Equifax is responsible for a data breach that impacted a vast amount of people. When we discuss the topic of social responsibility, data breaches such as this one are brought up. When a data breach occurs, specifically the Equifax one, many people’s data is stolen and given to someone without the user’s consent. The Equifax breach is especially harmful because it deals with things such as credit, credit scores, and financial history. All of those things are very important when living in today’s society. As the article mentioned, we use credit in our everyday lives for many different things. It is important that we know it is protected. It did not help that Equifax did not respond or help the situation until after it was widespread and they had some pushback. One aspect of the article that is very important is the discussion on data being “out there” without anyone to control it or have a say over it. Anyone can take vital information and possibly ruin the lives of thousands. Who did this attack really hurt? It hurts the users of Equifax who have no knowledge of the event in the first place. They are the most at risk. The ones who do not even know what a data breach is. Equifax itself will be okay. They will survive but many of the general public were put in harm’s way. In this Case Analysis I will argue that the Equifax data breach was morally bad for the general public by using contractarianism and consequentialism through the lens of two different articles.
“The Social Responsibility of Business,” by Milton Friedman offers us a look into the unspoken rules and contracts a business should have with its consumers and mainly its stockholders. When a business operates, their main goal is to make a profit. However, what Friedman was detailing in his article, the business must not take advantage of the ones who made the business what it is. If a business fails its job or exploits its stockholders then it has the right to fail. Even going beyond that if a business chooses to go against its stockholders then it is likely doomed to fail. The article talks about how the CEO of a business should only really worry about the shareholders simply because they are the ones with the money invested in the company. The CEO should try to do everything in their power to make sure that the shareholders are keeping the company running and functioning. To understand how this plays into the Equifax breach, we must first understand contractarianism. Contractariansism is a principle that focuses on a type of contract between people as well. Contractarianism states that in order for something to be moral, many people have to agree that it is moral. If we were using this tool to look at the situation from Friedman’s perspective, then the Equifax breach would be considered a morally good situation. Equifax protected itself and most likely protected its shareholders in the process. However, the situation is morally wrong simply due to the fact that Equifax did not understand that its consumers are the ones determining the situation. Contractarianism focuses on the “group” or the vast majority. In this breach, Equifax put many people in harm’s way who did not even know that they were in trouble. The breach was ultimately the responsibility of Equifax. It was a horrible situation but is it considered a morally bad thing? In my opinion, yes it should be considered a morally wrong action by contractarian standards. The company responded poorly to the breach. This harmful display would most likely make the consumer angry. If most people got angry at Equifax for participating in their mistreatment then the situation could not possibly be seen as something that was morally good. On the other hand, I believe there are ways that the company could have dealt with the situation better. Firstly, they should have come out with a professional response and sent it to all of their consumers, and shareholders. This statement should have taken full responsibility and promised that the company would do everything in its power to retrieve the data. The company should have then proceeded to help retrieve the data while keeping everyone up to date on the matter. While this would not have solved the situation, the company has the consumers best interest at heart and it makes it a better situation for everyone involved. Everyone should feel heard and appreciated. Who did the breach harm mostly? The average person is the one who has the most to lose. Feidman also briefly touched on how businesses need to cater to the average person in order to remain profitable. The breach is a prime example where a business fell short. Regardless of whose fault it was, the business must take on that responsibility. The article “Why the Equifax Breach Stings so Bad,” the author gives us the aftermath of the situation and how much it impacted the everyday person. The article also details different steps that are being put into place to hopefully prevent this type of breach in the future. The credit reporting industry is heavily involved in looking into this situation and ways they can fix them for future businesses.
When we discuss the Social Responsibility of different businesses, the article “Changing the Social Contract: A Role for Business” by Melvin Anshen comes up. The article speaks on how businesses are slowly changing their responsibilities so that the customer’s needs are not placed at the forefront. With the way our capitalist system is set up and the need for profit expands, many companies have decided that they do not have a “Social Responsibility” to the customer themselves. Whatever path is the one that leads to the most profit is the one that these businesses are going to take. One topic that the author goes into is the idea that in the past these businesses and companies could operate in a free market and treat their customers how they wanted as long as their product was the best. Now, many different companies are offering the same thing. Businesses know that a consumer will stay with them for many different reasons. This gives the company leeway and the opportunity to treat their consumers how they want. Equifax is a company like the one explained in the article. It did very little to actually protect its customers. It wanted to maintain and grow profits. To fully understand this dynamic, we must understand the principle of consequentialism. Consequentialism is the idea that as long as the amount of good in the world increases after something has occurred then the actions were justified. Using the consequentialist lens, we can see how morally wrong the Equifax breach was. The breach caused so much discourse and turmoil for it to be considered a morally good thing. By consequentialist standards, nothing about the situation could be seen as morally right. Anshen explained how businesses are starting to show their true colors and in doing so they have exposed themselves to unwanted attacks like data breaches. Equifax did not have the best interest of the customer at heart and that makes the breach and what came after morally bad. In my opinion, there were a few things the company could have done to soften the blow. Some things they could have done included informing the public, trying their best to get the actual data back or to at least find out the cause of it, and to trust in their consumers. Equifax was a company established to help the consumer and how they have failed at their job. They need to reevaluate their mission to make sure something like this has a very slim chance of happening again. Anshen explained it beautifully in their article. They explained how companies need to have “business competence.” Businesses need to understand their actions and how these actions impact the world around them. They can not keep taking advantage of the people who put them in power. They need to understand that things such as data breaches are a big deal and impact many people who do not even know they occurred. “Business competence” was a very succinct and precise way to sum up a lot of the ways businesses can improve and grow. With this information, who was most impacted by the breach? As stated earlier, the average person was the one who lost the most. While some may think it would be shareholders, they will not be nearly as inconvenienced as a regular user. This will eventually cost the business money and valuable consumers. Everyone loses in the end.
This breach and different ones like it are the reasons that many people feel unsafe using certain services. Businesses should have some sort of social responsibility to their customers. It is important that the customer is protected, even from dangers they know nothing of. While some people may say that Equifax was not in the wrong because they do what any other business would do, I wholeheartedly disagree. Equifax should do everything in their power to create a powerful and strong social contract. Equifax did some things correctly but they did not do everything correctly. Other businesses, in the same vein as Equifax, could learn from this and make sure they are honoring their social responsibilities. The only way for businesses to grow from this is to make sure they understand the weight of their actions and how those actions impact the customer. In the end, “Social Responsibility” is a term that should mean something, both to the business and to the customer.