Individual Case Studies

Should companies of manufactured products be responsible for the usage of said

manufactured product in illegal activity.
Background
In 2011, the Human Right a! "oundation #led a la!suit against Cisco System. $he
foundation represented members of a Chinese spiritual group !ho !ere perceived
as a threat by the Chinese %overnment because of their increasing memberships
and popularity &"alun'. $he la!suit #led under the name (u (aobin v. Cisco System,
alleged that Cisco System )no!ingly aided the Chinese government to commit
human rights violations by developing and mar)eting the %olden Shield Surveillance
system to the government. $he sale of the system focused on its ability to help the
Chinese government handle the "alun %ong. $he surveillance system !as used by
the Chinese government to trac), imprisoned, tortured and )illed members of "alun
%ong. $he la!suit see)s unspeci#ed compensatory, punitive damages and the
en*oyment of Cisco from engaging in future illegal activities. Responding to the
la!suit, Cisco claimed that there !ere no base for the la!suit and that they sell
products globally especially in countries li)e China but do not operate in China nor
do they +customi,e their products in any !ay that !ould facilitate censorship or
repression-&Stirland'. Ho!ever, the suit claims that Cisco speci#cally mar)eted to
the Chinese government by promoting the +technology as being capable of ta)ing
aim at dissident groups- &.ar)o/'.
In 2000, Cisco documents pertaining to the sale of the %olden Shield Surveillance
!ere lea)ed to reporters. $he documents indicated that Cisco !as !ell a!are of the
Chinese %overnment and +regarded the government1s rigid censorship program as
an opportunity to do more business !ith the repressive regime- &Stirland'. In the
presentation of the surveillance program, Cisco proclaimed that the goal of the
system !as to +combat "alun %ong1 evil religion and other hostiles- &Stirland'.
Ho!ever Cisco a2rmed that the statement !as that of the Chinese government
information technology chief. Ho!ever, the documents still veri#ed that Cisco )ne!
that the surveillance system !ould be used to cause harm to others and had
su2cient time to choose not to proceed !ith the sale &Stirland'.
In "ebruary 2013 a .aryland court dismissed the la!suit on the ground of lac) of
*urisdiction and the failure of the plainti/ to assert that Cisco acted !ith the
intention of helping the Chinese government commit human right violations
&Stirland'.
$he 4lectronic "rontier "oundation recently as)ed the "ederal (istrict Court of the
5orthern (istrict of California to allo! the case to move for!ard. $hey claim that the
initial evidences are su2cient to allo! the case to move to trial &Cohn'. 4""
asserted that Cisco customi,ed the system to be used speci#cally to combat the
"alun %ong and the customi,ations !ere actually used to identify and detain them
&Cohn'. thus the case is more *ust an international transaction.
The Ethical Problem
In product liability cases, an individual has a legal cause of action against the
person !ho designed, manufactured, sold or furnished a product &legal dictionary'.
$herefore, the #rm and the engineers are responsible for the harms that result from
manufacturing defects !hether it is intentional or not. 6ut !hat if the product !as
used to harm another individual7 8re engineers obligated to be mindful of the
potential misuse of their product7
%enerally, engineers are detached from the conse9uence of their action. "or
e:ample, engineers ma)e !eapons but they do not ma)e !eapons for a speci#c
!ar. $hey also ma)e things li)e surveillance but mostly, they do not create
surveillance programs for a speci#c surveillance activity. Ho!ever, the circumstance
changes !hen an engineer is re9uired to create a product for a speci#c purpose.
$he purpose of the given tas) can create an ethical dilemma for an engineer.
4thically, 4ngineers have the responsibility not to intentionally cause harm and are
obligated to +protect public health and safety- &Harris '. $he intention to cause
harm e:tends to rec)lessness and failure to act. 8n engineer can rec)lessly cause
an harm if he or she is a!are of the possible harm that is li)ely to occur and )no!s
that a certain course of action that they can e:ecutes !ill more than li)ely prevent
the harm. ;hen the engineer fails to ta)e that certain course of action, they can be
held legally and<or morally responsible. &Harris =2'. $herefore, if an engineer
)no!ingly create a product to be used by an individual to carry out an illegal
activity, the engineer !ill be legally and morally responsible for that illegal activity.
