 |
| From left: Waze founders Noam Bardin, Ehud Shabtai, Amir Shinar and Samuel Keret |
Although Waze claims to be for the
“common good”, many serious ethical issues have arose through the years with
this app. One main one would be the apps police tracking feature. Waze users
ahead of the traffic can alert oncoming motorists of cops that they see or
pass, by placing pins on their locations. This is a feature that the law
enforcement community deems as life threatening and potentially dangerous to
police officers. Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck has actually written to
Google, who now owns the company, and appealed to get the feature disabled. He
claims that criminals may not only use the community-driven app to evade
capture and arrest, but actually gives the ability to those who wish to do
police officers harm and locate them. According to CNN, Ismaaiyl Brinsley, who
assassinated two New York police officers while they were in their patrol car,
was known to have used the Waze app to track and monitor locations of the
police. Apparently he even posted screen shots of officer’s locations to his
own Instagram account.
Sheriff Mike Brown of Bedford County, Va., also
addressed his concerns for the dangers of this feature, where he called to get
Google to “act like the responsible corporate citizen they have always been and
remove this feature from the application even before any litigation or
statutory action.” Google declined to comment on these matters and focused
instead on the company’s regard for safety and security. Waze spokesperson,
Julie Mossler, stated that the company is in partnership with the New York Police
Department and other departments across the world. Mossler stated, "These
relationships keep citizens safe, promote faster emergency response and help
alleviate traffic congestion.” Many believe this feature is actually supposed
to be used for the common good, like having access to law enforcement more
quickly when emergency assistance is required, as well as encouraging drivers
to slow down, drive safely, and follow the rules of the road. On the Waze
website it states, “After typing in their destination address, users just drive
with the app open on their phone to passively contribute traffic and other road
data, but they can also take a more active role by sharing road reports on
accidents, police traps, or any other hazards along the way, helping to give
other users in the area a 'heads-up' about what's to come.” Many would agree
that this statement is good and true, but many are also taking advantage of
this doing things like avoiding DUI checkpoints, and evading speed limits.
There are many stakeholders affected by Waze
actions. First would come the employees. These are the people who make the
company keep running smoothly, and are directly affected by company actions.
For instance, if the company violates some legal policies or makes some bad
decisions, employees are affected and could potentially lose their jobs.
Another stakeholder would be Google. Google purchased the company, probably
without the intentions of being in the middle of an ethical crisis. Google
stockholders would also be an example of shareholders, as although they don’t
directly invest in Waze, they are associated with the company who owns it, and
could potentially take a hit if Google got in trouble with these issues. Users
of this product are also major stakeholders. This issue directly affects them,
and could make or break if they want to continue to use the product. Lastly,
the governments of the countries Waze is in are stakeholders. Law enforcement
is funded by the government, who is directly involved with Waze, for better or
worse. Waze is affecting the way law enforcement is operating, and in the
future the government just may have to intervene and set some standards for
tracking police on the app.
Friedman’s individualism theory states that
the only goal of a business is to profit. This means that the only obligation
that business has is to maximize profit for the owner or the stockholders. When
you look at the Waze app in these terms, you would have to believe that it is
ethical. Waze originally saw an opportunity to profit in a market that was
lacking and took full advantage of it. Then Google saw just how valuable this
company was so they purchased it, regardless of the backfire that it could
produce in the future. The profits from this company must outweigh the negatives
that some see in the company, in Google’s eyes.
In Utilitarian ethics, John Stuart
Mill believed that happiness or pleasure are the only things of intrinsic
value, and that happiness and pleasure should be brought to all beings capable
of feeling it. In this case, Waze would be ethical to some and unethical to
others. For users who legitimately use the app, and see an improvement in their
daily lives because of it, who is to say it is unethical? Also, for the
employees and people who work on the app and make improvements daily it causes
them much pleasure. But for those who may be burdened by this app like law
enforcement for example, it may seem as though the app is unethical. It does
not bring them pleasure, and if anything could make their job more stressful.
You could make the argument though that this app may actually cause
improvements to law enforcements lives. If used properly, Waze can alert people
where police officers are, and allow for more people to follow rules, and end
up actually causing them to drive safer. This is what law enforcement should be
happier about, if it actually does cause drivers to be more aware and safer on
the roads, and just not when they know a cop is near them.
The basic principles of Kantianism state that
you should act rationally, you should not consider yourself exempt from rules,
you allow and help people to make rational decisions, you should respect
people, and to be motivated by good will and seeking to do what is right
because it is right. Based on these principles, Waze would be ethical for some
and unethical for others. To those seeking to improve others’ lives by giving
traffic updates and road conditions, it is ethical. You are respecting your
fellow drivers and seeking to do what is right for the greater good of others.
For those looking to avoid cops, and be able to speed it is unethical. People
believe these people are just looking to be above the rules, and that they do
not need to follow the rules of the road that everyone else does. Depending on
how you view the users of this app, it could go either way.
The four main virtues are courage,
honesty, temperance, and justice. Based on the virtue theory, Waze might be
considered unethical. Nothing about the app really speaks to these virtues. If
anything, justice is not being served, as many are avoiding police that should
be served justice. Those drunk or who are doing illegal things that use the app
to avoid the police prove this point.
In my own opinion, the Waze app is
unethical. Its intention is very good, but is definitely being used for the
wrong purposes. Although it’s purpose and intentions seem to be trying to help
and improve the lives of its users, sadly this is usually not the case. The cop tracking feature is what is giving it
a bad name. There is really no other reason why people update, or use the cop
tracking feature other than to avoid police, and not get caught doing something
they’re not supposed to be doing. This is a shame, as the app itself is
actually a very useful tool for navigating while saving time and money. With
all that being the case, I cannot justify it being ethical.
No comments:
Post a Comment