"Go with your gut feeling," some readers told me on the subject of warchalking and unauthorized wireless use. And although
that seems like some homespun, commonsense advice, it calls for a word of caution.
In the mid-70s, my "gut feeling" told me to sell my '68 Barracuda convertible with wire wheels and buy a spiffy new Fiat.
After way too many trips to the Fiat mechanic, I began to harbor deep suspicions about my gut and its feelings.
Despite my poor car-buying choices, I think there is a lot to be said for listening to the voice of your intuition, but
only in carefully chosen situations. In hiring, for example, just about every time I've overruled that insistent inner voice
I've been dreadfully sorry. But my "nose for news" is very often more intuition than anything else, leading me to see a story
where it's not yet apparent -- and has led me to make some very good choices.
However, in both these cases, the so-called "intuition" is based on past history, personal observation, and relevantly similar
situations. In ethical cases, the situations, while often similar, aren't necessarily relevant, and that can lead down some
blind alleys. This happens most often when we are considering some new technology or areas in which we don't have a lot of
previous data to work with. Old solutions to other questions may not work because of some relevant differences.
I've always counseled people to listen to their inner voice, assuming they hear one, but then to put it aside and try to
build a case without it. The worst that could happen is that you come to a conclusion that supports your original feeling,
which then makes it all that much stronger. But I've found, just as often as not, that I have to change that original view
and go in another direction -- and sometimes I've had to go back and change other views because of the new data.
That leads to changing my mind, something that's anathema to most people. However, I consider it a worthwhile endeavor,
if it leads me a little closer to the truth. Those people who rely entirely on their intuition often end up building a case
that supports only that view. In the process, they see only the evidence that supports them and conveniently ignore, or rationalize
away, that which doesn't. That's never a good way to get a good answer.
I told you so
Some time back, I was upset about the assaults on our privacy, some of them enacted under the guise of protecting against
terrorists. At the time, numerous people wrote in to tell me that "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to
fear." For the record, many more people wrote in opposed to widespread government snooping. However, I'm here today to tell
you that we're already beginning to see the results and the impending danger.
Anyone who pays attention to these things already knows about the situation in Denver, where police kept files of "potential
terrorists" and "terror organizations." I'm not picking on Denver, because I'm certain this goes on in other police departments.
It's just that Denver has been in the news quite a bit about the situation.
What qualifies someone for making the list? Well, belonging to a pacifist organization, for one thing. The American Friends
Service Committee, about as non-violent as you can get, was one criterion. So, perennial peace activists, including an elderly
nun, were listed. One man was listed and, just for good measure, the police included his wife and kept track of their phone
numbers and make and model of their cars.
The lawsuits are flying fast and furious, and maybe Denver can clean up its act. But the problem has already magnified.
You see, Denver took the liberty of sharing its list with "third parties," which means that the information is now out of
their control. Even if the police can purge their own files, there's no way they can retrieve the information from third parties
-- or fourth, fifth, or sixth parties.
That's where technology steps in. With computerized databases, the Internet, and proliferation of e-mail, recovering widely
disseminated, but false, information is nearly impossible. Already this faulty "terrorist hunting" -- not necessarily as a
result of the Denver fiasco -- is starting to rear its ugly head. Peace activists and other outspoken people to the left of
the far right are beginning to report that their names are popping up on "undesirable person" watch lists at airports and
they are being harassed by security personnel.
People who have done nothing wrong already have something to fear. And I fear it's going to get worse before it gets better.
Religion in the office
A reader writes with a question about religion in the office. One of the firm's principals took it upon himself to send
out an e-mail to the entire staff "inviting" them to join his church, while extolling the beauties of his denomination. The
reader writes:
"I'm sure that no one has dared say anything to this man because everyone is afraid of getting fired. What is an employee
to do? Ignore it? Take it as a sign that if you want to move up in the company that you might want to start attending? Take
it as an invite (plain and simple)? Let him know how we feel? Are we over reacting?"
Now, I have some definite feelings about this, which I'll put aside (see above) as I ponder it. However, I do recognize
a minefield when I see it. So, while I'm gingerly stepping through it, I'll ask for your advice.
Is religion an appropriate topic for the workplace, or is it such a personal matter that it's best checked at the door and
discussed elsewhere? Should bosses be "encouraging" employees to adopt a particular religion, sect, or even congregation?
Is a well-meaning gesture innocuous, insensitive, or insulting? Is proselytizing something that should be discouraged? Are
there different standards for bosses and rank and file? Drop me a note and I'll consider your responses as I formulate my
own.
Write to Carlton Vogt at ethics_matters@infoworld.com. To discuss any of these issues, you can go to the Ethics Matters
forum at
www.infoworld.com/forums/ethics
.
E-mail
Printer Friendly
Reprints
(InfoWorld) - In the litigious world we live in, deploying a unified communications platform in your enterprise could...
