).
- Who is affected?
- Government health department
This leads to ETHICAL Analysis
- What are the ethical issues and implications?
- Andrew on understanding his responsibility towards the efficiency of the organization and work given by the organization wants to change the technologies used by them on the prior basis. According to the virtue theory of ethics, it should be noted that character of an individual is the key element of ethical thinking. On the basis of Andrew’s ethical measures the organization is not allowing him to do the same. This result in ineffectiveness of the software.
- What can be done about it?
- The supervisor can understand the critical dilemma that Andrew is facing and allow him to work on the project by using new technologies and quality control measures
- Andrew can convince the department to let him make changes in the system for efficient functioning of the process (Kinder-Kurlanda, and Boos 2015).
- What options are there?
- Andrew can work according to the guidelines of supervisor irrespective of the negative results received from the software
- Andrew can convince the department on allowing him to use different technology and quality control measures.
- Andrew can convince the supervisor to convince the department to allow him to use the technology and make changes (Trentesaux, and Rault 2017).
- Which option is best and why?
- Andrew should convince the supervisor and make him understand the need and importance of the department to make changes for the good functioning of the software. Then the supervisor should aim to convince the higher authorities of the organization (Ruiz -Jiménez, del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes, and Ruiz-Arroyo 2016).
According to Utilitarian theory, the matter is ethical if, the department and supervisor understand that it is important for Andrew to make use of innovative technology and quality control measures in order to become competitive and make use of the software efficiently. The change in the process only will drive utility for the organization.
Therefore the action is unethical because the department knowing the fact that Andrew cannot work on such process and rectify it is disallowing to make changes in the process. In order to gain full utility from the software, the company should adopt changes (Kahane, et. al., 2015).
According to deontology theory, the matter is ethical if, the organization should apply the change management program and initiate changes that are right for the organization. According to this theory the board and management should understand the importance for Andrew to make changes in system and help him to work accordingly.
Who is affected?
Therefore the action is unethical because the supervisor denies that department will not make changes in the technology and in quality control as well. Knowing the fact that the software is corrupting the live data presented in the software, still the company is using the software is unethical (Paquette, Sommerfeldt, and Kent 2015).
According to virtue theory, the matter is ethical if, supervisor understand the criticality of the event aims to rectify it by helping Andrew to perform his actions. His actions would be regarded as ethical only if he agrees to the suggestion given by Andrew.
Therefore the action is unethical because the supervisor without asking from the said it to Andrew that the IT department will not change their functions. The corrupted software can help the hackers attack the software; still the supervisor is disallowing Andrew from making changes in the use of technology and quality control (Rohr 2017).
According to contract theory, the matter is ethical if, the department and the supervisor understand the consequences of the event if they do not allow Andrew from making changes in the system allow him to use relevant technology. According to this theory the company should keep their algorithms private in order to secure hacking.
Therefore the action is unethical because the supervisor disallows Andrew from making changes in the system. With respect to the theory he should understand his responsibility in the environment and allow him to make changes so that no person can easily hack the private information of the organization (Martin 2016).
This essay will discuss ethical measures in an organization that are related to the whistle blowing concern to a person who implements such activities. The essay will explain about the activity of whistle blowing, whether it is ethical or unethical and the employees initiating such activities are expected to lose their jobs. Further, it also discusses about two ethical theories relating to the case and ACS code ethics as well.
On one hand concerning the matter according to the theory of deontology, it should be noted that it is the duty of all the employees to work according to the rules initiated by the organization. Irrespective of the outcomes of the event the person should initiate such activities. This concept works on the basis of rule of law that is implemented in the environment. Relating the concept to this case, it should be noted that the whistle blower technique expose the activities of the organization in the external environment (Hartley, Medlin, and Houlik 2017). It is deemed responsibility of the employees to work for the betterment of the organization. Thus, use of such techniques should be prohibited by the employees and they should comply with all the guidelines created by the organization irrespective of their outcomes. The organization should suspend such employees who initiate such activities in the organization (de Bruin, and Floridi 2017).
What are the ethical issues and implications?
On the other hand talking about the utilitarianism theory of ethics, it should be noted that a person should initiate specific activity if the utility derived from that activity satisfies the society at large. A person should look at the utility present the consequences and then implement actions that are best suited for the community. In the given case, it should be noted that the actions of the company are unethical as they stop employees from becoming whistle blower. This activity helps the organization to realize their responsibilities and stop performing unethical activities as well. So, the company expels employees who become whistle blower then they are performing unethical activities (Lourenço et. al., 2014).
In addition, according to the perspective of ACS Code of ethics, the actions of the company are unethical because primary of public interest theory states that all actions should be initiated by the organization that increases the satisfaction of public at large. According to this theory, the organization should continuously work to bring integrity and utility in their actions. The company is harming public interest at large so they are performing unethical activities with the employees (Hilty 2015).
