Replying to Trevor Krejci's Post
Trevor's post offers deep insights regarding whether Google is aligned with ethical provisions that are in place to ensure the privacy of its clients' data and information. Google does not seem to follow moral disposition as its search engines rely on an algorithm that captures search histories that are used for profiling. Gilbert (2016), envisages this practice as foregoing the ethical provisions that are supposed to guide business. In this case, third party websites can use this information to create customized adverts that are specifically directed to customers. For instance, if a person has been searching on air travel, airline companies, and travel agencies will subject him or her to unsolicited advertisements. The post is indicative of a company that pretends that the algorithm is for speeding up the search process while it uses the information for financial gains. In particular, Google sells this information to other companies and countries to inform business and political policies.
The post provides examples to support the idea that Google exposes its clients to the intrusion of privacy. A case in point is Facebook that sold users' data to England in the pretense that it was supposed to improve customer experience. No one knows for sure what the real reason for this action is but from here, Google cannot control how the information could be used. The problem with this arrangement is the fact that clients are not involved in such transactions as Google's privacy policy leaves out this customer privilege. Trevor offers a suggestion that Google should endeavor to ensure that all information remains in America. However, this is not possible as it reflects a society that supports the haves despite their actions on the have-nots who are the majority. It is for this reason that Google will continue to use users' information, and the only solution is to use more responsible search engines. At this point, one cannot help but wonder if other search engines can rise above Google's popularity and manage to end Google's monopoly and unethical business practices.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Replying Timothy David Sollenberger's Post
Timothy David's post is indicative of how companies would instead rake in huge profit margins as opposed to promoting and protecting human rights. Google, one of the largest companies in the world exemplifies this thought by strategically driving search results in China to demonstrate their commitment to human rights advocacy. However, it is evident that this move no matter how it seems lie it is aimed at promoting human rights has economic connotations. The problem with the decision to come up with 'Dragonfly,' a search engine that is customized to meet the Chinese data demands will still place users at the mercy of the search engine. According to Bogle (2018), Dragonfly will "reportedly blacklist sensitive queries and filter websites blocked by the Chinese Government." Timothy's post has managed to tie China to human rights violations owing to its long history of suppressing its citizens. One can wonder if the same nation with such an unfortunate history will protect users' privacy if it cannot protect the rights of its citizens. Google's collaboration with the Chinese government nullifies its commitment to protecting its users from a violation of their rights to privacy and the use of their personal information.
The post does a credible job of pointing Google in the right direction while it comes to sourcing strategies that can help to promote ethical practices. As an internet business, Google must comply with ISO certifications that ride on environmental standards, quality assurance, and compliance management (Ferrell & Ferrell, 2016). These standards exist to ensure that companies such as Google adhere to ethical provisions. While it is not automatic that ISO standards contribute to ethical business practices, the post underscores that Google should do ore that it is currently doing. For instance, Google must develop human rights and ethics policy, which should then be communicated to all of its stakeholders. This action is seen as a more significant commitment to upholding human rights as compared to only appearing to be aligned to ISO standards.
Replying to Kelly Grace Kreisel's Post
Kelly's post takes a different stance on whether Google sticks to ethical provision as the post qualifies Google as an ethical company. The fact that Google takes its time to publish information on user-information requests they have complied with or declined in each country shows its commitment to transparency (Wadell, 2016). The post also establishes that Google does all it can to be present in all nations, an aspect that is associated with advancing human rights to access information. Better still, Google works with the Global Network Initiative, a human rights organization that guides companies to deal with legal issues. On outsourcing supplies and labor, in the era of increased globalization, the post advises companies to adopt ethical standards that respect human rights.
Apple outsourced the production of the iPhone to China without taking time to understand labor policies in China in an attempt to grow its business. It turned out that Chinese labor laws are neither favorable nor promote human rights owing to long hours and limited pay, especially when it comes to mass production. In the case of the IPhone, it expected the Chinese workers to supply a large market within a limited time, which increased employees' stress levels with others resorting to suicide (Merchant, 2014). The post is indicative that companies may be well-intentioned while they are outsourcing, but an emphasis on economic gains clouds companies' judgment. Sadly, the developing nations bear the brunt of this new form of exploitation in the hope of tapping into economic benefits associated with direct foreign investments. The problem becomes worse as major companies bribe their way so that they can be allowed to operate even when they contravene ethical and business standards.
References
Bogle, A. (2018, November 28). Google faces staff revolt over plans for Project Dragonfly censored search engine in China. ABC Science. https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2018-11-28/google-china-project-dragonfly-search-engine-staff-protest/10561816
Ferrell, O. C., & Ferrell, L. (2016). Ethics and social responsibility in marketing channels and supply chains: An overview. Journal of Marketing Channels , 23(1/2), 2–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046669X.2016.1147339
Gilbert, J. (2016). Ethics for managers: Philosophical foundations and business realities (2nd ed.). Taylor & Francis.
Merchant, B. (2017, June 18). Life and death in Apple's forbidden city. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/18/foxconn-life-death-forbidden-city-longhua-suicide-apple-iphone-brian-merchant-one-device-extract
Waddell, K. (2016, January 19). Why Google quit China-and why it's heading back. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/why-google-quit-china-and-why-its-heading-back/424482/
