The University of Oklahoma Moral Assessment Summary please Summarize 6 pages in 3 pages correctly and accurately thank for your time ons, Management, and t

The University of Oklahoma Moral Assessment Summary please Summarize 6 pages in 3 pages correctly and accurately thank for your time ons, Management, and the Networked Enterprise
impacts exist are products of institutional, organizational, and individual actions
and behaviors. Second, responsibility for the consequences of technology falls
clearly on the institutions, organizations, and individual managers who choose
to use the technology. Using information technology in a socially responsible
manner means that you can and will be held accountable for the consequences
of your actions. Third, in an ethical, political society, individuals and others can
recover damages done to them through a set of laws characterized by due process.
1
ETHICAL ANALYSIS
When confronted with a situation that seems to present ethical issues, how
should you analyze it? The following five-step process should help:
1. Identify and describe the facts clearly. Find out who did what to whom, and
where, when, and how. In many instances, you will be surprised at the errors
in the initially reported facts, and often you will find that simply getting the
facts straight helps define the solution. It also helps to get the opposing parties
involved in an ethical dilemma to agree on the facts.
2. Define the conflict or dilemma and identify the higher-order values involved. Ethical,
social, and political issues always reference higher values. The parties to a
dispute all claim to be pursuing higher values (e.g., freedom, privacy, protection
of property, and the free enterprise system). Typically, an ethical issue involves
a dilemma: two diametrically opposed courses of action that support
worthwhile values. For example, the chapter-opening case study illustrates two
competing values: the need to improve access to digital content and the need to
respect the property rights of the owners of that content.
3. Identify the stakeholders. Every ethical, social, and political issue has stakehold-
ers: players in the game who have an interest in the outcome, who have
invested in the situation, and usually who have vocal opinions. Find out the
identity of these groups and what they want. This will be useful later when
designing a solution.
4. Identify the options that you can reasonably take. You may find that none of the
options satisfy all the interests involved, but that some options do a better job
than others. Sometimes arriving at a good or ethical solution may not always be
a balancing of consequences to stakeholders.
5. Identify the potential consequences of your options. Some options may be ethically
correct but disastrous from other points of view. Other options may work in one
instance but not in other similar instances. Always ask yourself, “What if I
choose this option consistently over time?”
CANDIDATE ETHICAL PRINCIPLES
Once your analysis is complete, what ethical principles or rules should you use
to make a decision? What higher-order values should inform your judgment?
Although you are the only one who can decide which among many ethical
principles you will follow, and how you will prioritize them, it is helpful to
consider some ethical principles with deep roots in many cultures that have
survived throughout recorded history:
1. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (the Golden Rule).
Putting yourself into the place of others, and thinking of yourself as the object
of the decision, can help you think about fairness in decision making.
2. If an action is not right for everyone to take, it is not right for anyone
(Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative). Ask yourself, “If everyone did
this, could the organization, or society, survive?”
Chapter 4 Ethical and Social Issues in
3. If an action cannot be taken repeatedly, it is not right to take at all. This is the
slippery-slope rule: An action may bring about a small change now that is
acceptable, but if it is repeated, it would bring unacceptable changes in the long
run. In the vernacular, it might be stated as “once started down a slippery path,
you may not be able to stop.”
4. Take the action that achieves the higher or greater value (Utilitarian
Principle). This rule assumes you can prioritize values in a rank order and
understand the consequences of various courses of action.
5. Take the action that produces the least harm or the least potential cost (Risk
Aversion Principle). Some actions have extremely high failure costs of very
low probability (e.g., building a nuclear generating facility in an urban area) or
extremely high failure costs of moderate probability (speeding and automobile
accidents). Avoid these high-failure-cost actions, paying greater attention to
high-failure-cost potential of moderate to high probability.
6. Assume that virtually all tangible and intangible objects are owned by someone
else unless there is a specific declaration otherwise. (This is the ethical “no free
lunch” rule.) If something someone else has created is useful to you, it has
value, and you should assume the creator wants compensation for this work.
Actions that do not easily pass these rules deserve close attention and a great
deal of caution. The appearance of unethical behavior may do as much harm to
you and your company as actual unethical behavior.
2
PROFESSIONAL CODES OF CONDUCT
When groups of people claim to be professionals, they take on special rights
and obligations because of their special claims to knowledge, wisdom, and
respect. Professional codes of conduct are promulgated by associations
of professionals, such as the American Medical Association (AMA), the
American Bar Association (ABA), the Association of Information Technology
Professionals (AITP), and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).
These professional groups take responsibility for the partial regulation of
their professions by determining entrance qualifications and competence,
Codes of ethics are promises by professions to regulate themselves in the
general interest of society. For example, avoiding harm to others, honor-
ing property rights (including intellectual property), and respecting privacy
are among the General Moral Imperatives of the ACM’s Code of Ethics and
Professional Conduct.
