Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6

LJ Parfan


CASE: Borrowing a Password, Scenario 2

This scenario is like the previous one with one potentially significant
difference. In this scenario, Josh and Alice are software engineering majors.
Josh is a senior and Alice has already graduated. She is working for a
software development firm, Alpha Software as a software engineer. Josh asks
to use Alices account at Alpha Software rather than a university account. As
before, Josh completed his paper without looking at anything he was not
authorized to see and he didnt do anything other than create a word
processing file for his paper.
Reflection Questions
a. Did anyone in Scenario 2 do anything wrong? Again, use your intuition
to define wrong as you deem appropriate for the context of the case.
Explain your reasoning.
Joshs act of asking for Alices Alpha Software password is wrong
both objectively and subjectively. First of all there is no point of
asking for Alices alpha software account details because it has
nothing to do with his school account being disabled. Secondly,
an account on a private corporation is much more important and
more confidential than a school account. The details of a
corporation is not something that can be shared to anyone even
if he or she is your good friend.
a. Suppose Josh has accepted a job at Beta Software, a competitor of Alpha
Software. He is not currently employed by Beta software, but will begin
working for them thirty days after graduation. Would that information affect
your answer to the previous question? Explain.

Yes, in that case, the more that Alice should not give her
password to Josh. If another employee or management of Beta
Software finds out about Joshs access to Alices account
credentials, then they might put Josh in a situation where Josh
has nothing to do but take advantage of Alpha Softwares
company details.

b. Suppose the terms of Alices Employment required her to protect the

confidentiality of corporate information and that Alice was well aware of that
requirement. Would that affect any of your previous answers? Explain.

Once again, the more that she should not give her password. On
the other side, if another employee or management of Alpha
Software finds out that a person from a competitor has access

LJ Parfan

on one of their employees accounts, then surely Alice will face

consequences because of her actions.
c. Suppose the terms of Alices employment required her to protect the
confidentiality of corporate information, but she didnt read this information
in the various documents she had signed and paid little attention in the
orientation lectures when she started the job. Hence, she was not actually
aware of the requirements to protect the confidentiality of corporate
information. Would this affect your previous analysis of the case? Explain

What she did is still wrong.

a. Suppose Alice had denied Joshs request. Did anyone in the scenario do
anything wrong in your view? Explain

The mistake was when Josh asked for her company accounts
account credentials. In case Alice denied it, she did the right
thing and Josh should be eligible to understand.

CASE: Borrowing a Password, Scenario 3

This scenario is like Scenario 2 except for the following significant addition.
When Josh completed his paper, he e-mailed the paper to his professor. He
then logged off of Alices account. Alpha Software monitors e-mail of its
employees and it was observed that an e-mail with an attachment of a file in
Alices directory had been sent to a server outside of Alpha Softwares
network. Alices boss, Carol, confronted Alice, who readily admitted her
transgression of company policy. Carol viewed Alices action as a cavalier
disregard for company security and fired Alice. Alice was given two weeks
pay and escorted off the premises.
Reflection Questions
a. Did anyone in Scenario 3 do anything wrong? A before, use your own
interpretation of the appropriate meaning of wrong. Explain your

No one did anything wrong. Her boss did the right thing for the
sake of the companys privacy. We didnt know maybe after Alice
was fired, the IT staff has to do something complicated like
configuring all the companys information and moving it to

LJ Parfan

another database or something that will affect not just Alice but
other departments as well.

a. Suppose Alpha Software never told Alice that her e-mail would be
monitored. Would that affect your answer to the previous question? Explain.

In that case, the one monitoring is wrong. He or she is simply

violating ones privacy if it was not written or the employees
were not informed that their emails will be monitored.
Nevertheless, Alice still deserves to be fired and the
management or the company has to know about what happened
to decide what solution is best for the companys sake.

b. Suppose Carol had once been guilty of doing something similar. She also
was caught, but simply received a reprimand. Would that affect your answer
to question 1?

Yes. If Carol has already experienced a similar thing, then she

should be more considerate and get in Alices shoes. She should
be the one defending Alice to the top management but still, the
decision of the Top management should be followed. Maybe Carol
though wont do that as she doesnt want the top management
as well as her to remember what she did wrong back then.

c. Suppose we agree, for the time being, that Carol was justified in firing
Alice. We know something that Carol cannot know, namely that Josh did not
view any Alpha Software files and did not alter anything belonging to Alpha
Software in any way. If, through some mysterious process Carol could know
what we know, would she still be justified in firing Alice? Explain.

