Catorgies Of Ethical Behavior by GoodGame Jordan

1 of 11

Slide Notes

Catorgies Of Ethical Behavior

Published on Nov 18, 2015

No Description

View Outline

PRESENTATION OUTLINE

Integrity-the adherence to one's values and principles despite the costs and consequences.

Promise Keeping
Keeping promises, regardless of whether there is a legal obligation to do so, is a key component of being an ethical person and practicing ethical business

November 29th,2011 the Federal Trade Commission (which works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them) filed complaint on Facebook for not keeping multiple privacy promises they made to American consumers. The promises that: Facebook didn't keep were they changed its website so certain information that users may have designated as private (such as their Friends List) was made public. They didn't warn users that this change was coming, or get their approval in advance.
Facebook represented that third-party apps that users' installed would have access only to user information that they needed to operate but apps had access to nearly all users personal info mostly things the apps didn't need.

Facebook told users they could restrict sharing of data to limited audiences

Facebook had a "Verified Apps" program & claimed it certified the security of participating apps. It didn't.

Facebook promised users that it would not share their personal information with advertisers. It did.

Facebook claimed that when users deactivated or deleted their accounts, their photos and videos would be inaccessible. But Facebook allowed access to the content, even after users had deactivated or deleted their accounts.

Facebook claimed that it complied with the U.S.- EU Safe Harbor Framework that governs data transfer between the U.S. and the European Union. It didn't.

The end result was the FTC proposed a settlement bars Facebook from making any further deceptive privacy claims, requires that the company get consumers' approval before it changes the way it shares their data, and requires that it obtain periodic assessments of its privacy practices by independent, third-party auditors for the next 20 years.

In December 2009, Facebook changed its website so certain information that users may have designated as private – such as their Friends List – was made public. They didn't warn users that this change was coming, or get their approval in advance.
Facebook represented that third-party apps that users' installed would have access only to user information that they needed to operate. In fact, the apps could access nearly all of users' personal data – data the apps didn't need.
Facebook told users they could restrict sharing of data to limited audiences – for example with "Friends Only." In fact, selecting "Friends Only" did not prevent their information from being shared with third-party applications their friends used.
Facebook had a "Verified Apps" program & claimed it certified the security of participating apps. It didn't.
Facebook promised users that it would not share their personal information with advertisers. It did.
Facebook claimed that when users deactivated or deleted their accounts, their photos and videos would be inaccessible. But Facebook allowed access to the content, even after users had deactivated or deleted their accounts.
Facebook claimed that it complied with the U.S.- EU Safe Harbor Framework that governs data transfer between the U.S. and the European Union. It didn't.

Loyalty—Avoiding Conflicts of Interest
What is a conflict of interest you ask? Well it is conduct that compromises an employee's allegiance to that company.

According to foxnews.com from an article published April of this year more than a dozen federal appeals court judges have violated federal conflict-of-interest laws over the past three years. To be more specific in 2011 Judge James Hill of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta was part of a three-judge panel that gave a lower court verdict in favor of Johnson & Johnson in a lawsuit over a malfunctioning medication pump. At the time of the decision, Hill owned as much as $100,000 in Johnson & Johnson stock.

Federal law requires judges who own even one share of stock in a company appearing before them to disqualify themselves from the case
…

FAIRNESS
The ethical standard of fairness requires both sides to ask these questions: “How would I want to be treated? Would this information make a difference to me?” Imposing our own standards and expectations on our own behavior in business transactions produces fairness in business.

Doing No Harm Selling the product without disclosure of the information is unfair. There is the additional ethical breach of physical harm to your customers and users. The late Peter Drucker's advice on ethics for businesses is primum non nocere, or “above all, do no harm.”

Maintaining Confidentiality
Employees should not use, either personally or through a competitor, information they have obtained through their employer's work or research.

10.

According to MiamiHerald.com posted on February 26th, 2014 there is article about a former headmaster of Gulliver Preparatory School by the name of Patrick Snay sued the school for age discrimination, which Gulliver settled in favor of Snay for 80,000. In turn Snay signed a confidentiality agreement which required he and his wife keep the terms and experience private. But instead of doing so Snay told his teenage daughter Dana Snay (who had previously attended the school when her father work there) that they settled and he was happy with the terms. She then post on Facebook saying "Gulliver is now officially paying for my vacation to Europe this summer. SUCK IT.” Although the European vacation was obviously a joke, the post broadcast to current and former students of the school that Gulliver had just lost its case with its former headmaster. To prevent a situation like this was direct reason for the confidentiality agreement and in doing this the Snays breached. So once word of this post got back to Gulliver's attorneys Gulliver refused to pay appealed the decision of the settlement and the case was ruled in favor of Gulliver for breach of confidentiality.

11.

Slide Notes