A Matrix Depicting Non-consensual sharing of Privacy Information with other Parties by Facebook
| Ethical issue: Non-consensual sharing of an entity’s information with other parties in the absence of their consent | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Stakeholders |
Autonomy |
Non-Maleficence |
veracity |
| 1: The Social Networking site, Facebook, or the organization. | According to Goldman (2007), the organization has its independence or autonomy specifically constrained by limits set out in related laws. | The organization is duty-bound to ensure it causes no harm to either individual using it or groups that have an account with the organization (Isaak and Hanna, 2018). | The organization is duty-bound to ensure it subscribes to always telling the truth. Failure to adhere to rules governing truth is akin to defamation as falsified statements are considered illegal (Goldman, 2007, and Hoadley et al., 2010). |
| 2: Users with an account with the organization | Other Facebook users are entitled to the right to decide for themselves on issues pertaining to the use of the site. | It is the responsibility of other Facebook users to ensure that they keep away from actions that are likely to harm an individual, a group, or any other entity such as an organization. | Other users of the social networking site are bound by related law to always adhere to telling the truth (Isaak and Hanna, 2018). |
| 3: An Individual | A person has the right to make maximum use of their independent decision-making capacity (Lakhani, 2013). | The organization is required not to cause harm to any individual user of the site (Electronic Privacy Information Center, 2019). | An individual is duty-bound always to tell the truth (Lakhani, 2013). |
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Explanation of the formulated Matrix
Reason for Choosing the Dilemma
The particular ethical issue under examination within this papers purview is Facebook’s reported Non-consensual sharing of an entity’s information with other parties in the absence of their consent. There exist critical reasons justifying the choice of this ethical issue as deserving analysis within this paper. To begin with is a concern highlighted by Isaak and Hanna (2018) who pinpoint that Facebook is reported to have given data of up to a whopping 87 million unsuspecting users to a data firm with the moniker, “Cambridge Analytica” thereby usurping ‘users’ privacy rights related to consent. Another situation in, which Facebook is reported to have usurped privacy laws safeguarding personal information is its noticeable changes, between 2008 and 2010, that not only disclosed private information of individuals but also altered privacy settings of users (Electronic Privacy Information Center, 2019).
The Rationale for Choosing the Three Principles
The principle of autonomy is chosen because it confines the organization's actions to limits permitted by law (Goldman, 2007). That of non-maleficence is selected because it aligns with Hoadley's (200) concern that Facebook should not engage in actions that can potentially harm their users. The principle of veracity is also selected since Facebook faces significant criticism attached to its truthfulness to its users (Debatin et al., 2009).
An Analysis of the Research that Facilitated Identification of Actions in the Matrix
Various literature on the organization and, which examines explicitly the instances in, which it is reported to have breached privacy law such as in the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica saga (EPIC, 2019; and Isaak and Hanna, 2018) were reviewed. Thus the affected stakeholders were selected in correlation with the three relevantly affected principles.
Ethics Policy
Disclaimer for Free Use: This policy was created for Facebook and in particular for the organization’s Internet Community. Parts of the policy brief or the entire policy document is available for free use by the organization.
Overview
Facebook expresses its resolute commitment intended at ensuring the uncompromised protection of all its relevant stakeholders including users, partners, employees and among others, companies from non-consensual sharing of personal private information with third parties or whosoever. The organization is aware of the relatively high degree of blame; it has been apportioned following its alleged non-consensual sharing of its users’ private information with Cambridge Analytica (Electronic Privacy Information Center, 2019). Taking cognizance of such blame, the organization endeavors to ensure the individual right of consent and privacy is not tampered with be it intentionally or unintentionally. To that extent, the organization will not condone any possible breach of users’ information with third parties or for any other reason not within the legal confines whatsoever.
Purpose of the Policy
This policy's central aim is informed by the argument that sharing of personal private information of users with third parties in the absence of individual consent is an action that deliberately perceived to disregard user rights such as statutory rights (Isaak and Hanna, 2018). Taking cognizance of frequent complaints by such organizations as the Electronic Privacy Information Center and some others, this policy intends to establish for the organization and its users a culture of ethical conduct. However, since respect for ethics is a duty to all organizational stakeholders, every employee of the organization is required to adhere to rules pronounced in this policy document strictly. In this regard, therefore, it is a mandatory requirement that every employee of the organization familiarizes with as well as lives up to the expectations of this policy.
Scope of the Policy
It is appropriate to note that this policy does not only apply to the organization as an entity per se. It takes cognizant that as a company, Facebook cannot separate itself from its inner core consisting of its managerial component, its employees serving in various capacities and in different functions and its consultants. The organization is not above privacy law (Hoadley et al., 2010), and as such, all its stakeholders are expected to comply with privacy law. Such stakeholders also include its contractors, engineers, temporaries, and among others, all the third-party facets noted to have an association with third parties.
Policy Points
The Executive and Employee Commitment to Privacy as an Ethical Commitment:
It is a compulsory requirement that organizational executives at Facebook demonstrate a high standard of ethics that can be considered as a standard for all employees to emulate. This goes in line with the argument by Isaak and Hanna (2018) that transparency is an integral component of a digital company's privacy policy law.
The organization’s executives in their various departments are expected to maintain a closely-knitted commitment to an open policy approach that will encourage reporting of any uncalled for action by employees who are true to the organization’s privacy efforts. In that regard, all executives are to welcome suggestions for improvement of the organization's privacy policy from employees and other relevant stakeholders (Hoadley et al., 2010). Doing so is considered a better way of generating working strategies capable of ensuring safety as well as protection of user data or information.
Enforcement of Policy
All the executives and employees of the organization are required to ensure compliance with this policy. In that regard, compliance will be measured through a variety of tools, including the use of both external and internal audits, feedback from users and among others, the assessments done through business tool reports.
For employees found to have negated this policy, the organization will resort to the use of severe and negative sanctions against them though the sanctions will as well be within the confines of the law. Disciplinary action against employees who are found to disregard the policy deliberately may stretch to include the actual termination of contracts or employment.
References
Debatin, B., Lovejoy, J. P., Horn, A. K., & Hughes, B. N. (2009). Facebook and online privacy: Attitudes, behaviors, and unintended consequences. Journal of computer-mediated communication , 15 (1), 83-108.
Electronic Privacy Information Center (2019). Facebook Privacy. EPIC.Org . Retrieved from: https://epic.org/privacy/facebook/
Goldman, E. (2007, May). Social Networking Sites and the Law. Retrieved from: http://www.ericgoldman.org/Resources/socialnetworkingsitesandthelaw.pdf
Hoadley, C. M., Xu, H., Lee, J. J., & Rosson, M. B. (2010). Privacy as information access and illusory control: The case of the Facebook News Feed privacy outcry. Electronic commerce research and applications , 9 (1), 50-60.
Isaak, J., & Hanna, M. J. (2018). User Data Privacy: Facebook, Cambridge Analytica, and Privacy Protection. Computer , 51 (8), 56-59.
Lakhani, A. (2013). Social networking sites and the legal profession: Balancing benefits with navigating minefields. Computer Law & Security Review , 29 (2), 164-174.
