due Mar 5 This is a graded discussion: 20 points possible Chapter 6.2 Discussion
ID: 344053 • Letter: D
Question
due Mar 5 This is a graded discussion: 20 points possible Chapter 6.2 Discussion - Plugging Leaks at H.P Hewlett-Packard has a policy, which asserts "we make privacy protection integral to our business operations." In 2005, extensive reports of confidential board meetings appeared in prominent newspapers. H.P. decided to hire investigators to find out how the confidential information got to the newspapers. The investigators (not H.P. itself) made false representations which enabled them to get copies of phone records for suspect board members and news reporters; additionally, the investigators surveilled certain people. Eventually, the investigation became public knowledge and several people resigned including the "leaker" (H.P's longest serving board member who claimed he had always spoken with reporters and no one had ever objected before) and H.P's chairwoman, who had ordered the investigation, but claimed to not know the tactics employed by the investigators. H.Ps new CEO, Mark Hurd, stated, "... inappropriate investigative tactics will not be employed again. They have no place at H.P. 1. On what grounds can an illegal investigation ever be justified? 2. Do you agree with the "slippery slope argument that if we are trying to find who is responsible for a potentially illegal situation, that we do not have to avoid using illegal means ourselves? Should third parties such as the telephone companies be held liable for falling for the ruse used by unscrupulous investigators? If so, will this affect our ability to act over the phone or by computer, rather than in person, and is such an inconvenience balanced by the need to protect privacy? 3. Note: This Discussion is set up so that you must post first before seeing replies. Reply to two other classmate's responsesExplanation / Answer
1. Actually illigal investigation is not be justofoed but if company management think about to do some investigation require to know the exact situation. On the mutual inderstading ground one investagor cqan investigate illigal operation. To protect of an organizationa if organization do some illigal investigation with the help of of corresponding employees that should be acceptable on that ground.
2. Yes I agree that slippary Slope is an argument that claims a chain reaction.it is actually ending with extream consequences. if any one take one step of this opearation then gradually he will fall down and ended into bottom level . For anykind of illigal operationshould be stopped by this arguments-SSA. It is verymuch effective to get to know actual person who did ths unethical and illigal case. It is very useful too for identify the person very quickly. People gradually fall don with all evidences and ultimately they will trapped . I think this would lead a very effective investigation here. The person who leaked the new or who break code of rules about company policy and who have no ethics about company that person should be sacked from company and this would be a better option. the way he started the game about koosing the image of company on the same way he can trapped. For one employee he should know his limitations and he should be very much loyal about his work .
3. Here I will oppse this privecy things. We should catch the fraud person but not hampering his/her privecy. We should be go through legal way. If we go to illigal way and break person's privecy then it will leed different move here. I think this things is not good for investigation. We should not be too involved into private things. Because if we support this kind of activity then it will create other problems also then it will be dengerous to talk over phone. Sometimes it will trapped by dishonest way also. private no and talking with some else is very much private things. We never break that private thing if we have no order from legal way. If we have order from legal way then I think it will be good move. But we should follow legal policy first. Here also we can check various ways WITHOUT BREAKING THE PRIVECY NORMS. We should very open about each movement. But we can not such kind of thing where fraud person got points to claim against the tacktics. Here also investigator take these movement to identify the person who did this. but here investogator breaks privecy law that will change direction of investigation.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.