When Ethics Collide With Profits, Which One Wins?
We’ve occasionally dabbled in issues of right or wrong in our posts. When does security go too far? What if well-intentioned loss prevention efforts have the bad effect of turning retail clerks into racial profilers? While companies are in the business of making money, we feel they also have a responsibility to act ethically. Here at Infoglide Software, we’re very proud of all our Inc. 500, Software 500, and Deloitte Technology Fast 500 recognitions, but we’re equally proud of being a finalist for the Samaritan Center Ethics in Business Awards.
While we all know that the gross misdeeds at companies like Enron, Adelphia Communications, and Tyco are wrong, ethical issues come in many shades of gray. One that we’ve seen come up several times recently is not whether a company should commit fraud or crime - to quote Shakespeare, ‘Duh’ - but whether a company should take steps to right wrongs that they didn’t commit. You might think that if they aren’t the offending party then they’re not responsible. But what if a company or organization makes money off the misdeeds of others? Hmm. Let’s look at a couple of recent instances that illustrate this exact dilemma.
Apple and the Case of the Ill-gotten iPods
SanDiegoReader.com recently reported that Apple has the means to know when a stolen iPod is being used to download music on the company’s iTunes web site.
Ferry hopes that Apple’s decision not to track stolen iPods doesn’t have to do with the fact that the more iPods that are stolen, the more iTunes users buy songs and the more victims buy replacement iPods.
Interesting. Most of the comments on the article expressed a desire for Apple to be proactive in helping consumers who have had their iPods stolen. [Note - some comments include strong language]
EBay and the Case of E-fence Straddling
E-fencing is a growing problem for retailers. Individuals and organized retail crime (ORC) rings steal goods and then sell them on eBay and other auction sites. Because of the anonymity and global reach, e-fencing is a relatively safe, profitable way of getting rid of stolen goods. The thing is, because eBay makes money on every transaction, it’s also pretty profitable for them as well. So how hard should eBay work to solve this problem? As you might imagine, retailers and eBay disagree on how much and what eBay should do.
From “Shoplifters taking high-tech road” on denverpost.com:
Retailers responding to a National Retail Federation survey last year estimated that 70 percent of gift cards sold in eBay were fraudulently obtained . . . Mr. LaRocca, the federation’s loss-prevention chief, says the group raised a “big stink” with eBay, which eventually changed its policy. EBay now limits sellers to posting one gift card per week, with a value of no more than $500. When the National Retail Federation scrutinized gift cards sold on eBay on Sept. 14, says Mr. LaRocca, it identified more than a dozen auctions involving sellers who had violated eBay’s policy by listing more than one gift card a week. “Although we have been talking with eBay, the conversations have clearly not been fruitful to date,” says Mr. LaRocca.
Campaign Contributions and the Case of the Funny-money Funds
We recently did a post on campaign finance fraud. Here again, you have a situation where someone can benefit financially from the fraudulent activity of someone else. In this case though, Hilary Clinton’s campaign, which received the bulk of the fraudulently attained money, did refund the donations. What we don’t know is what efforts, if any, are being taken to make sure this sort of thing doesn’t happen again.
It seems like the trend here is for the entities that are benefiting from the crimes of others to either do nothing or present a partial solution to the problem. Identity resolution software, like our Identity Resolution Engine(tm) and IBM’s Entity Analytic Solutions, could provide a total solution to all these problems. But only if the organizations want to solve them.
Subscribe to this blog
April 10th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
I disagree with you. Indeed, I’m not giving a ringing disagreement, but just sayin’ what I think. I have my opinion, you have yours.