In Ron Lieber’s article, “Why the Equifax Breach Stings So Bad,” the Equifax data breach serves as a poignant example of the vulnerability individuals face in the modern digital age. Lieber highlights the discomfort stemming from Equifax’s role alongside its oligopoly partners, Experian and TransUnion, who wield immense power in assessing individuals’ creditworthiness through opaque algorithms. The breach not only compromises personal data but also exposes individuals to financial exploitation and reputational damage. One of the most striking aspects Lieber emphasizes is the sense of helplessness felt by consumers trapped within Equifax’s data ecosystem. Despite their resentment and fear, there is little recourse or ability to opt out, leaving individuals vulnerable to the whims of credit bureaus and the potential misuse of their data. Moreover, Equifax’s initial response, including charging fees for credit freezes, exacerbated the situation, further eroding trust and exacerbating the financial burden on affected individuals.
From a deontological perspective, which emphasizes duty and adherence to moral principles, the Equifax breach raises critical ethical questions. Deontology would assert that Equifax had a moral obligation to safeguard the sensitive personal information entrusted to them. As a custodian of individuals’ financial data, Equifax bore the responsibility to maintain robust cybersecurity measures to prevent unauthorized access and protect consumer privacy. By failing to fulfill this duty, Equifax violated the trust placed in them by consumers and undermined the fundamental principle of respecting individuals’ autonomy and rights over their personal information.
However, while the breach itself may not be deemed morally wrong from a deontological standpoint, as it was not an intentional act, Equifax’s handling of the aftermath introduces ethical considerations. Charging fees for credit freezes, despite the clear necessity for consumers to protect themselves from potential fraud, reflects a prioritization of profit over consumer well-being. This disregard for the welfare of affected individuals contradicts the ethical imperative to prioritize the interests and dignity of those impacted by corporate actions.
The Equifax data breach underscores the ethical complexities inherent in the digital economy and the obligations of corporations to safeguard consumer data. Through a deontological lens, Equifax’s failure to adequately protect sensitive information and its subsequent actions highlight the importance of corporate responsibility and accountability in upholding moral principles. While the breach itself may not be considered morally wrong, the company’s response reveals broader ethical lapses that warrant scrutiny and remediation to restore trust and ensure the protection of consumer rights.
In Milton Friedman’s, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,” he argues that the challenge of exercising social responsibility underscores the virtue of private competitive enterprise. He contends that such enterprises compel individuals to be accountable for their own actions, thereby making it arduous for them to exploit others, whether for selfish or altruistic motives. Friedman asserts that individuals can indeed do good, but only at their own expense.
This perspective resonates deeply with contemporary issues, such as the practices of companies like Equifax. For instance, Equifax’s freezing of accounts for individuals with poor credit, ostensibly to prompt them to seek more credit cards and subsequently spend more money, often results in additional charges and investigations. However, embracing social responsibility entails taking proactive steps to improve one’s financial standing, thus mitigating vulnerabilities to exploitation.
Equifax’s targeting of individuals with low credit scores exemplifies a systemic flaw, where companies capitalize on perceived weaknesses. While not necessarily morally reprehensible, such actions raise ethical concerns regarding business conduct and the duty of companies towards their clientele.
Ultimately, Friedman’s argument underscores the importance of individual responsibility in navigating complex financial landscapes. By assuming accountability for their choices and actions, individuals can safeguard themselves against exploitation and empower themselves to make informed decisions, thereby fostering a more equitable society.
In Melvin Anshen’s essay, “Changing the Social Contract: A Role for Business,” he delves into the dynamic nature of the social contract, emphasizing its continuous negotiation and renewal. Anshen highlights the contemporary focus on social alleviation and adjustment, as well as their transformation into economic opportunities. This perspective underscores the evolving nature of the social contract and its relevance in modern business discourse.
Anshen draws upon historical philosophical perspectives on the social contract, referencing influential thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and more recently, John Kenneth Galbraith. These thinkers have provided insights into the conceptualization and evolution of the social contract, shaping our understanding of societal obligations and individual rights.
Traditionally, discussions surrounding the social contract have primarily revolved around governance and citizen-state relations. However, Anshen extends this discourse to incorporate a business perspective. He acknowledges that throughout history, certain segments of society were excluded from participating in economic endeavors due to factors such as gender, race, or class. This exclusion reflects a breach of the social contract wherein opportunities for economic participation were unjustly limited or denied.
Anshen’s exploration of the social contract within the context of business underscores the importance of inclusivity and equal opportunity. In today’s landscape, there exists a greater recognition of the need to address systemic barriers that hinder individuals from fully participating in economic activities. Initiatives aimed at promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in the business sphere are pivotal in ensuring that the social contract is upheld and reinforced.
Moreover, Anshen touches upon contemporary issues such as the exploitation of consumer data by entities like Equifax. This highlights the intersection between business practices and societal values, emphasizing the need for ethical considerations and responsible conduct in the corporate realm. By addressing such concerns, businesses can contribute to the fulfillment of their social contract obligations and foster trust among stakeholders.
In essence, Anshen’s essay elucidates the evolving nature of the social contract and its relevance within the business domain. By recognizing the interconnectedness of societal and economic dynamics, businesses can play a vital role in advancing social progress and upholding the principles of justice and equity. This perspective underscores the importance of aligning business interests with broader societal goals, thereby contributing to a more inclusive and sustainable future.
In conclusion, I do not perceive Equifax’s actions as morally wrong, a conclusion drawn through the lens of various ethical frameworks such as deontology, Melvin Anshen’s perspective on business roles in societal contracts, and Milton Friedman’s seminal work on the social responsibility of businesses. Additionally, Ron Lieber’s article, “Why the Equifax Breach Stings So Bad,” provided valuable insight into the complexities of the situation. One key aspect I examined was the practice of freezing accounts for individuals with low credit scores. While some may argue that Equifax was taking advantage of these individuals, it’s essential to recognize that Equifax was operating within the framework of the system, which allowed for such practices. Moreover, the breach itself may have been facilitated by Equifax’s handling of sensitive information, though assigning blame solely to them overlooks the broader systemic issues at play. Upon reflection, I acknowledge that Equifax’s exploitation of individuals through repeated charges for freezing their accounts was morally questionable, as it seemed primarily motivated by financial gain rather than genuine concern for consumers. This realization underscores the need for greater scrutiny of corporate practices and a reevaluation of the ethical standards guiding them. Ultimately, while there may be opportunities for individuals to improve their credit scores through diligence and hard work, it’s crucial to address systemic injustices and hold corporations accountable for their actions, particularly when they prioritize profit over ethical considerations.
References
Lieber, R. (2017, September 17). Why the Equifax Breach Stings So Bad. New York Times. Retrieved March 2, 2024, from https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/22/your-money/equifax-breach.html