LJ Parfan BSIT – 3
CASE: Borrowing a Password, Scenario 2 This scenario is like the previous one with one potentially significant difference. In this scenario, Josh and Alice are software engineering majors. Josh is a senior and Alice has already graduated. She is working for a software development firm, Alpha Software as a software engineer. Josh asks to use Alice’s account at Alpha Software rather than a university account. As before, Josh completed his paper without looking at anything he was not authorized to see and he didn’t do anything other than create a word processing file for his paper. Reflection Questions POSITION a. Did anyone in Scenario 2 do anything wrong? Again, use your intuition to define “wrong” as you deem appropriate for the context of the case. Explain your reasoning. Josh’s act of asking for Alice’s Alpha Software password is wrong both objectively and subjectively. First of all there is no point of asking for Alice’s alpha software account details because it has nothing to do with his school account being disabled. Secondly, an account on a private corporation is much more important and more confidential than a school account. The details of a corporation is not something that can be shared to anyone even if he or she is your good friend. CONTEXT a. Suppose Josh has accepted a job at Beta Software, a competitor of Alpha Software. He is not currently employed by Beta software, but will begin working for them thirty days after graduation. Would that information affect your answer to the previous question? Explain.
Yes, in that case, the more that Alice should not give her password to Josh. If another employee or management of Beta Software finds out about Josh’s access to Alice’s account credentials, then they might put Josh in a situation where Josh has nothing to do but take advantage of Alpha Software’s company details.
b. Suppose the terms of Alice’s Employment required her to protect the confidentiality of corporate information and that Alice was well aware of that requirement. Would that affect any of your previous answers? Explain.
Once again, the more that she should not give her password. On the other side, if another employee or management of Alpha Software finds out that a person from a competitor has access
LJ Parfan BSIT – 3
on one of their employee’s accounts, then surely Alice will face consequences because of her actions. c. Suppose the terms of Alice’s employment required her to protect the confidentiality of corporate information, but she didn’t read this information in the various documents she had signed and paid little attention in the orientation lectures when she started the job. Hence, she was not actually aware of the requirements to protect the confidentiality of corporate information. Would this affect your previous analysis of the case? Explain
What she did is still wrong.
POSITION a. Suppose Alice had denied Josh’s request. Did anyone in the scenario do anything wrong in your view? Explain
The mistake was when Josh asked for her company account’s account credentials. In case Alice denied it, she did the right thing and Josh should be eligible to understand.
CASE: Borrowing a Password, Scenario 3 This scenario is like Scenario 2 except for the following significant addition. When Josh completed his paper, he e-mailed the paper to his professor. He then logged off of Alice’s account. Alpha Software monitors e-mail of its employees and it was observed that an e-mail with an attachment of a file in Alice’s directory had been sent to a server outside of Alpha Software’s network. Alice’s boss, Carol, confronted Alice, who readily admitted her transgression of company policy. Carol viewed Alice’s action as a cavalier disregard for company security and fired Alice. Alice was given two weeks’ pay and escorted off the premises. Reflection Questions POSITION a. Did anyone in Scenario 3 do anything wrong? A before, use your own interpretation of the appropriate meaning of “wrong”. Explain your reasoning.
No one did anything wrong. Her boss did the right thing for the sake of the company’s privacy. We didn’t know maybe after Alice was fired, the IT staff has to do something complicated like configuring all the company’s information and moving it to
LJ Parfan BSIT – 3
another database or something that will affect not just Alice but other departments as well.
CONTEXT a. Suppose Alpha Software never told Alice that her e-mail would be monitored. Would that affect your answer to the previous question? Explain.
In that case, the one monitoring is wrong. He or she is simply violating one’s privacy if it was not written or the employees were not informed that their emails will be monitored. Nevertheless, Alice still deserves to be fired and the management or the company has to know about what happened to decide what solution is best for the company’s sake.
b. Suppose Carol had once been guilty of doing something similar. She also was caught, but simply received a reprimand. Would that affect your answer to question 1?
Yes. If Carol has already experienced a similar thing, then she should be more considerate and get in Alice’s shoes. She should be the one defending Alice to the top management but still, the decision of the Top management should be followed. Maybe Carol though won’t do that as she doesn’t want the top management as well as her to remember what she did wrong back then.
c. Suppose we agree, for the time being, that Carol was justified in firing Alice. We know something that Carol cannot know, namely that Josh did not view any Alpha Software files and did not alter anything belonging to Alpha Software in any way. If, through some mysterious process Carol could know what we know, would she still be justified in firing Alice? Explain.
