Ethics in Information Technology

For this case analysis, we will be employing Reynolds’ seven-step process (Reynolds). But we will be starting from the options and analyze them one by one. The plausible courses of action that we’re going to analyze are:
b. The government to directly pass a law prohibiting the uploading of files, videos, photos and anything by employees that tarnish the credibility of its current employers while prohibiting employers to use the internet as a basis for hiring.
The cases mentioned can be simply summarized to the use of the internet specifically the social networking sites such as Face book, YouTube and MySpace to publish videos that have tarnished the credibility of the companies. Now the question is are employers justified in monitoring their employees’ posts in the social networking sites and make decisions about hiring, disciplining and discharging based on these posts
The stakeholders in this case are current employers, current employees, potential employees and potential employers. In the case of hiring, the people at stake are potential employers and employees. On the part of potential employers, this will give the much needed information more than what interviews and resumes can provide. Here the truth about the potential employee can be mined. Option #3 then would not be good. On the part of the employers this is like an invasion into their privacy and their personal life. Hiring on the basis of facts gathered from networking sites can then be negative. They would support option #3.
On the issue of employers uploading files that ruin he credibility or salability of the employers and their products, there are two options. Either that the government makes a direct law against that would be observed in all institutions(Options#2) or they allow the employers to make their specific rules (option #1) regarding this. The employers would find option #1 more favorable while the employees would most probably be indifferent between the two, depending on the weight of the rules and the weight of the consequences.
Considering the Consequences of Your Decision
Option #1 would profoundly benefit the employers. It will help them design rules that specifically fit their situation. If the government allows them to make their own rules and gets approved by the government, it means that whatever decisions they have, it will be backed by the latter. Negative publicities that actually ruin both the employers and other employees will now be eliminated thus contributing to the common good. Option #2 will also benefit the employers although the rules set by the government may not suit their specific needs. Thus, employers are better off with Option #1. On both options, the employees will feel restricted or may even feel violated although those who really do not intend violate it will be indifferent. As to option #3, potential employees will greatly be benefitted as they will have the right not to disclose information about themselves to their employers.