IGU Study on E Commerce Security Issues and Solutions Article Summary Q 1. Read Dr. Pranav Patil’s “Study on E-Commerce Security Issues and Solutions“ and

IGU Study on E Commerce Security Issues and Solutions Article Summary Q 1. Read Dr. Pranav Patil’s “Study on E-Commerce Security Issues and Solutions“ and submit a two-page summary of the journal article using APA style.

Q2. Read Closing Case 2 Big Data and the Treatment of Cancer of Chapter 3

and answers the questions at the end of the case study in detail.

Your answers will be judged based on the following criteria:

+ Identification of the Main Issues/ Problems

+ Analysis of the Issues

+ Well documented, reasoned and pedagogically appropriate answers/solutions

+ All questions detailed answers

Q3. Read Closing Case 2 The Office of Personnel Management Breach of Chapter 7

and answers the questions at the end of the case study in detail.

Your answers will be judged based on the following criteria:

+ Identification of the Main Issues/ Problems

+ Analysis of the Issues

+ Well documented, reasoned and pedagogically appropriate answers/solutions

+ All questions detailed answers

Previous The overall goal of your paper is to analyze a business ethics case in light of the theories and
concepts that we studied this semester.
You will need to do the following:
1) Identify a business case that raises an ethical issue (or issues).
2) Determine which theories or concepts are most relevant for analyzing the
case. (These must be theories and concepts that we covered in this course.)
3) Offer a thoughtful application of the theories or concepts to the case, which
includes providing arguments and analysis to explain how the theories or
concepts apply to the fact of the case.
4) Draw a conclusion about what the ethically correct action in the case would
be, and whether the actual actors in the case fulfilled this obligation or failed to
act correctly.
5) Explain which ethical theory (deontology, utilitarianism, or both) best
justifies your conclusion and why
The presentation should be 5-minutes in length and must cover the four elements listed above.
You will need to create a PowerPoint presentation that allows the audience to follow along. The
contents of your presentation should essentially follow the paper guidelines listed below.
The paper must be at least 4-pages in length (double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman font,
1-inch margins), and should present the four elements listed above in written form. Your grade
will be substantially lowered if the paper is shorter than this length.
It should include an introductory paragraph, which provides an overview of your paper. This
paragraph should specify the topic you will discuss, the literature you will cover, and the
conclusion that you will draw. Think of the introductory paragraph as a road map to your entire
paper, which provides an overview of what’s to come in the rest of the paper.
The body of your paper should explain facts of the case, the theories or concepts that you will
use, and provide an analysis and argument to support the conclusion(s) that you draw.
-The body of your paper can include exposition of literature that we have covered in class, or
exposition from outside sources that you find yourself.
-However, no more than 50% of your paper can be devoted exposition. (If you rely on literature
that we have covered in class, then you have not only the readings themselves, but also my
lecture notes on this material. I know what my lecture notes say, and do not want a paper in
which 90% of it just repeats my lecture notes back to me. This type of paper would essentially
involve no work on your part. Even if you use outside sources, you must still keep the exposition
to no more than 50%of your paper. An ethics paper should develop your own line of reasoning
and argument on a particular topic; it is NOT a book report.)
-Be sure that you provide a clear line of argument. (Recall all of the arguments we have
encountered in the readings covered this semester. Many arguments can be boiled down to 3 or 4
or 5 premises and a conclusion. However, a lot can be said about, and in support of, each
premise. So, it may be that the argument you provide in your paper can be boiled down to an
argument with just3 or 4 premises. However, the paper itself may contain extended discussion
of this argument and its premises. And of course, you are also welcome to offer more than one
argument in the course of your paper.) The key is to always think of your argument in
premise/conclusion format. Make sure that the conclusion of your argument follows from the
premises that you provide.
-Even though the argument of your paper may not be abbreviated in premise/conclusion format,
it often helps to write out your argument in this way on a separate sheet of paper, so you can
examine it and make sure that it works (is sound or cogent).
The paper should also include a concluding paragraph, which briefly summarizes what you
have argued in your paper and states the conclusion(s) that you have drawn.
It is important to consider which case and which theories or concepts you will use. Some
