Ethics Maker of Smartphone Surveillance App Fined Avoids Jail Time

Question: Discuss about the Ethics for Maker of Smartphone Surveillance App Fined Avoids Jail Time. Answer: Introduction: The author discusses the given article from the perspective of two theories Just Consequentialism' and Moral judgment' and presents his viewpoints. Both beliefs are different to a degree, and the end-result is decided to depend on its inherent principles. Overview of the Article: Hammad Akbar, the creator of the smartphone application StealthGenie,' had one purpose to listen to the conversation and track the locations of unsuspecting individuals mostly to catch cheating lovers through mobile phone calls. In doing so broke federal laws and was fined US$ 500,000 or A$ 587,000 by the US District Court for Eastern District of Virginia. He sold the app at a premium price of about $100 to $200 for Platinum version. It leads to access to the contacts, calendar events, photos and almost everything when the app installed on the suspect's phone. This app can even extend its capabilities by recording calls, and turning on the users microphone so the person on another side can listen to the surroundings. He spent ten days in jail and subsequently released on the condition that he will post bail the required amount and pleaded guilty. He went on to show his honesty by detailing the apps activities and legal procurements (Life, Apps, Maker of smartphone surveillance app fined, 2014). The author explains two classical ethical theories: Just Consequentialism: As stated by Dorsey, (2013), it is based on two principles, which states that an act can be defined right or wrong from the results of its action. And, another principle is that the better is the product of the work the better it is or justifiable. It is based on the fact that, a person must choose the proper action which he thinks will result in a good outcome. There are two different forms of Consequentialism Utilitarianism and Hedonism (BBC - Ethics - Introduction to Ethics: Consequentialism, 2016). Utilitarianism defines that people should get involved in the welfare of others and maximize its usefulness. Hedonism explains that people should participate in getting the maximum pleasure (Brand, 2013). Act Consequentialism explains how people cannot define their moral or ethical consequences of each action of theirs. Moral or Ethical Judgments: As stated by Mudrack Mason, (2013), it explains how humans categorize people or actions in simple perspectives of right or wrong, right or bad. Moral judgments can be different from one to the other. One can find Mahatma Gandhi as a good person while another one can argue about him and define him evil. These are considered to fall into the realm of broad categories. When one consider the traits or character of a person as honest, caring and loving who keep promises said to have good virtues and a faithful person. Another person who is dishonest, rude and unforgiving is supposed to have an evil character (LectureforExercise1.html, 2016). According to Pennycook et al., (2014), for making ethical judgments of actions, it is categorized into right or wrong. In moral decisions, people are considered to be bad or good. For making moral decisions about characters, traits, virtues of a person, one categorize into good or bad (Roeser, 2012). Analysis from Just Consequentialism view: From the opinion of just Consequentialism, it is seen that even though the app was released in good intentions taking in account the history of Hammad Akbar, the app had the potential to wreck a family or an individual's life or more severe event. To come to a decision, both good and bad factors need evaluation to find out, which outweighs the other. The advantages are, it is meant to help those who are in a relationship, to catch the other person in suspicion of indulging in an act that is considered cheating or betrayal from their view. If the other person can find the individual, then he or she can force the other one to justify their actions or understand him or her into understanding. Whichever be the outcome, it can turn out to be good or wrong for the other person may not suspect it in advance. The one who is tracking the other person will have knowledge of the suspect regarding geolocation or track his/her whereabouts, record what he is doing or speak with whom. The disadvantages are, the unsuspecting individuals may not feel welcome about this action and would never appreciate this kind of act from their lover. It is not only a breach of privacy, but distrust, dishonesty, and betrayal. Therefore, judging from this viewpoint, this has the potential to be good and shows how much the technology has progressed over the years and make a relationship make or break for the right. Analysis from Ethical and Moral Judgement view: From the other perspective of Ethical and Moral Judgement, it is found that the acts performed by the application are simply wrong in its actions. An app should not have any permission to intrude into the lives of others unless parents employ it to monitor their children or to take care of the elder relatives in which case permission is required to do so. Though the app is meant to be beneficial by those who want to intrude on their lovers but for unsuspecting individuals it can be very dangerous. The unsuspected ones will be victims and even if they do any wrong they would not justify this breach of privacy from their lover or anyone. Since the app does not have a mind on its own, so the blame entirely belongs to the creator. His character or virtue in this regard is considered to be morally wrong with harmful practices and bad intentions. Therefore, the person is deemed to be bad by moral judgment. Figure 1: Argument map in the case of Hammad Akbar (Source: Rationale - online argument mapping, 2016) Conclusion: The author critically analyses the article and makes the point on how the situation is morally and ethically wrong based on the actions and behavior of the application. From Just Consequentialism' view the advantages and disadvantages are analyzed, and the author came to the conclusion that the pros outweigh the cons and therefore the act is justifiable. From Morally or Ethically Judgemental view, the author found it to be very wrong regarding behavior, intention and overall trait of that of the app, aka the creator. Hence, he does not endorse it to be good. References: BBC-Ethics-Introductio to ethics: Consequentialism. (2016).Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved 31 May 2016, from https://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/consequentialism_1.shtml Brand, J. (2013). Beyond Consequentialism.Philosophical Review,122(4), 657-661 Dorsey, D. (2013). Consequentialism, Cognitive Limitations, and Moral Theory.Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics,3. LectureforExercise1.html. (2016).Spot.colorado.edu. Retrieved 31 May 2016, from https://spot.colorado.edu/~tooley/Lecture3-EthicalTheories.html Life, D., Apps, S., Maker of smartphone surveillance app fined, a. (2014).StealthGenie maker fined for 'stalker' app.The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 31 May 2016, from https://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/smartphone-apps/maker-of-smartphone-surveillance-app-fined-avoids-jail-time-20141126-11upqs.html Mudrack, P. E., Mason, E. S. (2013). Ethical judgments: What do we know, where do we go?.Journal of Business Ethics,115(3), 575-597. Pennycook, G., Cheyne, J. A., Barr, N., Koehler, D. J., Fugelsang, J. A. (2014). The role of analytic thinking in moral judgements and values.Thinking Reasoning,20(2), 188-214. Roeser, S. (2012). The relation between cognition and affect in moral judgements about risks.The Ethics of Technological Risk, 182.