In conclusion, this essay discussed about the ethical and unethical measures initiated by the organization when an employee becomes a whistle blower. There is presence of ethical dilemma in this case between the deontology and utilitarianism theory of ethics.
This essay will discuss about the white, grey and black hat hacker from the professional and ethical hackers. And the difference and similarity between white ethical hackers and white hat hackers.
White hat hackers are those hackers are those hackers who choose to use their powers for good activities rather than evil ones. Further grey hat hackers are those hackers who are a mixture of both white as well as black hat hackers. These people will look for the issues in the system without the permission of the owner, and if issues are found then they tell it to the owner and charge some amount to fix it. Lastly, black hat hackers are those hackers who have extensive knowledge of codes and hacking and these people use their knowledge write malware and earn money by hacking the software (Quilici-Gonzalez et. al., 2014). It should also be noted that there is a term naming ethical hackers or professional hackers. These are those people who hack the computer network in order to test the security of the software and to protect the malicious intent performed by other non-ethical hackers. On one hand relating this concept to the contract theory of ethics, it should be noted that the theory states that it is the prime duty of the people living in the society to work in such a way that they provide benefit to the society. People in the society lives with an agreement to establish moral and political rules of behavior. So, it is the responsibility of all the hackers work according to the social contract and enact activities that assist the society for its betterment (Vandekerckhove 2016).
What can be done about it?
On the other hand according to the deontology theory of ethics, the hackers in the society, irrespective of being black hat, white hat or grey hat should never implement actions that oppose to the ACS code of ethics presented in the society. Thus, it should be noted that the work done by professional hackers and black, white, grey hat hackers can never regarded as same as one perform actions by fulfilling their rights and responsibilities and others perform actions unethically (Witten et. al., 2016).
In addition, according to the perspective of ACS Code of ethics, honesty is one of the codes of ethics that explains that the activities initiated by the hackers in the environment are a representation of their honesty policy in the environment. This is the basic aspect that differentiates an ethical hacker from non-ethical one (Zhang, Liao, and Yuan 2016).
In conclusion, this essay discussed about types of hackers present in the environment and the difference between ethical and unethical hacker and the theories related to the case. The essay explained the deontology and contract theory related to the case.
This essay will discuss about the ethics related to the case storing of algorithms developed by machine learning. The essay explains two ethical theories that explain whether maintaining transparency in the system can be regarded as ethical or unethical (Xu, et. al., 2015).
It should be noted that algorithms developed by machine learning helps a business to forecast details about their system and earn efficiency in the market. The algorithms are set of data that is recorded on the basis of past transactions of the organizations. This system helps the organization in gaining information about the future sales or progress of the company in the external environment. So, if the organization reveals this algorithm in the market then other competitors can make use it attain the key to gain success and reduce the competitive advantage of the company in the market (Horvitz, and Mulligan 2015).
First let us discuss the ethical dilemma in this case study in the perspective of two ethical theories namely utilitarianism and right. On one hand, matter is ethical because if the organization will reveal the core information of their business in the target market then the competitors can make use of it to reach to their position in the external market. Thus, according to the utilitarianism theory, the organization should initiate activities that satisfy the market on a whole and rive the best utility from their actions. So, restoring such information is the best action as it gives advantage to the company to grow by using such personal information for the business. Thus, according to this theory of ethics, it is agreeable that transparency is good but not in all cases, so the company should not share the algorithms developed through machine learning (Dua, and Du 2016).
What options are there?
On the other hand the right theory of ethics states that rights are established in the society to provide maximum benefit to them with maximum priority as well. Rights are ethically correct and appropriate for the audience at large. Relating it to the case, it should be noted that it is the right of the organization not to reveal their personal information that helps them to grow in the external market. It is important for the organizations to be transparent but not in the way that can hamper their growth (Chatterjee, Sarker, and Valacich 2015). Thus, it is the right of an organization not to reveal the personal information of organization.
In addition, according to the perspective of ACS Code of ethics, the professionalism code of ethics states that the organization should initiate all such activities in their business that increase the satisfaction level of business. They should not aim to misbalance the activities of the whole market with their activities.
In conclusion, this essay discussed about the importance of business to store their algorithms and keep such information private in order to fulfill all the ethical responsibilities of the business.
Al-Saggaf, Y., Burmeister, O.K. and Schwartz, M., 2017. Qualifications and ethics education: the views of ICT professionals. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 21.
Babe, R.E., 2018. Communication and the Transformation of Economics: Essays in information, public policy, and political economy. Routledge.