Depending on her care for the company, and if she also did the same thing back then, then as a human person I doubt that she will be justified. Lives of people depend on the salary they are getting from their jobs and she would’ve realized Alice’s situation at her worst and regret firing her.
CASE: Warning or Ticket? Scenario 1 Herman Schmidt is a police officer. One morning he observed a driver, Dolores Delgado, a young working mother, who failed to stop at the stop sign. Dolores and Officer Schmidt have known each other for years, and
LJ Parfan BSIT – 3
although they have never been close, they have always been friendly with each other. When stopped, Dolores readily concedes that she missed the stop sign. She says that she was on her way to drop off her daughter at her day-care center before going to work. A bee had flown through the window, upsetting her daughter, and Dolores had become distracted. As a result, she simply did not notice the stop sign. She appeals to Officer Schmidt to overlook her error and let her be on her way so that she can get her daughter to day care and still get to work on time. Officer Schmidt has a decision to make, the law in this case permits a certain amount of discretion by the police in the case of a “rolling stop,” but that discretion clearly does not apply in this case. Dolores did not even see the stop sign, much less slow down for it. Reflection Questions POSITION a. What should Officer Schmidt do? In particular, should be: 1.
Give Dolores a warning?
2.
Give Dolores a ticket?
3.
Arrest Dolores?
Note that the question asks what the Officer Schmidt should do, not what you think he is likely to do.
Officer Schmidt should give Dolores a ticket. “Walang Kai Kaibigan”. No matter how good friends you are with someone, even if he or she is part of your family or if he or she is your crush or whatsoever, it is your job to confront people not following the rules and do the punishment for their actions.
CONTEXT a. Suppose Dolores had been an 18-year-old male whom Officer Schmidt did not know. should that affect the officer's decision? Explain.
No even if the person who violated the rule is the son of the president or even the president of the country, he should still be apprehended.
b. Suppose Officer Schmidt and Dolores had had a romantic relationship in the past. Should that affect Officer Schmidt's decision? Explain.
LJ Parfan BSIT – 3
The question is what should he do, not what likely will he do so my answer stays the same. He should apprehend whoever that person who violated the law is.
c. Suppose Dolores had been rude and argumentative with Officer Schmidt. Should that affect his decision?
No, whatever happens he should do the right thing, the thing that officers should do, and that is to apprehend violators. If she resists, then maybe it is time to call other cops and arrest her.
POSITION a. Question 1 offers three, an only three, possible choices for Officer Schmidt. Do you have a definite opinion on the proper course of action? If so, why do you have that opinion? If you don't have a clear opinion, do you think additional information would help form your opinion? If so, what information? CASE: Warning or Ticket? Scenario 2 The situation is the same as Scenario 1 except that, when Dolores ran the stop sign, she struck a pedestrian in the crosswalk, badly injuring him. Reflection Questions CONTEXT a. You still have three choices about Officer Schmidt's proper course of action: give Dolores a warning, cite her, or arrest her. Has the information about the pedestrian changed your opinion from the previous scenario? Why or why not
Yes of course it should change. What happened is already an accident therefore, Dolores has to be admitted to the nearest Police station and explain there what happened. Though Dolores has the right to stay silent until her lawyer arrives, and there is also a slight possibility that the one struck at the pedestrian decides not to file a case against Dolores. Though even if that still is the case, Schmidt should still give Dolores a ticket because she still clearly violated the law. So my answer is both number 2 and 3. But the first thing that should be done is to ensure the safety of the one who got struck.
b. Suppose the person struck by Dolores happened to be the mayor. Would that affect Officer Schmidt's proper action? Why or why not? Obviously, in situation described here, there might be considerable reason for Officer Schmidt to do something other than what he deems to correct.
LJ Parfan BSIT – 3
No, once again whoever that person is, whatever his position is, no matter if the one struck is poor or rich, no matter what his social class is, the law should still be followed and the violator should take the consequences of his actions. On the side of Schmidt, he should still do the right thing and that is to both give Dolores a ticket and arrest her or bring her to the nearest police station as well to explain what happened. But the first thing that should be done is to bring the one struck to the hospital and make sure he or she is safe.
POSITION a. Suppose Officer Schmidt had stopped Dolores for running the stop sign the previous week and had given her warning. Was Officer S chmidt wrong to have done that? Explain.
I believe that giving Dolores a warning was wrong. As far as I know, there is no “warning” rule for any violation somebody committed. Everyone should follow the law and the one who violates should face the consequence of one’s actions.
