Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Internet of Things (What is the Internet of Things? (The interconnection…

- - - - Pros / Cons
        
        Pros
        
        Customers need not worry about security
        
        Secure products are better than unsecure products
        
        Professionals are handling sensitive data
        
        Cons
        
        Different people have different security needs
        
        Less focus from maker on features
        
        Company faces potential liability issues and encounters costs from a security development team
      - Ethical Analysis
        
        Act Utilitarianism
        
        It is morally right for the makers to lay out the security steps as that’s their duty
        
        RuleUtilitarianism
        
        Issue of security based on makers follows rules since it is their duty and they follow rules put in place hence they perform what is needed of them
        
        Kantanisim
        
        Universal Law of Nature
        
        The Universal law of nature states that one should only act according to maxims that could be considered universal laws.
        
        Maxim Used
        
        If security falls on the maker of a product, we expect to hold them accountable for all security failures.
        
        Conclusion
        
        Since we do expect to hold companies responsible for security failures they have control over. Not security failures they don't control such as a user giving out their password. We can conclude by Kant's Theories that it is unethical for the company to be fully responsible for security.
        
        Principle of the end in itself
        
        The Principle of the end in itself states that one should treat all humans, including themselves as a means to themselves and not a means to an end.
        
        The company providing security enhances their product. Making it more desirable to consumers and treating them as an end in themselves. Therefore it is ethical by Kant's theories
      - Affected Groups
        
        Harmed
        
        Customers if company does a poor job
        
        Companies - More labor/liability
        
        Software developers - more work
        
        Benefited
        
        Customers if company does a good job
        
        User companies - don't have to worry about implementing their own secure solution
        
        Company less likely to have one of their products hacked
    - - Pros / Cons
        
        Pros
        
        Potentially lower prices
        
        More focus on the product and its features
        
        Less work for the companies
        
        Cons
        
        Loss of reputation for the company
        
        Company could end up being sued
        
        Easier for information breaches
      - Ethical Analysis
        
        Kantanisim
        
        Universal Law of Nature
        
        The Universal law of nature states that one should only act according to maxims that could be considered universal laws.
        
        Maxim
        
        If security falls on the user of a product, we expect to hold them accountable for all security failures.
        
        Conclusion
        
        While we expect some security failures to fall under the user. We can't expect them to be responsible for systems they can't control and have no access too. Thus we can conclude that is unethical for the user to be responsible for all security issues.
        
        Principle of the end in itself
        
        The Principle of the end in itself states that one should treat all humans, including themselves as a means to itself and not a means to an end.
        
        By not providing security the company treats its users as an means to an ends. Thus it is unethical for the user to be responsible for all security issues.
        
        Act Utilitarianism
        
        The principle of act utilitarianism is based on principle of utility and hence it is up to the user to know what to put on the internet and what not to
        
        RuleUtilitarianism
        
        Rule utilitarians argue that following rules that tend to lead to the greatest good will have better consequences overall than allowing exceptions to be made in individual instances, even if better consequences can be demonstrated in those instances. And hence following rules based on security depends on the user
      - Affected Groups
        
        Harmed
        
        Non-techsavy users
        
        Company's reputation
        
        User Companies
        
        Benifitted
        
        Company's legal division
        
        Users who want individualized security
        
        Developer/Company
    - - Through our analyses of both sides we found their was no consequences for one group to be fully responsible for security. It is a collaboration between both the company and user to maintain security as they each control different parts of the product. A company can't stop a user from giving out their password, and a user can't keep hackers out of a companies database.
- - - - Pros / Cons
        
        Pros
        
        User security can be better monitered
        
        Company has full control of its devices
        
        Company can shut down and fix faulty devices
        
        Cons
        
        Down times affect companies
        
        Customers may be unhappy
        
        Loss of money from down times
      - Ethical Analysis
        
        Act Utilitarianism
        
        Act utilitarianism supports this situation if it is morally right to shut down a device and this is so because the company might have found illegal activities on the device.
        
        RuleUtilitarianism
        
        It might be morally right to shut down a device but if it isn’t the rule, it does not support it.
        
        Kantanisim
        
        Based on Kants ideologies, it revolves more around duty than emotions and hence kantianism justifies a company shutting down a device
      - Affected Groups
        
        Harmed
        
        Users
        
        User Companies
        
        Customers
        
        Benifitted
        
        Software Developers
        
        Employees
        
        Company
    - - Pros / Cons
        
        Pros
        
        Customers don't have to worry about losing access
        
        Customers enjoy their experiences more
        
        Planned obsolescence does not occur
        
        Cons
        
        Old products have to be continually supported by the company
        
        Less people buying newer products
        
        Main-stream products advance slower
      - Ethical Analysis
        
        Kantanisim
        
        As it isn’t their duty to shut down working products, it cannot based on kantianism since it revolves around duty than emotions
        
        Act Utilitarianism
        
        It is morally wrong to intentionally shut down working products and this goes against act utilitarianism
        
        RuleUtilitarianism
        
        Rule utilitarianism does not support idea of companies shutting down working products since there is no rule that requires the company to do that
      - Affected Groups
        
        Benifitted
        
        User Companies
        
        Users
        
        Customers
        
        Harmed
        
        Company
        
        Employees
        
        Software Developers
    - - Planned Obsolescence - a policy of producing consumer goods that rapidly become obsolete and so require replacing, achieved by frequent changes in design, termination of the supply of spare parts, and the use of nondurable materials.