4ven if the activity is not illegal but the engineer )no!s that there is a high
potential that the activity !ill cause harm, there is a common morality to refuse to
engage and to inform that individual of the potential harm of that activity. If there is
any possible preventable action that the engineer can carry out, he or she is
re9uired to ta)e an action.
$he Cisco case also raises the issue of the locali,ation of common morality.
Common morality is locali,ed to #t a certain profession and it becomes professional
ethics li)e engineering code of ethics. 6ut common morality can also di/er
depending on location and pro:imity. (i/erent cultures have a di/erent sense of
morality and human seem to considers morality !hen the individual is closer in
pro:imity. So, are 8merican 4ngineers only responsible for the harm that are cause
in their local realm7
$his is also a moral issue that arises in the case. ;hen an engineer is involve in
production of products li)e guns, he is she )no!s that a gun main purpose is to )ill.
$he )illing can be *usti#able or un*usti#able, but the engineer is a!are of the fact
that guns )ill. Ho!ever, !hen an engineer creates a surveillance system, the
general purpose of a surveillance system is to protect. So !hen an engineer !or)s
for a company that manufactures products that protect but the company is
)no!ingly catering to an immoral group of individual, and the product is to use to
commit evil act, it might go against the moral character of the engineer and no! he
!ill have to ma)e a decision !hether or not he should continue.
$he professional ethical code might only apply locally in certain country but there is
a general morality code among engineers globally &Harris =>'. 4ngineering has not
only ma)e globali,ation possible, but it !ould not be this advanced !ithout the
various contributions from engineers from all over the !orld. So engineers are *ust
not interacting locally, they are doing it globally. 4ngineers have to ta)e into
consideration !hat the international communities consider immoral. 6ut the
problem is that !ho enforced morality among nations. ?nfortunately, it seem that
developed nations !ho have the means of carrying out enforcement chooses !hat
is moral and !hen to enforce and penali,ed others for such immoral act.
Possible Options
$he situation in the Cisco case !ould be very di/erent if the "ulan %ong have
*urisdiction in the ?nited States. $he case !ould have li)ely gone to trial the #rst
time it !as #led. 6ut this type of scenario don1t *ust happen globally, they happens
in the local realm and the accused and defender live in the same realm. 8lthough
Cisco chose to sell their !or) to the Chinese government !ith the )no!ledge that
the surveillance system !as to be used to cause harm unto others, there !ere
better available options that !ould have prevented the outcome of the case.
4ngineers are sometime the managers of such #rms and are given the responsibility
of conducting such sales. Ho!ever, engineers also participate in the
manufacturing<creation process. ;hen an engineer or an engineering #rm is faced
!ith the scenario of !or)ing !ith someone else to cause harm to others by
providing their !or) to them, there are several options that are available but there
is al!ays conse9uences for every action.
8n engineering #rm can choose to ignore professional ethics and common morality
and engaged in the transaction of their !or) for an individual to carry out a harmful
act. $he #rm !ill pro#t from the transaction. In this case, Cisco sold @100,000 !orth
of surveillance program to the Chinese government. Sometimes, the transaction !ill
never be disclosed and the only conse9uence is possibly a guilty conscious that the
individual&s' !ho made the decision to process the transaction !ill feel )no!ing that
they !ere participants in such an act.
Ho!ever, !ith e:isting advanced technologies and many people having access to
such technologies, the possibility of such an action remaining a secret is very
unli)ely. ;hen such facts become public )no!ledge, several scenarios can occur.
i)e in the Cisco case, the victims can choose to see) legal recourses and #le a legal
suit against the responsible #rm. $here is a possibility that the case can be drop for
lac) of culpability or other legal reasoning. Ho!ever, there might still be public
bac)lash and possible loss of present and future customers of the #rm.
