In the wake of the December 2015 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, attention turned to the perpetrator’s iPhone. A federal judge asked Apple, maker of the iPhone, to provide “reasonable technical assistance” to the FBI in accessing the information on the phone with that hope of discovering additional threats to national security.
Apple provided the FBI with data it had in their possession and sent Apple engineers to advise the FBI, but refused to comply with the court order to bypass the phone’s security measures: specifically the 4-digit login code and a feature that erases all data after ten incorrect attempts. The FBI argued that the bypass could only be used for this phone, this one time. The agency also cited national security concerns, given the phone may lead to better understanding the attack and preventing further incidents.
Apple CEO Tim Cook issued a public letter reiterating Apple’s refusal to cooperate. Cook advocated for the benefits of encryption in society to keep personal information safe. He stated that creating the backdoor entry into the iPhone would be akin to creating a master key capable of accessing the tens of millions of iPhones in the U.S. alone. Cook also had concerns that the FBI was overstepping its bounds - by using the court system to expand its authority - and believed the case should be settled after public debate and legislative action through Congress instead.
Public opinion polls on the issue were split. A number of major tech firms filed amicus briefs in support of Apple. The White House and Bill Gates stood behind the FBI. In anticlimactic fashion, the FBI withdrew its request a day before the hearing, claiming it no longer needed Apple’s help to assess the phone. It is speculated that an Israeli tech firm, Cellebrite, helped the FBI gain assess.
Questions
Was Apple wrong for not complying with the FBI’s request? If so, why? If not, why not?
What ethical issues are involved in this case? Please consult our Framework for Ethical Decision Making for an overview of modes of moral reasoning.
Who are the stakeholders in this situation?
Apple’s values are listed on the bottom of its home page at apple.com. Is the company’s decision consistent with its values? Is that important?
What do you think of Apple's value statement? Is something missing? How do these values look like for a customer, an employee, a large shareholder, or a Director on the Board?
Amy Johnson graduated two years ago from the business program at a well-known local university. Immediately after her graduation, the Seinfeld Textile Corporation in Truro hired her as a junior manager in the production department. Her boss is the Vice President for production, Tom Harris. She is mostly happy in her new job but feels that her pay should be higher. She and her partner have recently become engaged to be married, and they would like to be able to buy a house. Amy would like to do a good job helping ST become more profitable and she would like very much to get a good year-end bonus and a promotion as soon as possible.
Amy is from Truro and knows many of the people who work at Seinfeld Textiles. She has made friends at the company, both with some of the managers and with some of the workers. She does find the other managers to be rather competitive, particularly the older and more senior ones. She worries about the demands of her work, about the sort of person she must become to compete in the company, and the effect of her time commitment to the company on her relationship.
The stockholders of Seinfeld Textiles are dissatisfied with the company’s returns. The Board of Directors has told the CEO that profits must improve. The CEO has told the VP in charge of production, Tom Harris, to cut costs, but has not said how. Tom has convened a cost-cutting committee to make a recommendation. Amy has thought about this problem and is wondering to herself, “Should I propose to the cost-cutting committee that our firm outsource the production of our most popular clothing item to an offshore contractor operating in a lower wage environment?”
From her research, she has identified a particular operator in Bangladesh, the Chittagong Clothing Company, which can do this sort of work well and cheaply. Amy also knows that this company, CCC, has had complaints against it for how it treats its workers, who are mostly young women. She knows that it pays its garment workers reasonably well by Bangladesh standards, but realizes that these wages are far less than they are in Truro. She has also found indications that CCC is rather lax about the safety standards in its factories. CCC’s factories are often shoddily constructed, and its supervisors often pressure its employees to work faster than is safe. However, Bangladesh sorely needs the new jobs that this contract will bring. Amy realizes that if the company implements her proposal and the strategy works, then she will receive a handsome year-end bonus and possibly a promotion. Amy knows that if her firm implements her proposal, then it will fire many of its present employees. This will take jobs from members of the local community and give the jobs to people overseas. Amy also knows that CCC will pay the women sewing the clothing in a developing country much less than ST is paying its present employees for doing the same work. As well, moving production offshore will mean that ST will not renew contracts with its present suppliers.
