Professor Kern

Anthony: This week’s discussion deals with the problem of implementing ethical standards that are practiced in the west, into China. The article, “Cisco Poised to Help China Keep an Eye on Its Citizens,” shows just how hard that can be for a company that operates in the United States. In the city of Chonquing over 500,000 cameras will be put up along 400 square miles in neighborhoods, intersections and parks in a move that is said to help prevent crime. The U.S. has prohibited the sale of crime control products to China since 1989, but the restrictions do not list technology such as cameras (Chao & Clark, 2011, pg. 2).

The trouble with doing business in China is that it is usually just a pipe dream of false profits for a company. Companies such as Nestle, which settled in China in 1983, did not see profits until twenty years down the road (Hansen & Rothlin, 2010, pg. 73). Examples of failed commitments may be a reason why Cisco, and third party companies, may be turning a blind eye to the injustice the surveillance cameras will bring to Chongqing. H-P’s, a potential contender to supply servers to Chongqing, executive vice president has been quoted saying that “it is not my job to really understand what they’re going to use it for. Our job is to respond to the bid that they’ve made” (Chao & Clark, 2011, pg. 4). This is a bad avenue for a company to proceed with if they are planning on moving forward with a multimillion-dollar deal in a country that is known for misusing crime control products.

This article deals with two approaches, one being the rights approach and the other dealing with the utilitarian approach. The rights of the citizens in Chongqing are not even being considered by Cisco. Many rights advocates are stating that the Chinese are known to use surveillance against political protestors. It has been said that in Xinjiang and Tibet that they arrested peaceful protestors by using surveillance footage. Cisco is trying to remain neutral throughout this contract, but in reality they are turning a blind eye.

The Chinese government is trying to justify that the surveillance is for the good of the people, i.e. utilitarian approach. The article writes “Chinese leaders have long argued that maintaining social stability and economic growth takes precedence over political rights” (Chao & Clark, 2011, pg. 6). With statements like this I cannot help to agree that if the products were used for an illegal purpose, that the U.S. company must be held liable. The rights of thousands in the west are being overlooked for monetary value in west.

 

REFERENCES

 CHAO, L., & CLARK, D. (2011, July 5). Cisco Poised to Help China Keep an Eye on Its Citizens. Retrieved 28 October, 2013, from Wall Street Journal: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304778304576377141077267316.htmlhttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444812704577605263654758948.html

 Hanson, K., & Rothlin, S. (2010, November 1). Taking your code to China. Journal of International Business Ethics, 3, 69-79. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/ethicalperspectives/Code-to-China

Andrew:

This this week’s discussion, I looked at the article concerning surveillance in China and Cisco’s involvement. The article cites that a city in China is preparing to build a new camera monitoring system in one of their cities that will feature 500,000 cameras with the help of western companies like Cisco (Chao, 2011). Because of China’s history of human rights abuses some assert that this system could be used to target political dissent while others say it is a tool to prevent crime (Chao, 2011).

While it is unknown exactly how China might actually use the system, do western companies like Cisco have any ethical charge in this situation? Legally, U.S. companies have been limited in the crime control products they can export to China since 1989’s Tiananmen Square incident, they can however still export technologies that could be used in other ways, such as cameras (Chao, 2011). Cisco says that they stand by the Tiananmen Square exportation limitations, that they don’t supply any products that have been customized to allow repressive use, but just because they follow the law does not mean they are acting ethically (Chao, 2011). Other companies involved say that they are taking China at its word that the equipment won’t be used to repress the populace, that they are responding to bids requesting service and don’t look past the stated usage (Chao, 2011).

Ethically, is it right to supply China with these tools that could be used to repress their political dissidents? Personally I think that is a complex question that doesn’t have an easy answer. I think that if you look back through any country’s history they all have the ability to make poor decisions in regard to the privacy and persecution of their citizens. This is demonstrated even here in the United States where our government has taken steps to observe citizens electronically and monitor communications. A device or tool can be used any way the user sees fit and to limit the user’s access just based upon potential for misuse is wrong in my opinion.

Bibliography

Chao, L. (2011, July 5). Cisco Poised to Help China Keep an Eye on Its Citizens. Retrieved October 28, 2013, from wall street journal online: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304778304576377141077267316