An the other hand, the case might go to trial and the company could lose the
la!suit. $he #rm !ill have to pay for physical and mental damages that !ere the
result of the act, and punitive damages to deter them from )no!ingly aid an
individual&s' to cause harm to others in the future. $his cost of the la!suit might be
greater than the pro#t that they made from the sale and subse9uently the
engineering #rm loses more money and they !ill also have to deal !ith the public
bac)lash. In addition, the case !ill set a precedent on ho! companies can conduct
business globally. It !ill more than li)ely put a limit on sale to foreign entities. $his
might cause distrust from other companies and lac) of !illingness to engage in
business !ith said #rm. $here is also a possibility that the #rm !ill !in the la!suit,
but the cost and time they !ill used to defend themselves might be larger than the
pro#t that they made from the transaction. In addition, they !ill still have to deal
!ith the conse9uence from public disapproval.
Ho!ever, the #rm does not have to engage in such dealing. ;hen faced !ith such
scenario, the #rm can chooses not to sell their !or) to an individual&s' !ho !ould
use it to cause harm. $hey can refuse to engage in the transaction. In doing so, the
#rm !ill not ma)e any sale thus no pro#t. $hey can also be proactive by ma)ing the
fact of the situation public )no!ledgeB discreetly is preferable to avoid creating a
possible lac) of trust !ith other #rms and future clienteles.
4ngineers in managerial positions ma)e decisions that a/ect the #rm<company.
Ho!ever !hen an engineer is not in such a position, his action does not a/ect the
!hole company. ;hen an engineer is !or)ing for a company and he or she became
a!are that the company is engaging and selling their !or) to an individual&s' !ho
!ould use the !or) to cause harm, the engineer has options to prevent future
potential harm.
Ane option is that the engineer can as) to be assigned to a di/erent pro*ect
because he or she is not comfortable in participating as it is against his moral
character. $he company !ill either agreed to reassign him to another pro*ect or they
can choose to eliminate his employment. $he company !ill then #nd another
engineer to !or) on the pro*ect. $he engineer can then ma)e fact of the case public
)no!ledge. (iscreetly is also preferable because it might create a lac) of trust !ith
other engineering #rm, thus reducing his chance of future employment.
$he engineers that developed the surveillance programs !ere also in a position to
prevent the harm. 6ut their action depends on !hen they became a!are of the fact.
If the engineer became a!are that they
The Solution
Sometime, selfCinterest is a barrier to ma)ing the right decision &Harris 30'. 8s in the
Cisco case, they !ere blinded by the pro#t of such a large sale, that they failed to
thin) about the possible outcome and the harm that the Chinese government !ill
cause. If the people that ma)es decision !ould had apply the golden rule approach,
they !ould had reali,ed that if they !ere in the "ulan %ong situation, they !ould
not have li)e being imprisoned, tortured and )illed for their religious belief &Harris
D3'
8n engineer and<or engineering #rm should refuse to sell their !or) to individual&s'
that they )no! !ill use it to cause great harm to others. $he possible outcome is
the loss of monetary gainB ho!ever, they !ill more than li)ely gain !hat they lost in
the future. Human life is not replaceable and must be put above all other interest.
$he #rm !ill also avoid the possible litigations that might arise from the victims of
such act.
Citation
Cohn, Cindy. E4"" 8s)s Court $o 8llo! Human Rights Case 8gainst Cisco to
Froceed.E 4lectronic "rontier
"oundation. 10 8pr. 2013. 01 .ay 2013
GhttpsH<<!!!.e/.org<deeplin)s<2013<03<e/Cas)sCcourtCallo!ChumanCrightsC
caseCagainstCciscoCbuildingCsurveillanceCtoolsI.
.ac), auren. E"alun %ong.E 8bout.com Chinese Culture. 01 .ay 2013
GhttpH<<chineseculture.about.com<od<religioninchina<a<"alunC%ong.htmI.
.ar)o/, John. ESuit Claims Cisco Helped China Fursue "alun %ong.E $he 5e! Kor)
$imes. 22 .ay 2011. $he 5e! Kor) $imes. 01 .ay 2013
GhttpH<<!!!.nytimes.com<2011<0><2=<technology<2=cisco.html7LrM0I.
Stirland, Sarah. ECisco ea)H N%reat "ire!all1 of China ;as a Chance to Sell .ore
Routers O $hreat evel O ;IR4(.E ;ired.com. 20 .ay 2000. Conde 5ast (igital. 01
.ay 2013 GhttpH<<!!!.!ired.com<2000<0><lea)edCciscoCdo<I.