7153AFE : Ethics Professionalism and Governance : Interested Parties a

In this case, the interested parties are Joseph the security administrators, the workers at his office, the boss and also the company. The company is expected to respect the privacy of the employees and also Joseph should perform his duties as he has been given a job and thus it is his duty. The values that have to be considered in resolving this dilemma is autonomy and trust in the employees (Nelson Phillips and Steuart 2014).

First, the company should draw up contracts for employees to sign that will allow them to monitor their activities while online during office hours. Also, clear penalties should be set for when these rules are broken by the workers. When these courses of action are taken, it will ensure that employees are informed of what is expected of them. Hence, it will lead to an increase in levels of production because they are using their time well doing office work. Also, it will help the relations between Joseph and the other employees as they will now the company’s expectations that they are being monitored hence making his work easier (Kaplan and Haenlein 2009).

Another similar case is where a network administrator was tasked with monitoring people's activities online, and he found an employee had accessed sites about health and medicine for their child. His dilemma was whether or not to report the worker, he did report them and the employee was only given a warning. It was different to this case as the employees had signed contracts about being monitored. According to discussions held on this dilemma I came to the decision that Joseph should go on with the task that he has been assigned as this is his job description. However, he should first suggest to the company that they formulate contracts that will inform the employees of their intention to monitor them (Skeels and Grudin 2009, May).

Some of the ACS code of ethics relevanthere honesty, competence, and professional development. Also, some of the professional code of ethics for this case are;

• recognize the intellectual stuff of people.
• inform stakeholders any possible clashes between your expert duties and legal or other recognized conditions.
• defend and endorse the well-being and security of individuals touched by your job.
• differentiate between your job and own views and guidance.
• counsel your company when you consider a planned venture, service or product does not suit them.

and the law that is associated with this case is the privacy act 1988 (Bynum 2008).

I am comfortable with making this decision as I am sure it will be in the best interest of the parties involved. I would be pleased to tell people that this is the decision that I made as it is the best decision possible. People may follow my example as I know I made the decision without discrimination and I believe I took all factors into consideration. Thus I am sure I can live with it.

References:

Bynum, T., 2008. Computer and information ethics.

Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M., 2009. The fairyland of Second Life: Virtual social worlds and how to use them. Business horizons, 52(6), pp.563-572.

Nelson, B., Phillips, A. and Steuart, C., 2014. Guide to computer forensics and investigations. Cengage Learning.

Skeels, M.M. and Grudin, J., 2009, May. When social networks cross boundaries: a case study of workplace use of facebook and linkedin. InProceedings of the ACM 2009 international conference on Supporting group work (pp. 95-104). ACM.