http//
Not the worlds most serious post, I realise, however taking a slightly different approach to the article …
We are all in posession of knowledge regarding obtaining information about computer useage of our children/spouses/significant others where does one draw the line about making use of such knowledge to safeguard their interests &/or our own interests ?
Assuming I own the computer ( I paid for it etc. ) what is my entitlement to examine the disk when my wife/children/dog have been using it for web surfing ?
Computer Misuse Act changes aside … Can I use a packet sniffer on my own network to log IM messages ?
Where do people think that the ethical boundaries are ?
( There is an ultimate aim in the question of professional ethics here … but not getting there yet … )
Ta Muchly 😉
Personally, I would have thought that the issue of ownership comes into play. With your computer example, even though you own the machine, could you get into trouble if you don't stipulate beforehand that you will be monitoring activity?
Personally, I would have thought that the issue of ownership comes into play. With your computer example, even though you own the machine, could you get into trouble if you don't stipulate beforehand that you will be monitoring activity?
In a corporate environment that would definately be true. Although usually it is part of an acceptable use policy that people don't bother reading when they are forced to sign it when first hired …
I think that you are right that it is fundamentally a question of ownership - I am entitled to do as I see fit with the hardware - but the data, do I own that if it is created by someone else on my hardware ?
If I make my kids/wife/dog sign something that says I will monitor them, where would that leave me with respect to the third party that they are communicating with ?
"Although usually it is part of an acceptable use policy that people don't bother reading when they are forced to sign it when first hired …"
No one forces you to sign anything…you have a choice. Always. That choice maybe to not sign and therefore forfeit employment, but you have that choice.
What you do with your own personal systems is up to you.
If I make my kids/wife/dog sign something that says I will monitor them, where would that leave me with respect to the third party that they are communicating with ?
An interesting thought, seeing as most, if not all, chat programs give you the option to save chat logs. Does this mean that by enabling chat logging you are going against the privacy rights of the third party?
Wrenching the topic back to the original story, is the issue more related to the fact that the lady in question used company property to perform her investigation? I doubt there would have been an issue if she'd hired another company to do what she did, but maybe i'm wrong )
the lady in question used company property to perform her investigation? I doubt there would have been an issue if she'd hired another company to do what she did, but maybe i'm wrong )
Hmmm. But if it was going to be chucked out - was it really theft of it ? -)
No one forces you to sign anything…you have a choice. Always. That choice maybe to not sign and therefore forfeit employment, but you have that choice.
Point taken, although, one could define the circumstances as being forceful
Sign this or no job.
No Job = No Pay.
No Pay = No food.
At the point that it is requested, i.e. when the employee turns up for work on their first day, there is pressure applied by the fact that the person may not be able to go out and get another job in sufficent time to be able to pay for his financial commitments. I know that I've been in this boat - where to walk on the first day would bankrupt me.
What you do with your own personal systems is up to you.
Ah … But it isn't - it is still governed by law, and if I make such a system available to someone else, either in my family, or more complicatedley a guest in my house, I'm sure that I would be goverened by rules that safeguard their right to privacy.
Change the scenario a little
A friend of mine is staying, he asks if he can use my PC to check his e-mail, I let him - I doubt that legaly I have the right to attempt to recover data from my disk/cache etc. so that I can read his e-mail …
But we digress - the question was not so much "is it legal" - because ask 3 lawyers the same question and you'll get 5 answers. But more "is it ethical" ?
Is it ethically right to use knowledge gained in a field to further one's personal wellbeing where doing so makes use of specialist knowledge unavailable or unknown to others ?
This is where I can apply my MSc - -) our ethics module was great!! Trying to be objective here and these no way represent my own views.
This case depends on your persuasion …
Idealism … advocates of this philosophical system judge the action and not the aftermath of the action. Was it wrong to gather the clothing and use her own lab to conduct the experiment? Was it wrong that she used chemicals from the company for her own personal use, even though they were to be destroyed?
Pragmatism … Pragmatists believe that the ends justify the means. In testing the clothing it is assumed the husband will either be proven guilty, or if he has nothing to hide he should not worry and will be proven innocent. If proven guilty, and as adultery is a crime, this justifies the actions of the wife. In the same way the child is protected. If innocent the actions should be looked upon as a way to protect everyone involved. The company would support this decision and permit use of company property and time to help one of their employees.
Naturalism and Realism … . According to this philosophical paradigm physical matter is the only reality. In other words, as long as the husband is either punished for his crime, or acknowledged that no crime was committed, then the actions of the wife have no consequence. Similarly, we refer to what is natural here. In particular it is natural for a mother to protect her children. If the husband was having an affair this could affect the home life of the family and have an emotional impact on the children. The company on the other hand would deem it unnatural for employees to conduct personal work within the office, particularly if there was a chance it could go to court. It would also be unnatural for them to justify letting an employee use their position to gain an advantage.
Utilitarianism … these people believe in the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Utilitarianists would view the actions of the wife as morally permissible as it generates the greatest happiness for the greatest number. In particular it leaves the wife to file for divorce and the husband to move away with his new mistress. The child in question may have the choice of which parent to live with however the mother will generally request custody. The company may not see this as generating the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Their other employees may take it upon themselves to bring personal work into the office and use lab time & materials for personal gain.
In terms of monitoring computer usage this fella here http//
Ronan
Ronan,
That is a particularly stunning answer !
Thank you -)
(You do realise that you have just volunteered to write the ethics section of DECAF don't you -P )