Should Amy recommend that ST contract with CCC in Bangladesh to produce clothing?
Ben Freeman has worked for three years with Jane Smith, Marc Dupré, Susie Wong, and Jim Dexter at the Provincial Power Corporation. He feels that PPC underpays him. His boss, Mary Jenks, recently passed him over for a promotion, and he would like revenge.
Ben is from a background that expected everyone to look out for him or herself. Ben’s neighbors always locked their doors. Local people thought that anyone who did not lock up carefully was stupid and deserved to have their possessions stolen. Ben’s parents were both from the neighborhood and brought up Ben to take care of himself first, and to take advantage of any opportunity for acquiring a little extra money.
The Provincial Power Corporation has a dog-eat-dog corporate culture. All the people working there, from the CEO to the typists, share a view that life is “every man for himself,” and that “she who dies with the most toys wins.” People expect each other to lie, cheat, and even steal when they can get away with it. The prevailing corporate culture is one of rampant self-interest.
Ben plays poker with some other men in a room above the local flower shop. He knows that the people who organize the game are rather shady. Recently, he has gone behind and borrowed $500 from the game-organizers. He cannot borrow the money anywhere because he has reached the limit on his bank-overdraft. He knows that the ruthless characters who loaned him the money will hurt him if he does not pay his debt very soon.
Every holiday season, Ben’s department collects a holiday-bonus fund by allowing department members to pay $5 to wear blue jeans to work on Fridays. Just before the holidays, everyone puts his or her name in a hat, and the boss gives the money to the department member whose name she draws. Ben is in a situation where he could easily steal $500 from this bonus fund. $500 is just enough to pay off his gambling debt. He may just act impulsively, but if he thinks before he acts, then he will find reasons both pointing toward taking his opportunity and pointing against doing so: He needs the $500 to stop the gangsters from hurting him. Someone might catch him, and then he will lose his job. On the other hand, he thinks that he can make everyone think that Susie took the money. When Jane, Mary, Marc, Susie, and Jim notice the loss and make inquiries, there will be an atmosphere of suspicion in his department for some months afterward.
Should Ben take the money? Your moral gut reaction will tell you what Ben should do. Here, however, you should analyze Ben’s situation as a way of practicing ethical analysis. Look at whose interests Ben’s decision will affect, and find as many relevant ethical considerations as you can, both for and against him taking the money. After you have done that, consider the interesting question of whether we should hold Ben morally accountable if he decides to take the money. Does either his cultural background or the threat from the gangsters imply that he cannot do otherwise than steal the money?
Carol Walters is a production manager for World Auto Parts, a large manufacturer of transmission components for cars and trucks. Transmission parts production is a very competitive sector. If WAP’s production cost were to rise, then WAP’s two main competitors would rapidly take over WAP’s markets.
WAP has the advantage of a loyal and experienced workforce who have nearly all been with WAP for over ten years. WAP is not unionized, but it does pay well. One reason that the employees stay with WAP is that there are no other jobs available in the local area.
Technology, however, has not stood still. Most of the machinery that was up-to date ten years ago has gone obsolete, and WAP has replaced many of the machines on which employees originally worked. One such machine is the Sterling Gear Press Mark IV, with which WAP recently replaced the slower Mark III model. This new machine is the mainstay of gear production in the factory, and many employees now run it. WAP has installed the new Mark IV on the factory floor beside the older Mark III machines. Both of WAP’s competitors have also upgraded to the new Mark IV machine in the same way.
Carol and another production manager, Phil Thomas, have recently noticed that the injury rate on the new machines is higher than the injury rate on the old machines. There appears to be a defect in the design of the safety cover of the Mark IV. The new design causes workers who use the machine to strain their backs and left arms. Because the new machine is so much faster than the old version, production has gone up. The savings to WAP have outweighed the cost of downtime and time off for injured workers taking sick leave. WAP gives sick pay at 60% of regular wages, and only for 10 days per year.
