1

Stephanie is wrapping up her junior year of college and beginning her search for a summer job. Stephanie has great grades, previous work experience, and considers herself to be charismatic and articulate in interviews. On paper and in person, she would be a great employee!

However, theres one big problem. Stephanie does not go to school in her home state, and since summer break only lasts three months, she (like many other out-of-state college students) needs to find an employer who will hire her despite the fact that she will be returning to school in the fall.

After months of searching, Stephanie finds a dream job working as an Outreach Intern for a local non-profit, applies, and is asked to interview. The interview goes extremely well, and Stephanie is hired on the spot! As she is considering the offer, she notices that the organization uncompromisingly requires interns to work for a minimum of 6 months. She knows that she will be leaving the state to go back to school in the fall, so she either has to settle for a minimum-wage job that wont build her resume (something that will be crucial when she graduates in a years time), or she has to lie by omission to this employer.

In this job market, Stephanies find is rare and a perfect jumping off p oint for her future career. Her parents tell her that this is too good of an opportunity to pass up, and that a little white lie will do more good than harm. Stephanie is inclined to agree as she sees her classmates struggling to find work, and she rationalizes that as soon as she has to leave, an equally deserving candidate could be hired to fill her place.

What should Stephanie do? Should she turn down the offer that she worked so hard to get and clearly deserves, but remain fully honest in doing so? Or, should she imply that she can work for the required 6 months, but simply tell her boss that she is quitting when she has to go back to school?

Instagram and the Ethics of Privacy

Monday, Feb. 4, 2013

Background Founded in 2010, Instagram considers itself to be a fun and quirky way to share your life with friends through a series of pictures. By downloading the free Instagram mobile application (or app), users snap a photo with their mobile phone, then choose a filter to transform the image, and can share it on various sites such as Facebook and Twitter. The company views itself as more than just a photo-storage tool but a way to experience moments in your friends' lives through pictures as they happen. We imagine a world more connected through photos. In April 2012, the 13-employee company was acquired by social networking giant Facebook for approximately $1 billion. In less than three years, Instagram has become one of the fastest growing social media platforms as seen by its estimated 12 million daily users.1

Dilemma In December 2012, several months after being acquired by Facebook, Instagram announced new changes to its privacy policy and terms of use. According to the updated terms, "a business or other entity may pay Instagram to display users' photos and other details in connection with paid or sponsored content or promotions, without any compensation to you," and there was no apparent option to opt out.2 The backlash was immediate. Photographers and celebrities were particularly upset, given that their photos were a part of their own businesses and brand images. Instagram was quick to respond that its intention was simply to improve advertising. Co-founder Kevin Systrom posted, Our intention in updating the terms was to communicate that wed like to experiment with innovative advertising that feels appropriate on Instagram. Instead it was interpreted by many that we were going to sell your photos to others without any compensation. This is not true and it is our mistake that this language is confusing. To be clear: it is not our intention to sell your photos.3 Instagram's privacy policies and terms of use were once again updated in January 2013. The current terms state, You hereby grant to Instagram a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, transferable, sub-licensable, worldwide license to use the Content that you post.4 Instagram also reserves the right to share users information (including analytics information, log files, cookies, and location data, as well as the content users post) with companies affiliated with Instagram (mainly Facebook), third-party service providers, third-party advertisers, and other parties.5 While the initial backlash against Instagram has been quelled, there is still uneasiness among users regarding privacy issues. Instagram has to walk a fine line to keep its users happy and still turn a profit. On one hand, Instagram offers a free service to users, which up until this point has been free of advertisements, unlike other social media platforms like Facebook. In order to remain a viable company, Instagram has to bring in revenue somehow, and advertising seems the obvious choice. Our Response We believe that it is not unreasonable for Instagram to try to make money using member photos for several reasons. Firstly, it would be foolish for Instagram to walk away from such a lucrative revenue opportunity. On January 17, 2013, it announced the following powerful statistics6 :

90 million Monthly Active Users 40 million Photos Per Day 8,500 Likes Per Second 1,000 Comments Per Second

With staggering numbers such as these, how could a zero-revenue company not optimize these opportunities? And let us not forget that Facebook purchased the company for $1 billion in cash and equity in April 2012. Facebook owes it to its shareholders to try to monetize Instagram considering how much it spent on this company in addition to Facebooks subpar performance since going public last year.

Secondly, users pay absolutely nothing for using Instagram's services; there is no price per photo uploaded, monthly/annual subscription required, or pricing scheme of any sort. Individuals and celebrities are not the only ones who derive personal benefit from Instagram, but businesses, too. Many small businesses like to use Instagram as a marketing tool because it is free and effective. For instance, some will upload pictures of new product arrivals to lure new and/or existing customers to come in and purchase. Not to mention, businesses like to have Instagram accounts because the service allows them to build their brand and customer loyalty through daily/weekly posts, thus, giving them the venue to engage and interact with customers in ways they could not do previously. Question How much, if any, of our information should Instagram be able to share with third-parties and advertisers? OR Why are Instagram users making such a fuss about the revised privacy policy if they are gaining so much personal satisfaction and/or business from a service that is free?

