Posted at 12.21.2018
PAPA Model: Today, the considerable use of computer knowledge & information technology in the business world and other intuitions has brought many ethical issues and concern. Mason presented four most crucial honest issues of the info period on 1986: that are Privacy, correctness, property and ease of access abbreviated to PAPA. Mason's PAPA model centered on the individual impairment which could arise from the unethical or misuse of information and information technology. Predicated on the Framework produced by Mason we can analyse and reach the conclusion on ethical issues surfaced by the unethical use of information technology. PAPA model enlightens depth knowledge on the particular Privacy, reliability, property and correctness means, that they are interrelated, what are their differences and how they help us to reach the final outcome on moral issues.
Privacy: Generally understanding, privacy means the right to be free from secret scrutiny and determine whether, when, how and to whom, one's personal or organisational information is usually to be revealed. The privateness Action 1988 regulates how personal information is dealt with. The Privacy Work defines private information as
. . . information or an impression, whether true or not, and whether saved in a material form or not, about an recognized individual, or a person who us moderately identifiable. You will find two main factors which threaten our personal privacy today, firstly expansion of information technology with its capacity of scrutiny, communication, computing, retrieval and storage space, and second the increased value of information in decision making.
Accuracy: It's the condition or quality to be true, correct or exact; clear of error or defect. Inaccuracy could cause detracting situation on person's life, organisations and business principles. Here comes up some question: who should be in charge of correctness and authenticity of collected information? How can one believe that the info will be correctly inputted, prepared properly and offered to users? On what basis should we imagine bugs in databases or system and processing are not finished with intention and happened accidently. Who takes the responsibility for glitch in information and the way the victim will be reimbursed.
Property: Property issues are focused on ownership and value of information. In addition, it seeks the response of few questions like, who's the owner of the information. What is the value of the exchange, and where way the access to information or the recourses should be allocated? Here property means the intellectual property and its own right. Once the intellectual property is provided anywhere or sent, it is complicated to keep carefully the person as it becomes communicable and more challenging to be reimbursed.
Accessibility: its issues are worried on who has the permission to gain access to the info, who keeps the protection under the law or keys to gain access to it, what data a person or organisations are privileged to obtain with which safeguards and under what conditions and conditions?
After going through the scenario provided and from my own research I consider, all four areas have given surge to honest issues for Joseph where some have higher-level of the problem whereas other has a low level effect. Most of all it gives rise to level of privacy issues accompanied by others.
Privacy issues: Joseph's personal or we can say the private information was affected that could lead to very disastrous consequences, identity robbery makes life miserable. If Joseph had given attention on lecture's warning to those to be cautious and vigilant while providing personal information to companies online, he might be on safe side but instead he thought him old-fashioned rather than thought some issues may occur while providing information to a corporation like Sony. How can one choose whom to trust? How much information is one able to give to others?
Accuracy Issues: Being the customer of Sony Joseph experienced to get correct and well-timed information, to whom he had provided his private information to mastercard details with trust. Accurate information of private information and credit-based card details being hacked was provided only after a whole week of the incident following by other deceptive and imitation information. Though, the hackers couldn't do any misuse of data they could have damaged everything in a week time customers could take precaution to
Property Issues: When Joseph cannot restore the back-up file it offers climb to property issues. He bought game titles from Sony he gathered trophies but does he really own that? Do Sony own the data that customers provided?
I find some statements made by Level of privacy commissioner Timothy Pilgrim questionable. He stated that Sony do have a case to answer as they "didn't intentionally disclose any confidential information" is not surprising, simply put Australia has no real commercial Privacy or security legislation for Sony to breach. The actual fact that Sony did not show a duty of attention and/or displayed a full lack regard for the non-public information entrusted to them by their clients is totally ignored by the commissioner. Sony's duty of health care is to keep appropriate IT security systems, plans and procedures to keep up client data confidential, private and available whether at recovery, in transit or in an activity. It is evident that they did not take these tasks of care commitments critically until "that proverbial material" hit the fan. Declaration by Pilgrim "Sony has extra security measures to strengthen protection across the network platforms" highlights its historical disregard for customer confidentiality in their corporate and business culture and I do not feel that any Australian Administration officials should comment and try to forgive such obvious laissez-faire behavior. Can he answer us, what acceptable steps Sony got to protect individual's credentials? Now, they actually created a CSO role. They didn't have this before? What fines were handed down because of this breach? How can he show that legislation helps to protect individual's information to overseas organisations? "I opened this inspection because I was worried that Australians' private information may have been compromised, "
Pilgrim said. However, his concerns were unfounded, with Pilgrim discovering that the company hadn't breached the Action. Seriously, just how come Sony Corporation require our full time frame of birth? Time only should be adequate to verify a person is over 18 - probe further only when the year uncovers someone turning 18 that season. Consequently, Sony should be 100% liable for any reduction plus damage for emotional stress to any customer, their partner and immediate family, in respect of any customer who has their personality was stolen and fraud determined. And in addition it must be clarified that whether it determined a culprit in the intrusion. Guilty must be punished.