Introduction The main ethical issue mentioned in the article is Google collating the information of its users with

the latter being unaware of it. Andrew Lewis once said that if you're not paying for something, you're not the customer; you're the product being sold. However, in this context, by collecting information through its users' SMSes without prior notice, it has taken away the basic right of an individual to maintain his privacy such might have serious repercussions as confidential information might get stolen, causing unnecessary troubles. Effects on stakeholders This issue has far-reaching impacts, especially to that of the shocked users who suddenly find themselves being deceived by Google. Users might boycott the latter and turn to other browsers and email providers like Firefox and Hotmail, thinking that they might be safer than Google. With a plunge in users, it is highly possible that marketers might turn to other online platforms to market their products. As such, Google might suffer reduced revenue and increased competition. Next, employees of Google might be ostracised as the rogue engineers of this application has yet to be found. This might negatively impact the morale of the employees, resulting in lower efficiency, loyalty and ultimately higher employee turnovers. Also, given the dynamism of the Internet, users might associate this incident to many other online firms, causing much unnecessary skepticism to other online companies like MSN Hotmail. This might cause the online firms to have more cautious in their daily operations. Ultimately, if Google does not appease the users soon, the bad ill accumulated might provide a chance for another company to rise.

Analysis The analysis will inspect the various theoretical perspectives on this matter and also the uncertainties inherent in the issue. In this subject matter, seven theories will be used to inspect its ethicality. Ethical Egoism Via ethical egoism, this collection of data is actually justifiable. It fulfills the interest of the company to collate data without unnecessary troubles to fret over. With the data, Google would have higher bargaining power as the data would be tantamount to a trump card that nobody knew existed. That way, Google would be able to maneuver itself around negotiations and create more products to cater to the needs of users. This would keep it at the top of the Internet revolution. Conventional Approach Following the conventional approach of deciding ethicality, if it is an industrial practice of the information technology companies to collect as much information as possible quietly and sift out those that would serve them the best, then would hardly be fair to brand Google as unethical and the others as otherwise when Google was just playing along with the industry practice. Utilitarianism If providing lesser information to the general public actually increases overall benefit to all the stakeholders, then perhaps it would only be ethical to do so given that everyone would have lesser to fret over. Viewing this subject at a prima facie level, everyone wins Google wins by knowing what users need and want, users win with more products tailored to suit their needs and marketers win by having an avenue to do specific target market advertising. With everyone seemingly satisfied, it can hardly be said that what

Google did was unethical. However, if we probe a little deeper, Google's use of such obtrusive technology unannounced will lead to a compromise of the users' privacy. In such instance, it is hardly fair to say that users actually had a net benefit given that they did not even had knowledge of what they were sharing to Google in order to make an informed decision. On the other hand, with the reason for collating the information being unknown, the uncertainty of which makes it difficult to justify the need to violate human rights by utilitarian principle. Deontological This subject matter has actually failed very badly on the deontological ethics scale. With the outward disregard for individual's own rights for his privacy, Google has been very unethical in handling this subject. Immanuel Kant's Categorial Imperative Fifth, using Immanuel Kant's categorial imperative, it can hardly be argued that Google would want someone snooping around, pretending to be kind to offer a helping hand and steal away information that was flowing through Google everyday. Even if the action was innocuous, the idea of data collection without the knowledge of Google is considered stealing and stealing is hardly justifiable by any principle given that the subject matter on hand personal information has the potential to do more harm than good. Ethics of Care Sixth, by ethics of care, with thus much personal information on hand, there is a question as to the security of the information itself. If the security to the information were poor, then even if the information were to serve a greater purpose, it would only be unethical to

collate the information given that the security is easily compromised. Virtue Ethics Lastly, the article mentioned about the knowledge of senior managers with regards to this matter. If the senior managers knew and condoned this, it could be inferred that the culture of privacy invasion is much ingrained into that of the company and all that Google had advocated for is but a marketing gimmick to rake in more dollars. On the other hand, if the senior managers have no prior knowledge of this incident, then it is unfair to judge Google as an unethical company due to the action of a few rogue engineers. Conclusion The many uncertainties set in the subject matter renders it difficult to judge the ethicality. However, the morality of which mainly hinges on the reason why Google collating the information and whether the senior managers knew of the data collection. However, regardless of the theories, it would seem that it is only fair for Google to do what it advocated for: transparency. If right at the beginning, Google had declared that the application would collect information about users and users had to manually go to the website to adjust the settings in order to protect its privacy, then the incident would not be in such a limelight. Thus, for future action, it is advisable for Google to be more transparent in carrying out transactions. Also, Google should carry out routine checks for its applications in case rogue engineers try to free ride. It can also emphasize ethical practices throughout the company and encourage engineers to bring up issues for discussions should they find themselves in an ethical dilemma.