Issues: Understand the significance of cultural, economic, regulatory and ecological issues while establishing business in a foreign country Appreciate the need for protecting animal rights in developed and developing countries like India Understand the importance of ethics in doing business Examine the reasons for protests of PETA The case highlights the ethical issues involved in Kentucky Fried Chicken's (KFC) business operations in India. KFC entered India in 1995 and has been in midst of controversies since then. The regulatory authorities found that KFC's chickens did not adhere to the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954. Chickens contained nearly three times more monosodium glutamate (popularly known as MSG, a flavor enhancing ingredient) as allowed by the Act. Since the late 1990s, KFC faced severe protests by People for Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), an animal rights protection organization. PETA accused KFC of cruelty towards chickens and released a video tape showing the ill-treatment of birds in KFC's poultry farms.

However, undeterred by the protests by PETA and other animal rights organizations, KFC planned a massive expansion program in India. Protest Against KFCOn August 20, 2003, a five-foot tall chicken complete with an ensemble of feathers and beak hobbled on a pair of crutches outside Kentucky Fried Chicken's (KFC) Indian outlet in Bangalore.

The chicken was brought by PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) activists, who carried placards reading, "Quit India" and "Stop Playing Fowl" (a pun on "Foul"). The chicken was placed at the centre and a peaceful protest was held against the alleged ill treatment of birds in KFC's poultry farms. Media persons were called to give the demonstration a wide coverage (Refer Exhibit I for a visual on the protest by PETA activists). Explaining the rationale behind the protest, Bijal Vachcharajani, special projects coordinator of PETA, said, "Ours is the land of Gandhi. Just as 61 years back our leaders gave a call for colonizers to quit India, we too are saying we will not tolerate cruel multinationals.

On the 61st anniversary of the 'Quit India' movement,6 PETA India wrote a letter to the Managing Director of Tricon Restaurant International, the parent company of KFC, asking them to close their sole KFC outlet in India. They got no reply. PETA activists decided to protest against KFC by carrying crippled chicken, which represented the birds suffering in the KFC's farms. PETA claimed that after two years of intensive campaigning to increase animal welfare standards in poultry farms, other foreign fast food restaurants operating in India like McDonald's7 and Burger King8 had improved the treatment of animals specially raised and slaughtered for food. Only KFC had not acted. Though PETA had organized other protests earlier, the crippled chicken campaign became the precursor for more intensive protests. PETA's was one of the many shows of protest against KFC's Indian outlet.

Background Note KFC was founded by Harland Sanders (Sanders) in the early 1930s, when he started cooking and serving food for hungry travellers who stopped by his service station in Corbin, Kentucky, US. He did not own a restaurant then, but served people on his own dining table in the living quarters of his service station. His chicken delicacies became popular and people started coming just for food. Kentucky Fried Chicken was born. Soon, Sanders moved across the street to a motel-cumrestaurant, later named 'Sanders Court & Cafe,' that seated around 142 people. Over the next nine years, he perfected his secret blend of 11 herbs and spices and the basic cooking technique of chicken. Sanders' fame grew and he was given the title Kentucky Colonel by the state Governor in 1935 for his contribution to the state's cuisine.

Sanders' restaurant business witnessed an unexpected halt in the early 1950s, when a new interstate highway was planned bypassing the town of Corbin. His restaurant flourished mainly due to the patronage of highway travellers. The new development meant the end of this. Sanders sold his restaurant operations. After settling all his bills, he was reduced to living on a meagre $105 social security cheque. But Sanders did not lose hope. Banking on the popularity of his product and confident of his unique recipe for fried chicken, Sanders started franchising his chicken business in 1952. He called it Kentucky Fried Chicken. He travelled the length and breadth of the country by car, visiting as many restaurants as possible and cooking batches of chicken. If the restaurant owners liked his chicken, he entered into a handshake agreement that stipulated payment of a nickel9 for each plate of chicken sold by the restaurant. By 1964, Sanders franchised more than 600 chicken outlets in the US and Canada... KFC's Entry in India: Foreign fast food companies were allowed to enter India during the early 1990s due to the economic liberalization policy of the Indian Government. KFC was among the first fast food multinationals to enter India. On receiving permission to open 30 new outlets across the country, KFC opened its first fastfood outlet in Bangalore in June 1995. Bangalore was chosen as the launch pad because it had a substantial upper middle class population, with a trend of families eating out. It was considered India's fastest growing metropolis in the 1990s. Apart from Bangalore, PepsiCo planned to open 60 KFC and Pizza Hut outlets in the country in the next seven years. However, KFC got embroiled in various controversies even before it started full- fledged business in India. When the issue of granting permission to multinational food giants to set up business in the country came up for discussion in the Indian parliament, some members from the opposition parties were vocal in their displeasure... Problems for KFCFrom the very first day of opening its restaurant, KFC faced problems in the form of protests by angry farmers led by the Karnataka Rajya Ryota Sangha (KRRS). The farmers leader, Nanjundaswamy, who led these protests, vehemently condemned KFC's entry into India, saying that it was unethical to promote highly processed 'junk food' in a poor country like India with severe malnutrition problems. Nanjundaswamy expressed concern that the growing number of foreign fast food chains would deplete India's livestock, which would adversely affect its agriculture and the environment. He argued that non-vegetarian fast-food restaurants like KFC would encourage Indian farmers to shift from production of basic crops to more lucrative varieties like animal feed and meat, leaving poorer sections of society with no affordable food. KRRS held a convention on November 01, 1995 to protest the entry of fast food multinationals and the Westernization of local agriculture.