Depending on her care for the company, and if she also did the
same thing back then, then as a human person I doubt that she
will be justified. Lives of people depend on the salary they are
getting from their jobs and she wouldve realized Alices situation
at her worst and regret firing her.

CASE: Warning or Ticket? Scenario 1

Herman Schmidt is a police officer. One morning he observed a driver,
Dolores Delgado, a young working mother, who failed to stop at the stop
sign. Dolores and Officer Schmidt have known each other for years, and

LJ Parfan

although they have never been close, they have always been friendly with
each other.
When stopped, Dolores readily concedes that she missed the stop sign. She
says that she was on her way to drop off her daughter at her day-care center
before going to work. A bee had flown through the window, upsetting her
daughter, and Dolores had become distracted. As a result, she simply did not
notice the stop sign. She appeals to Officer Schmidt to overlook her error and
let her be on her way so that she can get her daughter to day care and still
get to work on time.
Officer Schmidt has a decision to make, the law in this case permits a certain
amount of discretion by the police in the case of a rolling stop, but that
discretion clearly does not apply in this case. Dolores did not even see the
stop sign, much less slow down for it.
Reflection Questions
a. What should Officer Schmidt do? In particular, should be:

Give Dolores a warning?


Give Dolores a ticket?


Arrest Dolores?

Note that the question asks what the Officer Schmidt should do, not what
you think he is likely to do.

Officer Schmidt should give Dolores a ticket. Walang Kai

Kaibigan. No matter how good friends you are with someone,
even if he or she is part of your family or if he or she is your
crush or whatsoever, it is your job to confront people not
following the rules and do the punishment for their actions.

a. Suppose Dolores had been an 18-year-old male whom Officer Schmidt did
not know. should that affect the officer's decision? Explain.

No even if the person who violated the rule is the son of the
president or even the president of the country, he should still be

b. Suppose Officer Schmidt and Dolores had had a romantic relationship in

the past. Should that affect Officer Schmidt's decision? Explain.

LJ Parfan

The question is what should he do, not what likely will he do so

my answer stays the same. He should apprehend whoever that
person who violated the law is.

c. Suppose Dolores had been rude and argumentative with Officer Schmidt.
Should that affect his decision?

No, whatever happens he should do the right thing, the thing

that officers should do, and that is to apprehend violators. If she
resists, then maybe it is time to call other cops and arrest her.

a. Question 1 offers three, an only three, possible choices for Officer
Schmidt. Do you have a definite opinion on the proper course of action? If so,
why do you have that opinion? If you don't have a clear opinion, do you think
additional information would help form your opinion? If so, what information?
CASE: Warning or Ticket? Scenario 2
The situation is the same as Scenario 1 except that, when Dolores ran the
stop sign, she struck a pedestrian in the crosswalk, badly injuring him.
Reflection Questions
a. You still have three choices about Officer Schmidt's proper course of
action: give Dolores a warning, cite her, or arrest her. Has the information
about the pedestrian changed your opinion from the previous scenario? Why
or why not

Yes of course it should change. What happened is already an

accident therefore, Dolores has to be admitted to the nearest
Police station and explain there what happened. Though Dolores
has the right to stay silent until her lawyer arrives, and there is
also a slight possibility that the one struck at the pedestrian
decides not to file a case against Dolores. Though even if that
still is the case, Schmidt should still give Dolores a ticket because
she still clearly violated the law. So my answer is both number 2
and 3. But the first thing that should be done is to ensure the
safety of the one who got struck.

b. Suppose the person struck by Dolores happened to be the mayor. Would

that affect Officer Schmidt's proper action? Why or why not? Obviously, in
situation described here, there might be considerable reason for Officer
Schmidt to do something other than what he deems to correct.

LJ Parfan

No, once again whoever that person is, whatever his position is,
no matter if the one struck is poor or rich, no matter what his
social class is, the law should still be followed and the violator
should take the consequences of his actions. On the side of
Schmidt, he should still do the right thing and that is to both give
Dolores a ticket and arrest her or bring her to the nearest police
station as well to explain what happened. But the first thing that
should be done is to bring the one struck to the hospital and
make sure he or she is safe.

a. Suppose Officer Schmidt had stopped Dolores for running the stop sign
the previous week and had given her warning. Was Officer S
wrong to have done that? Explain.

I believe that giving Dolores a warning was wrong. As far as I

know, there is no warning rule for any violation somebody
committed. Everyone should follow the law and the one who
violates should face the consequence of ones actions.