SOME REAL-WORLD ETHICAL DILEMMAS
Information systems have created new ethical dilemmas in whichone setofinterests
is pitted against another. For example, many of the large telephone companies in the
United Statesareusinginformationtechnology to reduce thesizesoftheirworkforces.
Voice recognition software reduces the need for human operators by
enabling computers to recognize a customer’s responses to a series of
computerized questions. Many companies monitor what their employ-
ees are doing on the Internet to prevent them from wasting company
resources on non-business activities. Facebook monitors its subscribers and
then sells the information to advertisers and app developers (see the chapter-
ending case study).
In each instance, you can find competing values at work, with groups lined
up on either side of a debate. A company may argue, for example, that it has a
right to use information systems to increase productivity and reduce the size
of its workforce to lower costs and stay in business. Employees displaced by
information systems may argue that employers have some responsibility for
their welfare. Business owners might feel obligated to monitor employee e-mail
and Internet use to minimize drains on productivity. Employees might believe
they should be able to use the Internet for short personal tasks in place of the
telephone. A close analysis of the facts can sometimes produce compromised
solutions that give each side “half a loaf.” Try to apply some of the principles of
ethical analysis described to each of these cases. What is the right thing to do?
4.3 WHY DO CONTEMPORARY INFORMATION SYSTEMS
TECHNOLOGY AND THE INTERNET POSE
CHALLENGES TO THE PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL
PRIVACY AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY?
In this section, we take a closer look at the five moral dimensions of informa-
tion systems first described in Figure 4.1. In each dimension, we identify the
ethical, social, and political levels of analysis and use real-world examples to
illustrate the values involved, the stakeholders, and the options chosen.
3
INFORMATION RIGHTS: PRIVACY AND FREEDOM
THE INTERNET AGE
Privacy is the claim of individuals to be left alone, free from surveillance or
interference from other individuals or organizations, including the state. Claims
to privacy are also involved at the workplace: Millions of employees are subject
to electronic and other forms of high-tech surveillance. Information technology
and systems threaten individual claims to privacy by making the invasion of
privacy cheap, profitable, and effective.
The claim to privacy is protected in the U.S., Canadian, and German
constitutions in a variety of different ways and in other countries through
various statutes. In the United States, the claim to privacy is protected primar-
ily by the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and association,
the Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure of
one’s personal documents or home, and the guarantee of due process.
Table 4.3 describes the major U.S. federal statutes that set forth the
conditions for handling information about individuals in such areas as credit
reporting, education, financial records, newspaper records, and electronic
communications. The Privacy Act of 1974 has been the most important of
these laws, regulating the federal government’s collection, use, and disclosure
of information. At present, most U.S. federal privacy laws apply only to the
federal government and regulate very few areas of the private sector.
Most American and European privacy law is based on a regime called Fair
Information Practices (FIP) first set forth in a report written in 1973 by a
federal government advisory committee and updated most recently in 2010 to
take into account new privacy-invading technology (FTC, 2010; U.S. Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1973). FIP is a set of principles governing
the collection and use of information about individuals. FIP principles are
based on the notion of a mutuality of interest between the record holder and
the individual. The individual has an interest in engaging in a transaction,
and the record keeper-usually a business or government agency-requires
the individual. The individual has an interest in engaging in a transaction,
and the record keeper-usually a business or government agency-requires
Chapter 4 Ethical and Social Issues in Information Systems 169
TABLE 4.3 FEDERAL PRIVACY LAWS IN THE UNITED STATES
GENERAL FEDERAL PRIVACY LAWS
PRIVACY LAWS AFFECTING PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS
Freedom of Information Act of 1966 as Amended (5 USC 552) Fair Credit Reporting Act of 1970
Privacy Act of 1974 as Amended (5 USC 552a)
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978
Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988
Privacy Protection Act of 1980
Computer Security Act of 1987
Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984
Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act of 1982
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
Driver’s Privacy Protection Act of 1994
Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988
E-Government Act of 2002
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(HIPAA)
Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) of 1998
Financial Modernization Act (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act) of 1999
information about the individual to support the transaction. Once information
is gathered, the individual maintains an interest in the record, and the record
may not be used to support other activities without the individual’s consent.
In 1998, the FTC restated and extended the original FIP to provide guidelines
for protecting online privacy. Table 4.4 describes the FTC’s Fair Information
Practice principles
The FTC’s FIP principles are being used as guidelines to drive changes in
privacy legislation. In July 1998, the U.S. Congress passed the Children’s Online
Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), requiring Web sites to obtain parental permis-
sion before collecting information on children under the age of 13. The FTC
has recommended additional legislation to protect online consumer privacy in
advertising networks that collect records of consumer Web activity to develop
detailed profiles, which are then used by other companies to target online ads.