The Aftermath By late 2003, PETA further intensified its campaign against the cruel treatment meted out to

chickens by KFC through protests at regular intervals. Celebrities like Anoushka Shankar, daughter of the legendary sitar maestro Ravi Shankar, directly supported the cause of PETA. Anoushka, a sitarist herself, wrote a letter to the top management of PepsiCo condemning the continued cruelty of KFC in spite of repeated requests of PETA. The organization also had the support of other celebrities like the famous cricket player Anil Kumble (based in Bangalore), popular Indian models like Aditi Govitrikar, the late Nafisa Joseph and John Abraham, who promoted vegetarianism. Film actresses like Raveena Tandon and Ameesha Patel also took up the cause of animal abuse. Undeterred by the continued protests, KFC added three more outlets to its existing one at Bangalore. KFC also announced a major expansion programme for 2005. Sharanita Keswani (Keswani), KFC's Marketing Director, said that as the retail business was poised for a boom in India, they considered it the right time for expansion...

Feeling positive about the flourishing malls in all big cities, Keswani revealed that this time KFC planned to have a presence in prime locations or in a mall where turnout would be assured. The company aimed at targeting cosmopolitan cities like Chandigarh, Pune, Kolkata, Chennai and Hyderabad, where mall culture was fast developing. PepsiCo also decided to concentrate on the expansion of KFC since its other brand, "Pizza Hut", had successfully established a strong foothold in India. Vegetarianism was predominant and was a way of life in India. Many people ate non-vegetarian food only occasionally and avoided it during festivals or religious occasions.

4 Apps and Privacy A Case Study By Irina Raicu

Path is a social networking app that describes itself as "the smart journal that helps you share life with the ones you love." The company behind it was founded in 2010 by Dave Morin, who had previously worked at Facebook. In February 2012, Path found itself at the center of a privacy controversy after a Singapore-based blogger reported that the app collected all the information in its users' "Contacts" lists, without asking the users' permission to do so. As it turned out, that information, unencrypted, was transmitted to Path's servers, where it was storedagain unencrypted. Initially, the founder of Path responded in comments to Arun Thampi's blog by stating, "We upload the address book to our servers in order to help the user find and connect to their friends and family on Path quickly and efficiently as well as to notify them when friends and family join Path;" he added that his company's actions were an "industry best practice." Other commenters

also noted that many other apps were similarly downloading users' contact information without notifying the users or asking for permission. Within a day of the initial report, after further negative reactions from Path users and increasing press coverage, Morin apologized for the company's practice. The Los Angeles Times reported that "Path's chief executive and co-founder issued an apology on the San Francisco start-up's blog, and the company quickly deleted the collected user data and updated its iOS app, all while promising more transparency in how it collects and uses information from its users." Some bloggers and tech journalists, in turn, praised Path's prompt response. In an interview with Wired's "Gadget Lab," Morin noted that "[i]n social, you have to innovate in information," but added that the tech industry as a whole is "probably going to have to innovate on how transparent we are." According to Arstechnica, some of the criticism of Path spilled also onto Apple, whose app platform (unlike the Android one) was not designed to force app developers to notify users before accessing and downloading the users' contacts list. At the time, Apple's guidelines did instruct developers that apps could not transmit data about a user without obtaining the user's prior permission. Path appeared to have ignored this guideline, yet was still available through the Apple app store. The Path controversy echoed all the way to Washington, DC, where, according to The New York Times, legislators demanded more information from Apple.about its platform and about the practices of app developers and their implications for consumer privacy. Before formulating an answer to the questions below, please review this summary of the qualities of good ethical judgment and the questions that we need to examine when faced with an ethical issue: Questions Was it unethical for the Path developers to collect and store the app users' "Contacts" information in the way they did initially, before Arun Thampi raised the issue on his blog? What, if anything, should Path's designers have done differently? Was the company's response an appropriate and sufficient resolution of the controversy around Path's initial practices? Did the developers at Apple share some of the responsibility for Path's practices, because Apple had not configured its platform to prevent those practices?
Irina Raicu is the Internet Ethics Program manager at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics.

October 20112