theories and concepts are more complex than others. For example, stockholder theory and
stakeholder theory have a quite a bit of depth and complexity to them. This means you have
more theoretical depth to apply to the case, which is a good thing. Since you need to develop a
presentation and paper of an appropriate length, you need to make sure there is enough to
analyze and argue about, both in terms of the case that you choose and the theory (or theories)or
concept that you apply.
Here is an example:
Analyze the case of a whistleblower in light of the four relevant values and DeGeorge’s
framework.
The topic is left fairly general, because I want to provide the freedom to work on a case that
really interests you.
It is also important to note that the majority of your grade for this assignment is based upon the
analysis and arguments that you provide. Summarizing the facts of a case takes little work. The
skill comes in providing a creative and logical analysis of the facts in light of the
theories/concepts that you apply.
This is the whistleblowing Theory that we covered in class
The Ethics of Whistleblowing
What is a Whistleblower?
A whistleblower is a member of an organization who releases information outside
the normal chain of command or channels of communication that shows evidence
of significant misconduct on the part of the organization or its members.
DeGeorge’s Criteria for Whistleblowing
Permissive Whistleblowing:
1) The harm that will be done to the public by the product or company action is
serious and considerable.
2) The employee has made the concerns known to his/her supervisor.
3) If the supervisor has taken no actions, the employee exhausts complaint
mechanisms within the organization.
Mandatory Whistleblowing:
4) The employee has documented evidence that would convince an impartial
observer that the organization is doing wrong.
5) There is strong evidence that making the information public will prevent the
harm.
Ethical Analysis of Whistleblowing
Why is whistleblowing potentially problematic?
1)
•
•
•
2)
•
It involves weighing the values of
Loyalty
The agent-principal relationship
Avoiding retaliation
Against the value of
Making corruption publicly known
Loyalty
• Loyalty is a virtue that involves giving strong support or allegiance to a
person or institution, even when the commitment is costly
• It is generally held that employees owe loyalty to their employer.
• However, cases of potential whistleblowing involve the employer acting
wrongfully, and the employee being either (i) involved in the wrongful acts,
or (ii) aware of the wrongful acts.
• If the employee takes part in the acts, she can be accused of doing wrong.
• If the employee is simply aware of the acts, she can be accused of silent
complicity.
• This raises the following question: Can a person act virtuously when doing
a wrongful act?
Bill Maher example: Did the 9/11 terrorists act bravely?
Ancient ethicists (such as Plato & Aristotle) believed in the “unity of the virtues.”
This view holds that in order to embody any of the virtues, a person must have
mastered them all.
-In other words, if a person has any of the virtues, then the person has all of the
virtues.
This implies that if a person is brave, then he will also be just.
However, we might object that even if the 9/11 terrorists acted bravely, but they
did not act justly.
Modern ethicists tend to reject the “unity of the virtues.”
Instead, they believe in the “modular view” of the virtues.
This view holds that a person can possess some virtues without possessing all of
the virtues.
–A person can be brave, without being just.
Back to whistleblowing: Is an employee being loyal if she commits, or is silently
complicit in, wrongful acts for her employer?
The “unity of the virtues” view holds that if a person acts wrongfully, the person is
not acting virtuously.
• Therefore, if the employee remains silent about the employer’s misconduct,
this is NOT an act of loyalty.
The “modular view” holds that a person can act wrongfully, while still exhibiting a
virtue.
• Therefore, if the employee remains silent about the employer’s misconduct,
this can be an act of loyalty.
Since modern ethicists tend to hold the “modular view,” perhaps loyalty can
obligate an employee to remain silent.
A further issue: What does “loyalty” mean?
1) Loyalty involves merely following orders and not causing problems.
•Whistleblowers are disloyal employees.
2) Loyalty involves a commitment to the true interests or goals of the
organization.
• Whistleblowers may be extremely loyal employees.
Studies have suggested that whistleblowers are often very loyal to their
organizations:
• They have long histories of successful employment
• They are not alienated & not active members of movements advocating
major social changes
• They began as firm believers in their organizations
• They naively believed that if they took a grievance to superiors, there would
be an appropriate response
• They found that their earlier service & dedication provided little protection
against charges of undermining organizational morale & effectiveness
This suggests that at least from the perspective of actual whistleblowers, they
