5 Active Mobile Threats Spoofing Enterprise Apps

Answer

5 Active Mobile Threats Spoofing Enterprise Apps

Figure 1: Argument visualization for a short essay. Source: Own Creation.

Just like other industries, the ICT profession is faced with various ethical issues which require the application of ethical theories to dissect them. One of the cases which present a moral issue is that in the article titled “5 Active Mobile Threats Spoofing Enterprise Apps” by Francis (2019). In specific, the author presents various ways in which five families of malware (Shuanet, AndroRAT, UnsafeControl, PJApps and Ooqqxx) have often impersonated enterprise apps through ripping off the legal name of the app and its package name. The malware are an infringement to the intellectual property rights (IPRs) of the legitimate enterprises and against the ethical theories of utilitarianism, deontology, contract, and virtue ethics and thus unethical.

The infiltration of the malware on the legitimate enterprise apps results in adverse outcomes such as aggressive and intrusive advertising and hence an affront to utilitarian ethics. Notably, according to Stahl et al. (2014), utilitarianism is one of the normative ethical theories which focuses on the consequences/outcomes of actions in the determination of whether they are right or wrong. As such, the focus of this ethical theory is not on the interests of the parties involved but instead on those of the greater public (Schwartz, 2016). John Stuart Mill argued that for actions to be right, they ought to bring the greatest happiness to the highest number of people (Jones, 2016). The malware only benefits the advertisers and cause significant harm to the majority of enterprises and individuals using the apps. As such, they are unethical because they only cater to the interests of those who have illegitimately stolen the intellectual property rights of others and detrimental to the greater public.

Stealing the intellectual property rights of another company is a breach of the rules set out in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) and thus unethical based on the deontological ethics. The moral philosophy in deontology is that the morality (rightness/wrongness) of actions should not be pegged on the outcome but instead based on a serious of laid down rules (Paquette, Sommerfeldt, & Kent, 2015). In the current case, the malware infringes on the patents of the enterprise apps. In specific, malware such as ADP, Dropbox, FedEx Mobile, Zendesk are all illegitimate as they illegally rip off the apps’ legitimate names and packages. The TRIPS Agreement prohibits any infringements of copyright unless it is for fair trade (Nathan, 2015). Since the actions occasioned by the malware are against the internationally recognized legal framework for IPRs, then they are unethical based on deontology.

Based on the social contract theory, invading other people’s privacy and stealing their personal data using malware is against the moral and political rules of behaviour and ultimately unethical. Notably, according to the social contract theory, people live together in a society based on the agreement pegged on both moral and political rules of behaviour (Jones, 2016). If people live based on the social contract, then they are deemed to be living morally by choice and not because there is a divine being requiring the same (Martin, 2016). In the ICT industry, the social contract holds that people should respect the privacy of others (Nathan, 2015). However, the malware disguised as legitimate apps breaches the social contract by immorally monitoring the information of enterprises including messages, calls, and VPNs and thus trampling upon the social contract ethics.

A virtuous person would not infiltrate the enterprise apps of others with malware, steal their IPRs, and personal information. As such, the actions of active mobile malware are not in tandem with the virtue ethics and hence unethical. Based on virtue ethics, an action is deemed right if; presented with the same circumstances, a virtuous person would do the same (BBC, 2014). As such, the normative ethical model is focused on the person as opposed to the ethical duties and consequences. Jones (2016a) argues that a moral person in the ICT industry will not use malware to impose aggressive and notorious advertisements in other people’s apps as is the case in the article. Additionally, he/she would not access and use personal information without the permission and knowledge of the owners (Han, 2015). Based on such aspects, the article’s case of malware threatening and overtaking enterprise apps is unethical based on virtue ethics.

In conclusion, the apparent breach of IPRs presented in the article where malware illegitimately accesses enterprise apps and impose aggressive advertisements is against the ethical theories of utilitarianism, deontology, social contract, and virtues. The fact that the actions do not result in the happiness of the greatest majority makes them unethical based on utilitarian ethics. Additionally, the malware infringes on the copyright and patent of the legitimate enterprise apps owners and thus an affront to deontological ethics. Moreover, stealing personal information goes against the social contract in the ICT industry. A virtuous person would not act in the same manner as the malware and thus the actions are against virtue ethics. As a result, the actions of the malware should be stopped as they are not only illegal but also unethical.