In 2010, the FTC added three practices to its framework for privacy. Firms
should adopt “privacy by design, building products and services that protect
privacy. Firms should increase the transparency of their data practices. And
firms should require consumer consent and provide clear options to opt out of
4
TABLE 4.4 FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION FAIR INFORMATION PRACTICE PRINCIPLES
1. Notice/awareness (core principle). Web sites must disclose their information practices before collecting data. Includes identification of
collector
; uses of data, other recipients of data; nature of collection (active/inactive); voluntary or required status, consequences of refusal;
and steps taken to protect confidentiality, integrity, and quality of the data.
2. Choice/consent (core principle). There must be a choice regime in place allowing consumers to choose how their information will be used
for secondary purposes other than supporting the transaction, including internal use and transfer to third parties
3. Access/participation. Consumers should be able to review and contest the accuracy and completeness of data collected about them in a
timely, inexpensive process.
4. Security. Data collectors must take responsible steps to assure that consumer information is accurate and secure from unauthorized use.
5. Enforcement. There must be in place a mechanism to enforce FIP principles. This can involve self-regulation, legislation giving consumers
legal remedies for violations, or federal statutes and regulations
170 Part One Organizations, Management, and the Networked Enterprise
data collection schemes (FTC, 2010). Other proposed Internet privacy legisla-
Organizations, Management, and the Networked Enterprise
5
data collection schemes (FTC, 2010). Other proposed Internet privacy legisl:
tion focuses on protecting the online use of personal identification numbers,
such as social security numbers, protecting personal information collected on
the Internet that deals with individuals not covered by COPPA; and limiting the
use of data mining for homeland security
Beginning in 2009 and continuing through 2012, the FTC extended its FIP
doctrine to address the issue of behavioral targeting. The FTC held hearings to
discuss its program for voluntary industry principles for regulating behavioral
targeting. The online advertising trade group Network Advertising Initiative
(discussed later in this section), published its own self-regulatory principles
that largely agreed with the FTC. Nevertheless, the government, privacy
groups, and the online ad industry are still at loggerheads over two issues.
Privacy advocates want both an opt-in policy at all sites and a national Do Not
Track list. The industry opposes these moves and continues to insist on an
opt-out capability being the only way to avoid tracking. In May 2011, Senator
Jay D. Rockefeller (D-WV), Chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee
on Consumer Protection, Product Safety, and Insurance, held hearings to
discuss consumer privacy concerns and to explore the possible role of the
federal government in protecting consumers in the mobile marketplace.
Rockefeller supports the Do Not-Track Online Act of 2011 (reintroduced in
2013), which requires firms to notify consumers they are being tracked and
allows consumers to opt out of the tracking (U.S. Senate, 2011). Nevertheless,
there is an emerging consensus among all parties that greater transparency
and user control (especially making opting out of tracking the default option)
is required to deal with behavioral tracking. While there are many studies of
privacy issues at the federal level, there has been no significant legislation in
recent years.
Privacy protections have also been added to recent laws deregulating
financial services and safeguarding the maintenance and transmission of
health information about individuals. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999,
which repeals earlier restrictions on affiliations among banks, securities firms,
and insurance companies, includes some privacy protection for consumers of
financial services. All financial institutions are required to disclose their policies
and practices for protecting the privacy of nonpublic personal information
and to allow customers to opt out of information-sharing arrangements with
nonaffiliated third parties.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996,
which took effect on April 14, 2003, includes privacy protection for medical
records. The law gives patients access to their personal medical records
maintained by health care providers, hospitals, and health insurers, and the
right to authorize how protected information about themselves can be used or
disclosed. Doctors, hospitals, and other health care providers must limit the
disclosure of personal information about patients to the minimum amount
necessary to achieve a given purpose.
The European Directive on Data Protection
In Europe, privacy protection is much more stringent than in the United States.
Unlike the United States, European countries do not allow businesses to use per-
sonally identifiable information without consumers’ prior consent. On October
25, 1998, the European Commission’s Directive on Data Protection went into
effect, broadening privacy protection in the European Union (EU) nations. The
directive requires companies to inform people when they collect information
about them and disclose how it will be stored and used. Customers must provide
Chapter 4 Ethical and Social Issues in Information Systems 171
d consent before any company can legally use data about them,
the right to access that information, correct it, and request that
a be collected. Informed consent can be defined as consent given
ze of all the facts needed to make a rational decision. EU member
translate these principles into their own laws and cannot transfer

Purchase answer to see full
attachment