believe themselves committed to the true interests or goals of the organization.
Agent-Principal Relationship
The employee and employer are in an agent-principal relationship.
The primary ethical obligations of an agent are to:
• work as directed
• perform tasks with compliance & care
• act in the interest of the principal in all matters within this role
When an employee becomes a whistleblower, she seems to violate and perhaps
also.
However, the agent-principal relationship falls within one domain of business
ethics: The Ethics of Relationships & Firms.
There is another domain of business ethics: Market Ethics.
The most important obligations of market ethics are:
• Observing agreements & contracts
• Avoiding force & fraud (deception & manipulation)
While an agent has obligations to the principal, these obligations do not extend to
violating the other domain of business ethics: market ethics.
If an employer is directing an employee to be complicit in activities that defraud
customers, this is a violation of market ethics.
However, the agent-principal relationship has limits:
• The agent has an obligation to act as directed (and in the interest of the
principal)
• These obligations do not extend to violating market ethics.
Therefore, the obligations of the agent-principal relationship do not obligate an
employee to remain silent about fraudulent conduct.
Avoiding Retaliation
Retaliation against whistleblowers is extremely common.
This can include poor evaluations, demotion, or being fired.
It is also common for whistleblowers to be “blacklisted,” so they cannot obtain
jobs in the same industry.
Whistleblowers often suffer career disruption & financial hardship due to job
dislocation & legal expenses.
There is also severe emotional strain on whistleblowers & their families, as
coworkers, friends, & neighbors may turn against them.
Making Corruption Publicly Known
Whistleblowing attempts to making wrongful acts publicly known.
The value of this is fairly obvious:
• Ideally, it puts an end to the wrongful action, and the victims may receive
compensation for the wrong done to them.
Utilitarianism & Deontology
The issue of whistleblowing involves four values: loyalty, the agent-principal
relationship, avoiding retaliation, & making corruption publicly know.
Which of the previous consideration is most important to Utilitarianism?
• Avoiding retaliation
• Making corruption publicly known
Which of the considerations is most important to Deontology?
• Loyalty
• Agent-principal relationship
WHISTLEBLOWING CASE
This is a Whistleblowing case that I found online, and I want you to use this case to build
the paper.
Jeffrey Wigand
Jeffrey Wigand, a former employee of Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company spoke out against
the third largest American tobacco company at that time, during a “60 Minutes” exclusive interview
with Mike Wallace that aired on Feb. 4, 1996. He blew the whistle on the tobacco’s company attempt
to enhance nicotine’s effect on people by boosting it with ammonia that caused a more rapid
absorption of nicotine into the lungs, and ultimately affecting the brain and central nervous system.
His work with the U.S. Justice Department and state attorney generals led to several injunctions
against those in the tobacco industry and helped prompt the “Tobacco Master Settlement” in 1998
between 46 states and the country’s four biggest tobacco companies.
Jeffrey Wigand had been a vice president of research at
Brown & Williamson since 1989. He originally had been
hired to work on the development of a safer cigarette. But the
project was dropped and in March 1993 Wigand was fired.
Several months later, Brown & Williamson sued Wigand for
breach of contract for disclosing to a colleague details of his
separation agreement and wanted to take away his medical
benefits. Wigand reluctantly settled and signed a life-long
confidentiality agreement.
Wigand got in touch with Lowell Bergman, senior producer
for CBS “60 Minutes.” Word started to filter out that Wigand
was telling CBS secrets about Brown and Williamson. That’s
when an FDA agent called Wigand, asking him if he would
help the agency find out about tobacco companies activities.
When Wigand saw tobacco executives testify to Congress that
nicotine was not addictive – including Tommy Sandefur, his
ex-boss, now CEO of Brown & Williamson – it convinced
Wigand to start talking to the FDA. Wigand was instrumental
in helping Kessler find evidence of what the tobacco
companies were doing to make cigarettes stronger and more
addictive. By the end of the summer of 1994 Wigand had
helped the FDA get thousands of pages of explicit evidence
that cigarettes were drug delivery devices.
But Wigand paid a price for blowing the whistle. He lost his
$300,000-a-year job at Brown and Williamson and any
chance to be hired as a high-level researcher. By June 1997,
Wigand’s marriage had fallen apart, he was teaching high
school science and living on $30,000 a year. Industry-paid
detectives were following him and he was facing a lawsuit
from Brown & Williamson for breaking a confidentiality
agreement.

Purchase answer to see full
attachment