Jakemorgandesign.files.wordpress.com

Sony’s response to hacker demands and the media’s duty to consumersCom 563 Ethics for ProfessionalsJake Morgan’s final project outlineApril 26, 2015IntroductionBackgroundEthical dilemma No. 1 - life vs. propertyEthical dilemma No. 2 - teleology vs. deontologySummaryDiscussion promptsReferencesIntroductionThere are two actors in this case, and each has its own ethical dilemma. 1) Should multi-national companies comply with threats from hackers? 2) Should the media publish juicy gossip about celebrities if that information was obtained illegally?BackgroundIn late November of 2014, a hacker group calling themselves the “Guardians of Peace” threatened to release hundreds of terabytes of confidential data and other sensitive information belonging to Sony Pictures Entertainment if Sony did not cancel the release of the upcoming movie “The Interview,” scheduled for release in U.S. theaters on Christmas day. The plot of the action/comedy movie is that a tabloid TV star (James Franco) and his producer friend (Seth Rogen) land an exclusive interview with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un in Pyongyang. In the movie, the CIA recruits the two men to assassinate the foreign leader.The GOP hackers used malware software to steal thousands of passwords, disable Sony’s computer infrastructure and disrupt Sony’s social media channels. Next the hackers notified the international media of their plans and began posting Sony’s private information online in a public folder. Media organizations around the world suddenly had access to this confidential information and some began leaking reports of scandalous conversations between Sony executives, many of which are still coming to light. They also pre-released pirated versions of upcoming movies, including “Annie” and the script for the next James Bond movie “Spectre.”As Christmas approached, the GOP hacker group reportedly threatened another 9/11-scale attack on U.S. theaters if they showed “The Interview” as scheduled. They also demanded that all references to the movie be removed from the Internet and threatened harm against anyone who defied their demands. Ethical dilemma No. 1At this point, Sony was faced with an ethical dilemma of whether to capitulate to the demands of hackers who had previously released compromising private information to the public and were now threatening physical harm against innocent people, or continue with their plans to distribute the movie. The GOP’s previous actions against Sony suggested they would be likely to follow through with their future threats. Did Sony’s right to produce their silly and vulgar action/comedy movie outweigh the real threat against U.S. citizens? Which moral duty is more important?Sony caved into the demands of the hacker “terrorists,” pulled the movie from theaters, removed all mention of the movie from their websites and social media, and a Sony attorney formally asked the media to stop covering the hacking story, delete old stories off the Internet and delete any private Sony files they may have obtained.This created a media storm and got the attention of the FBI, which released a report blaming the attacks on hackers in North Korea. Specifically the FBI said Sony was hacked by someone who left IP addresses that were hardcoded with a known North Korean infrastructure. According to the FBI, “North Korea’s actions were intended to inflict significant harm on a U.S. business and suppress the right of American citizens to express themselves. Such acts of intimidation fall outside the bounds of acceptable state behavior.” North Korea has denied involvement in the Sony hacks.Ethical dilemma No. 2Media organizations were also faced with an ethical dilemma of whether they should respect Sony’s right to privacy or support the public’s right to know about leaked confidential information. This is essentially a debate between the ethical concepts of teleology (the ends justify the means) and deontology (using an ethical process to treat humanity as an end rather than a means).No media organization has published the thousands of leaked Social Security numbers or personal medical histories of Sony employees, but some less-ethical sources like Gawker have published stories about Sony that were based on illegally obtained information.John Rawls believed a veil of ignorance can achieve a just society by eliminating morally irrelevant personal desires, goals and preferences which might otherwise bias our judgment. In the media, this veil works to justify actions like publishing embarrassing celebrity gossip or photos if you believe that celebrities are public figures who warrant special interest and attention. According to Immanuel Kant, consequence-based ethical decisions are inevitably clouded by personal desires, goals and preferences. Kant believe that universal laws should apply to everyone, and we must “act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only.”SummaryPresident Obama made a statement that he thought Sony was wrong to pull the movie release. Sony distributed “The Interview” as video-on-demand on Dec. 24, bypassing most theaters. It was available to stream on the Internet on Sony, Netflix, YouTube, Google Play, Amazon and appeared as a pirated bootleg version on many other websites. This appears to have diffused the tense situation, because there were no more GOP hacker threats, the movie was available to view, no one was harmed and the story seemed to be over.All the hype surrounding the release of “The Interview” makes you want to watch the movie, but once you see it, you longer want to watch it. My wife and I watched the first half hour or so on Netflix, but we were offended by the crude humor and sophomoric treatment of such a sensitive subject and we switched to something else. I watched the whole movie last night by myself and I thought it was pretty funny in places but had a lot of dirty, vulgar, inappropriate jokes and gross-out scenes with blood splattering everywhere. The movie also touched on many ethical issues discussed this semester.A few weeks ago, WikiLeaks released the entire Sony hack in an indexed format. WikiLeaks editor Julian Assange said, “This archive shows the inner workings of an influential multinational corporation. It is newsworthy and at the centre of a geo-political conflict. It belongs in the public domain. WikiLeaks will ensure it stays there.”Mr. Assange believes leaked information is fair game, but our textbook suggests that discretion plays an important ethical role. “An ability to exercise discretion is vital for judging the ethicality of secrecy,” (Johannesen, ch. 7). “Discretion is the ability to ‘discern what is and is not intrusive and injurious,’ to cope with ‘the moral questions about what is fair or unfair, truthful or deceptive, helpful or harmful,’ and to know ‘when to hold back in order not to bruise’ and ‘when to reach out.’”Discussion Prompts (please choose one or more)Did Sony Pictures Entertainment make the right ethical decision by pulling “The Interview” from U.S. theaters? Does Sony’s duty to protect human life outweigh their duty to support the free speech rights of filmmakers to criticize foreign leaders?Do the media have a duty or moral responsibility to dig through illegally obtained confidential information on celebrities and Sony executives, or do they have a duty or moral responsibility to not dig for dirt? Did Sony’s attorneys do the right thing by demanding the media destroy copies of sensitive proprietary material? Does Sony have legal grounds to prosecute media agencies who publish this confidential information?Does private information become public once it has been leaked to the public? Do you agree or disagree with Julian Assange’s decision to recently post the full Sony hack information in an indexed database on WikiLeaks?References, Valde & Whedbee, “Ethics in Human Communication” textbook, 6th ed.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download