Why cyber security is an ethical issue

The Panama Papers leak earlier this year caused tremendous fall-out around the world with the political class and the “establishment”.  It also helped to galvinise all organisations to tighten up their privacy protections as a key factor in engendering customer trust.  But perhaps what has been missed in all this is the actual motivation behind the hacking.  The goal was not to deny the use of the computer system or to use it for direct financial gain (well from what we know).  It appears this was more “hacktivism”, an action driven by moral outrage.

With cyber security more prominent on the board agenda now, this example does help to provide another building block in the business case for more ethical cultures and responsible business practices.  If all stakeholders in an organisation are identified, treated fairly and proportionately, surely this will help to reduce the risk of cyber security attacks from connected, aggrieved parties at least, and help to build a company’s reputation to help it withstand the fall-out from any subsequent damage?  Cyber security must now be part of a company's risk mitigation strategy. One of the best ways of maximising this investment and improving all risk defences must surely be a grounding in solid ethical behaviours?

When is it not “thumbs up” to give a customer what they want Facebook? When the algorithms aren’t altruistic perhaps?

Facebook has made it clear that their main objective, and indeed the success of their social media site, is customer engagement, including providing the customer with well-matched advertisements and news stories tailored to their specific interests.  It is in fact an amazing business success story and a marketer’s dream so is there really anything not to like? Well possibly, as there are questions about the undue influence it might have had in the political arena and who knows where else?

In the 2016 election, many of the stories on the internet were misleading, poorly reported and sometimes made up for example Facebook users falsely learned that the pope endorsed Donald Trump when he didn’t. These kinds of stories are contributing to the so called “post-truth” world where friends and emotional responses are being believed, are indeed more engaging, than facts, logic and truth itself which represent a more difficult and challenging side of life. Google has tried to address the problem by no longer giving fake news sites access to its advertising network thereby depriving them of a key revenue source and Facebook has followed suit. 

These internet companies have grown rapidly and are now a terrifyingly powerful force within our social fabric and culture.  Surely with their size and power must also come true accountability and responsibility? It is disingenuous or naïve of CEO Mark Zuckerberg to make money out of data manipulation (masquerading as customer engagement) without full recognition of his company’s power and potentially dangerous capability. Surely the obsessive drive for more accurate algorithms must now be tempered with a clear corporate responsibility strategy and a heavy dose of altruism and ethical purpose. That would help to give Facebook the real thumbs up by engaging all its stakeholders.

What's P.Green, thinks it's black and white, and is really grey?

The current case of P.Green and the demise of BHS provides an example of the whole purpose/ point of business ethics.  Green says he has done nothing unlawful so it’s a pretty black and white case from his perspective.  Unfortunately his past decisions and behaviours have placed him in the murky-grey and uncomfortable area, just outside what’s legal, where the spirit, rather than the letter, of the law begs the question “and is it ethical?” 

The Milton Friedman view of business that Green clearly propounds, that its only purpose is profit, has been losing favour over recent years as shareholders, customers, politicians and the public demand a wider view and consideration of all stakeholders, including pensioners.  But perhaps what should be really questioned is at what stage of cognitive moral development the British business leaders like Green are at (see Kohlberg’s CMD theory)?  It seems apparent that many are at level one where decisions are made essentially for personal reward.  It is probably unrealistic to hope that future leaders develop to stage three, where they do “what’s right” both personally and for society but it would be good to know that they were at least getting some training in ethical decision making.  But possibly the much more challenging issue is that first they need to accept that they fall short in this area - undoubtedly a much bigger task.,