The situation does not violate local Occupational Safety and Health regulations. Still, it is in Carol’s interest to fix the problem because, as a production manager, she will likely end up being blamed by senior management. Carol and Phil discuss how WAP could do something about the situation. They believe that if they both independently talk to their boss, Joan Ross who is the VP of production at WAP, then Joan will believe them that there is a workplace-safety problem. Joan could order them to inform the operators of the new machines about the problem. Joan could also order the machine operators to slow down and be more careful. Alternatively, Joan could order the operators to resume using the Mark III machines, which still sit beside the new models. Any of Joan’s possible responses will put WAP at a competitive disadvantage unless Joan can convince both of WAP’s competitors to do the same. Even if WAP’s competitors verbally agree to follow one of these workplace-safety strategies, Joan would not be certain that she could trust them actually to implement the strategy.
Complicating the situation is the issue that Carol and Phil are competing for a promotion to Senior Supervisor. In the past, Carol has not always kept her word to Phil, or done her share of work on group projects. She does not think Phil trusts her. If Phil and she independently tell Joan about the safety problem, then Joan may do something, and Carol will still be in competition for the promotion. However, if one of them does not follow through and tell Joan, then Joan will likely do nothing about the safety issue, and Joan will likely not promote the seeming naysayer and troublemaker who did bring up the safety issue. If neither tells Joan, then nothing will happen and the competition for promotion will continue.
Analyze the ethical issues in the situation facing Carol, paying particular attention to any cooperation dilemmas. Should Carol tell Joan about the workplace-safety issue?
Jake Markos is a very clever young man. He graduated summa cum laude in computer science from a prestigious west coast Institute of technology and has never encountered a computer-programming task that he could not handle easily. Jake’s problem is that he is unbearably shy. He does not like meeting new people or even looking people in the eye. Though he is attracted to women, he has never felt comfortable talking to them or trying to get to know them better. After graduation, many companies courted him.
He accepted a job as the programmer at ALAC Marketing where he could work mostly on his own. He likes his job because it is challenging enough to be absorbing, and he dreads ever going through the process of finding another one.
Jake’s boss is Nathan Brook. Nathan well understands Jake’s skills and vulnerabilities. One day, the Diabetes Foundation asks ALAC to construct a tool for its website that would survey Diabetes Foundation donors on the directions that the Foundation should take in its support for new research. As part of its corporate social responsibility mandate, ALAC does work for the Diabetes Foundation at cost. ALAC also has a highly profitable contract to market an expensive new drug, Circulex, for a large pharmaceuticals company. Circulex aids blood circulation in the legs and will be useful to diabetics who have circulation problems in their extremities. Nathan realizes that the Diabetes Foundation donor list includes many well-off people with diabetes, just the sort of potential customers to whom the pharmaceutical company wishes to market Circulex.
The next day, Nathan visits Jake’s workroom in the basement of the ALAC building. He suggests to Jake, purely orally of course, that Jake embed a bit of extra code in the survey tool that Jake is constructing for the Foundation. This code would transfer the email addresses, though not the passwords, of Foundation donors to Jake’s computer.
Nathan’s intent is to use these email addresses to market Circulex. Nathan justifies this idea by pointing out that ALAC’s work for the Diabetes Foundation is non-profit and that the survey tool does not explicitly promise anonymity to the donors who take it. He further suggests that unless Jake complies, Jake will have to look for work elsewhere. Jake is visibly reluctant and upset.
The following day, Nathan sends his assistant manager, Maia Harrick, to see Jake. Maia is about Jake’s age and is both very attractive and very ambitious. After reminding Maia that her performance review is coming up soon, Nathan indicates to Maia that she should get Jake to add the spyware to the survey tool by any means possible.
Maia knows very well how to use her good looks to get what she wants. She pays a lot of attention to Jake, pretends interest in the intricacies of hiding spyware in otherwise legitimate software, and acts as if she is impressed at his skill. On leaving, Maia implies that she will visit Jake often to see how the project is going.
What should Jake do? Will Jake be morally accountable for his decision?