Gio works as a part time student employee at CSIT Department in their university. As part of his duties, he needed to install new software in Professor Umali’s desktop. Since it is accreditation period and everybody was in hurry to finish the needed PACUCOA documents and served their class. Professor Umali told Gio to go ahead to his office, installed the needed software, do whatever he is needed to do but be sure to logout his email before anything else. Professor Umali was having a bad semester; he became the target of SSC – Bad Teacher Go Out (BaTGo) project. The project has been part of a social networking site; where students can (1) upload satirical videos, (2) post sarcastic quotable quotes from teachers , (3) grading computation forums and (4) teacher’s photo. Videos and photos are very clever at making fun to the organization targets which became hit and popular to the students. This semester target was Professor Umali for his clumsiness’ and his baldness. Student also posted some pictures on the site a weekly picture of Professor Umali showing his head and the thinness of his hair. Gio has been part of Professor Umali’s class two (2) years ago. His been a good teacher for a long period of time, Gio and his colleagues can attest to that, Professor Umali during their time got the “eagle award winning” medal for being such a good one. Professor Umali’s competency and competitiveness to field of technology is priceless for them. He teaches everything and anything a student must learn in their field showing several projects and study to attest what’s really on the real world. Gio knows that this semester target was Professor Umali, he wanted to converse whatever is posted and uploaded on the site but he doesn’t know how. When he about to log out Professor Umali’s email, he noticed that the professors inbox was open. He catches a subject line that read “so sorry about your diagnosis”. Instead of logging out professor account, Gio open the record and read and found out that Professor Umali was diagnosed to have a prostate cancer. Gio thinks that what is happening in the trial was injustice. He thinks that the best way to counterpart those allegations is to post something credible on the site that will prove that Professor Umali was really a good one that his baldness and clumsiness was only an effect of his medication. That evening he posted a comment and video of Professor Umali showing good sides of the professor, challenging those students who wanted the professor to be out in the university. Gio was in hot seat in the organization, his comment and video was up and gain enormous comments and challenges for him to tell where those stuff came from. He immediately answered those questions that he read the email of Professor Umali who was accidentally left open in the office where he is asked to install accreditation software. That comment had immediate consequences. The following day, Mr. Tubero, Gio’s immediate superior called him in a private conference. Mr. Tubero, pointed out that Gio’s action violated privacy policy of their department. Policy was carefully discussed and emphasized to Gio when he signed contract with the company. His signature was affix to the documents which shows his willingness to follow the policy. He violated the ethical standards of his job and his chosen profession. He behaved unprofessionally. Gio tried to explain the reasons for her actions, but Mr. Tubero said that it is written in the contract therefore it is valid. Gio get fired and no recommendation was given for his future employment.
Questions:
1. Were Gio’s actions moral? Explain.
2. Were Gio’s actions ethical? Explain.
3. Was Mr. Tubero justified in firing Gio? Explain.
4. Suppose Gio had not been in Professor Umali’s office because of his job with IT services. Suppose he simply been a student who was in the office for a conference when Professor Umali was called away from some reason. Would that change either of your first two answers? Explain.
5. Did Professor Umali behave ethically when he asked Gio to log his off rather than doing it himself? Explain.
6. To what extend does Gio violates under ACM code of Ethics.
1. Gio's actions were moral in the sense that he was trying to help Professor Umali by countering the allegations against him on the social networking site. However, his actions were not moral in the sense that he violated the privacy policy of the department by accessing Professor Umali's email without permission.
2. Gio's actions were not ethical because he violated the privacy policy of the department. He was aware of the policy and had signed a contract agreeing to abide by it, yet he chose to ignore it.
3. Yes, Mr. Tubero was justified in firing Gio. Gio had violated the privacy policy of the department and had acted unprofessionally.
4. No, it would not change either of the first two answers. Gio still violated the privacy policy of the department and acted unethically.
5. No, Professor Umali did not behave ethically when he asked Gio to log out his email rather than doing it himself. He should have taken responsibility for his own actions and logged out his own email.
6. Gio violated the ACM code of Ethics by failing to respect the privacy of others. He accessed Professor Umali's email without permission, which is a violation of the code.
1. Gio's actions were not moral. He invaded Professor Umali's privacy by reading his personal email without permission. It is morally wrong to intrude on someone's personal information without their consent.
2. Gio's actions were also not ethical. He violated the privacy policy of his department and breached the trust that was placed in him as an employee. Ethical behavior involves respecting the rights and privacy of others, and Gio failed to do so.
3. Mr. Tubero was justified in firing Gio. Gio violated the privacy policy that he had agreed to follow when he signed the contract with the company. By breaching this policy and acting unprofessionally, Gio showed a lack of integrity and trustworthiness that is not acceptable in the workplace.
4. If Gio had not been in Professor Umali's office as an employee, but rather just as a student in the office for a conference, it does not change the assessment that his actions were immoral and unethical. The role or reason for being in the office does not justify invading someone's privacy or violating ethical standards.
5. Professor Umali's behavior of asking Gio to log him off instead of doing it himself does not necessarily make him unethical. However, it is important to note that as a professor and authority figure, Professor Umali should have been more careful with his personal information and should not have put Gio in a position where he was tempted to read his emails.
6. Gio's actions violate several principles of the ACM (Association for Computing Machinery) Code of Ethics. Specifically, Gio violated Principle 1: "Contribute to society and human well-being," by invading Professor Umali's privacy; Principle 2: "Avoid harm," by sharing confidential information without permission; and Principle 3: "Be honest and trustworthy," by breaching the privacy policy and behaving unethically in his job.
1. Gio's actions were not moral. While he may have had good intentions to defend Professor Umali, he violated privacy by accessing and reading the professor's email without permission. He also shared confidential information from the email without the professor's consent, which is a breach of trust.
2. Gio's actions were also not ethical. By accessing and sharing the contents of Professor Umali's email, he violated ethical standards of privacy and confidentiality. He also went against the policies of his department, which he agreed to abide by when signing his contract.
3. Yes, Mr. Tubero was justified in firing Gio. Gio's actions violated the privacy policy and ethical standards of the department. His behavior was unprofessional and showed a lack of respect for privacy and confidentiality. By terminating Gio's employment, Mr. Tubero emphasized the importance of following policies and maintaining ethical behavior in their organization.
4. If Gio had been a student who accidentally stumbled upon Professor Umali's open email, it may change the moral evaluation of his actions slightly. However, it does not change the fact that sharing the contents of the email without permission is still a breach of ethics. As a student, he should have reported the incident to the professor or proper authorities rather than sharing the information publicly.
5. Professor Umali did not behave ethically when he asked Gio to log him out of his email instead of doing it himself. It is the professor's responsibility to maintain the privacy and security of his own accounts. Asking someone else to handle such a task can potentially expose sensitive information and violates basic cybersecurity practices.
6. Gio's actions violate several principles outlined in ACM's (Association for Computing Machinery) Code of Ethics. Specifically, he violated Principle 1: "General Obligations," which emphasizes the importance of respecting privacy and taking measures to protect personal data. He also violated Principle 2: "Professional Competence," as his actions showed a lack of professionalism and ethical behavior. Additionally, he violated Principle 3: "Professional Responsibilities," by not acting in the best interest of the organization and the individuals involved.