Carbonell, I.M., 2016. The ethics of big data in big agriculture. Browser Download This Paper.
Caron, X., Bosua, R., Maynard, S.B. and Ahmad, A., 2016. The Internet of Things (IoT) and its impact on individual privacy: An Australian perspective. Computer law & security review, 32(1), pp.4-15.
Chatterjee, S., Sarker, S. and Valacich, J.S., 2015. The behavioral roots of information systems security: Exploring key factors related to unethical IT use. Journal of Management Information Systems, 31(4), pp.49-87.
de Bruin, B. and Floridi, L., 2017. The ethics of cloud computing. Science and civil engineering ethics, 23(1), pp.21-39.
Dua, S. and Du, X., 2016. Data mining and machine learning in cybersecurity. CRC press.
Hartley, R., Medlin, D. and Houlik, Z., 2017. Ethical Hacking: Educating Future Cybersecurity Professionals. In Proceedings of the EDSIG Conference ISSN (Vol. 2473, p. 3857).
Hilty, L.M., 2015. Ethical issues in ubiquitous computing—three technology assessment studies revisited. In Ubiquitous Computing in the Workplace (pp. 45-60). Springer, Cham.
Horvitz, E. and Mulligan, D., 2015. Data, privacy, and the greater good. Science, 349(6245), pp.253-255.
Humphery, K. and Jordan, T., 2016. Mobile moralities: Ethical consumption in the digital realm. Journal of Consumer Culture.
Kahane, G., Everett, J.A., Earp, B.D., Farias, M. and Savulescu, J., 2015. ‘Utilitarian’judgments in sacrificial moral dilemmas do not reflect impartial concern for the greater good. Cognition, 134, pp.193-209.
Kinder-Kurlanda, K. and Boos, D., 2015. Socio-ethical Issues of Ubicomp: Societal Trends, Transparency, and Information Control. In Ubiquitous Computing in the Workplace (pp. 61-74). Springer, Cham.
Lourenço, I.C., Callen, J.L., Branco, M.C. and Curto, J.D., 2014. The value relevance of reputation for sustainability leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 119(1), pp.17-28.
Luppicini, R. and So, A., 2016. A technoethical review of commercial drone use in the context of governance, ethics, and privacy. Technology in Society, 46, pp.109-119.
Martin, K., 2016. Understanding privacy online: Development of a social contract approach to privacy. Journal of Business Ethics, 137(3), pp.551-569.
Paquette, M., Sommerfeldt, E.J. and Kent, M.L., 2015. Do the ends justify the means? Dialogue, development communication, and deontological ethics. Public Relations Review, 41(1), pp.30-39.
Quilici-Gonzalez, J.A., Broens, M.C., Quilici-Gonzalez, M.E. and Kobayashi, G., 2014. Complexity and information technologies: an ethical inquiry into human autonomous action. Scientiae Studia, 12(SPE), pp.161-179.
Rohr, J., 2017. Ethics for bureaucrats: An essay on law and values. UK: Routledge.
Ruiz-Jiménez, J.M., del Mar Fuentes-Fuentes, M. and Ruiz-Arroyo, M., 2016. Knowledge combination capability and innovation: The effects of gender diversity on top management teams in technology-based firms. Journal of business ethics, 135(3), pp.503-515.
Trentesaux, D. and Rault, R., 2017. Designing Ethical Cyber-Physical Industrial Systems. IFAC-PapersOnLine, 50(1), pp.14934-14939.
Vandekerckhove, W., 2016. Whistleblowing and organizational social responsibility: A global assessment. Routledge.
Vella, S.F., Burmeister, O.K., Ceric, A. and Barnden, A., 2017. A systematic narrative review of literature on Catholic schools in Australia to better understand the role of School Leadership deploying and integrating Information and Communication Technology (ICT) in this environment. eJournal of Catholic Education in Australasia, 3(1), p.4.
Warren, M. and Burmeister, O.K., 2017. Research on Applied Ethics involving emerging ICT technologies. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 21.
Witten, I.H., Frank, E., Hall, M.A. and Pal, C.J., 2016. Data Mining: Practical machine learning tools and techniques. Morgan Kaufmann.
Wolf, M.J. and Fresco, N., 2016. Ethics of the software vulnerabilities and exploits market. The Information Society, 32(4), pp.269-279.
Xu, K., Yue, H., Guo, L., Guo, Y. and Fang, Y., 2015, June. Privacy-preserving machine learning algorithms for big data systems. In Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS), 2015 IEEE 35th International Conference on (pp. 318-327). IEEE.
Zhang, F.W., Liao, J.Q. and Yuan, J.M., 2016. Ethical leadership and whistleblowing: Collective moral potency and personal identification as mediators. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal, 44(7), pp.1223-1231.