Much of what we learned in weeks one through four could be
applied to our readings in weeks five through eight. These most recent readings were all very engaging, but I was
probably the most engaged when reading about Anonymous and whistle blowing.
I never really paid any attention to groups who identify as
being “anonymous”. The actions of
this ‘group’ vary and sometimes their attacks are just sort of childish and
obscene. I do not see what all the
hype is about. Sure, Anonymous can
be harmful as many of its members call themselves hackers, but I am generally unimpressed
with their actions. After reading
about Anonymous, I came to the conclusion that, for the most part, this group
is incredibly unorganized. There
are so many people who identify with being Anonymous, but they all seem to have
their own agendas. Some do it for
the lulz, some want to be heard, and some are activists. While I have been referring to
Anonymous as a group and having members, it should be known that Anonymous is
not an actual organization with a leader and members and some sort of hierarchy
of power. I think the “power” that
Anonymous holds, is their strength in numbers. One thing that really sparked my attention was that
Anonymous generally does not take credit for their attacks and that pinpointing
a culprit in Anonymous is difficult.
Many times an organization or individual wants to take credit for
something they did, even if that action is illegal. Although I am, for the most part, unimpressed with the whole
Anonymous thing, I think some of the things that they do are funny. For example, I get a kick out of
lolcats! I can confidently say
that, after reading this section, I understand Anonymous much better than
before. I’m also more aware of
their presence on the Internet
In week seven we discussed whistle blowing and freedom of
speech. I learned how to determine
when to blow the whistle, and how to go about it. I was shocked to read that there are conditions laid out
about when it is ok to blow the whistle.
These conditions apply to engineers, but conditions similar to these are
probably seen in other occupations.
Richard De George says that, “…workers are morally permitted to go public with information about the safety of a
product if three conditions are satisfied” (Tavani 117). These conditions relate to determining
whether there is a safety issue or threat and whether or not the worker has
notified supervisors but has received little or no support from them. I guess it was just surprising to learn
that employees need to complete certain steps before they can blow the
whistle. It’s strange how, when we
are young, many of us are taught that when we know something is not right, we
should speak up immediately. In
the workforce, this isn’t so. A
lot of this could be because there is a certain level of loyalty between an
employee and their employer, and the scope of an issue may be much larger than
if we saw our friend steal a piece of candy. The issue of whistle blowing and when to do it is largely
deontological. Some employees may
feel as though they are responsible for taking the fall for their employer and
that, as being their employee, they’ve agreed to some sort of promise that they
will do so. Of course this is not
always the case and this is only true “…where there is mutual commitment on the
part of both parties involved- employer and employee” (Tavani 114). The process of whistle blowing isn’t as
easy as one may think. It’s more
than just being aware that something is wrong. I realize that its also understanding that blowing the
whistle may cost someone their job and could tarnish the reputation of the
company they work for. In the
grand scheme of things, however, blowing the whistle on something that poses a
threat to the public is, I think, far more important than losing ones job.
No comments:
Post a Comment