Anony Moose Data Corporation (AMDC)
Anony Moose Data Corporation (AMDC) recently hired Gator Engineer (GE) as a software engineer. AMDC’s projects include important governmental initiatives. GE’s first assignment from the supervisor was to write software that provides security for documents emailed within the company.
After completing the project, GE reads about another company that made similar software available to overseas clients. That company was now under investigation by the U.S. Government because of U.S. laws precluding transfer of such software overseas, due to national security concerns. GE then discovers that the IT department previously sent the AMDC software abroad to their corporate offices.
GE informs the supervisor who responds, without the benefit of consulting legal counsel, that there is no problem since AMDC is U.S.-based and not a threat to national security and the company will be using software solely for internal corporate purposes and not for profit. GE agrees but later learns that one of the company’s overseas offices has been permitting contractors to use the software to exchange secured email documents.
So what does GE do?
RUBRICS FOR GRADING
|This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Question 1 – Key Points||
|This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Question 2 – Key Points||
|This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Mechanics (Structure, Grammar, Spelling, etc.)||
1. Identify GE’s main ethical dilemma in the context of the applicable Fundamental Canons in the NSPE Code of Ethics.
GE’s main ethical dilemma here, is that they are faced with a national security threat since the software that GE created is now in foreign hands. This issue affects both, the interest of the company (GE) and public safety since it might be used as a decoding tool from foreign corporations. When GE was hired by AMDC to create this tool they entered in an agreement under the NSPE Code of Ethics in which each employer had to trust each other for this work and AMDC’s IT department broke this trust when sending it abroad. They put the safety of the public at risk by sending out the software. Now they must depend on one another to try to solve this in the most responsible way possible. Another issue that arose was when GE informed the supervisors they were under the assumption that the software was going to be used internally and for non-profit purposes; in which they later found out that they had been deceptively permitting contractors to use the software. Not only did the corporation didn’t behave honorably but they broke the law and now must work to fix this dilemma.
Applicable fundamental canons
1. Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public
2. Avoid deceptive acts.
3. Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
*Note: The issue was addressed perfectly but I encourage to quote and discuss each applicable canon from the NSPE code of ethics. I wrote some that in my judgment applied. This is the link that has all the canons https://ufl.instructure.com/courses/387305/files/folder/Additional%20Materials?preview=46606133
2. Identify and briefly discuss all the viable options, or sub-options as applicable, that you see available to GE to address the issue.
There are several things that could have been done to prevent this from happening in the first place. GE should have asked AMDC to sign a contract in which they are not to share the software abroad. During the process of receiving word that AMDC had sent the software abroad they should’ve addressed it with them immediately instead of assuming that they would use it exclusively internally.
On the other hand, now GE is faced with the dilemma of fixing their mistakes. The obvious choice is to reach out for legal help which might create a tense environment between the two companies. Following this option, they would be provided a safe way for GE to walk away from the issue unscathed. Nevertheless, this would deteriorate the relationship that they had created with AMDC and probably will not lead to any future business.
Another way would be to reach out to AMDC management and propose a meeting in which both parties would discuss a way to recall the software from the foreign offices. A way to do this might be to investigate foreign companies that might provide similar cybersecurity software for the office abroad to use. Thus, providing a feasible solution for AMDC to pursue instead of only asking them to remove the software. Subsequently, it is also important to inform them about the possible legal and safety consequences that having this software abroad might lead to. This way both companies are in the same page as of what would happen if word of this gets out and they are faced with the issue of dealing with the US government.
Lastly, they could release an update to the software without consulting AMDC in which they must agree to sharing their IP address. Once GE has access to their IP address, they can block any use outside the US and therefore making the software useless outside the US. The downside to this would be that there are ways to work around this.
*Note: Really good ideas but I would like if we can clearly identify what are the options and the sub-options. I classify them but feel free to change them.
· Options 1: Legal approach
. Contract of privacy and exclusivity
. Legal assistance to correct the company’s actions
· Option 2: Bipartite agreement
. Negotiate with the oversea companies to remove user’s right
· Option 3: Software update
. Updating the software the IP address can be limited only to users inside the U.S.
3. Prepare an event tree that clearly identifies the consequences related to each of the options/sub-options for addressing the ethical dilemma. An attachment to the assignment document showing the event tree is fine, if that works best..
4. Fully evaluate each of the options using the NGA approach discussed in class. Prepare a data table summarizing your NGA evaluation. A second attachment to the assignment document showing the data table is fine, if that works best. This is a non-numerical application process. Clearly show all steps of the evaluation process used.
NGA ———-> Net-goodness analysis
*I create a table you guys can use as a temple, you can add and delete rows and columns. You must write the position in each perspective observing the positives and negative outcomes
|Standard||Positive paradigm||Negative paradigm|
5. Discuss the results and identify the best course of action based on the NGA evaluation results.