Blake works for a large IT company. The company is presented with a legal direct
ID: 3597750 • Letter: B
Question
Blake works for a large IT company. The company is presented with a
legal directive from the federal government to divulge personal data regarding some of the
company’s customers who are suspected of wrongdoing.
Blake feels that this is a violation of the customers’ privacy and is reluctant to comply
with the request. His boss tells him the company has no choice; it must follow the law.
Blake is told he can always choose to resign from the company if he feels so strongly
about the situation.
Instead of complying or resigning, Blake goes public. He uses the media to advocate
his point of view for freedom and privacy, even while knowing that his actions will have
far-reaching consequences. Instead of just losing his job, Blake risks losing his freedom
and his future.
Did Blake do the right thing? Is he a hero of free speech or a criminal (and possibly
even a traitor)? What other options were available to him? What should the company have
done when Blake went public? What should the government do?
Explanation / Answer
In this situation, as we can see Blake was responsible for the divulge of the personal data regarding some customers and company also found that.
To answer this, first of all we should know that the ethics of an IT professional are to protect Health, welfare and security of the people.
Yes, he is a hero of speech, as he raised his voice against the wrong thing. The customer's whose data was divulged were suspected of wrongdoing. If Blake was right, that is, the customers were actually responsible for doing some activities which would have harm the people's health or welfare or security, then yes, he is a hero for the people as humanity is the prime ethic for him.
Blake had other options like, he could've simply sit on his chair and work normally as he was doing and won't speak about it to anyone or he could've asked for some benefits from the customers by telling them that he knows of their wrongdoings.
From the company's point of view, they should fire him, as before going to the public, he should've discussed the matter first in the company either with his colleagues or with higher management. But he choose to go public, which harms the reputation of the company.
The government should praise him for his act, as he saved many people from getting harmed of the wrongdoings of the customers.
THANK YOU. IF ANY QUERY, FEEL FREE TO ASK
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.