Case Study: B2e

B2E Case Study

The B2E case study was interesting for a number of reasons.  There is obviously some mess up somewhere along the line that resulted in stolen personal information.  The company knew going into China that the government was totalitarian and that it would not be turnkey.  Obviously, they did not anticipate the government, supposedly, just stealing information that was not freely given.

        The company did not do everything that it could have done to prevent this.  They should have strengthened their network security before entering the market.  Admittedly, this could seem to border on paranoia, but it would have been a prudent step before moving into the Chinese market.

        There are a number of steps that can be taken to mitigate the damage from the stolen information.  At the very least, the company will have to alert those who have had their information stolen.  They should be alerted that the government has obtained their information and information about their devices.  The information about the devices could prove to be more damaging as the government could theoretically use it to track the individuals and listen in on calls, etc.

        The ethical issues are not quite as cut and dry.  Obviously the company has an ethical obligation to the customers that had information stolen.  There is also the ethical obligation to find those that are responsible for the theft.  However, as this was most likely the government it would be hard prove and even harder to enforce and legal action.

        There are really only two options on future business in China for this company.  They can stay in the market and attempt to improve their IT security or they can leave.  If they stay, then obviously, they have the market that will increase revenue, profits, brand recognition, etc.  However, if they leave, then they will prevent any more intrusion by that government as they wouldn’t have any customers there.  Leaving the market makes more ethical sense while staying makes more financial sense.

        The company obviously did not plan for all contingencies when entering the new market.  They are, of course, still responsible.  It was their product that allowed users information to be obtained, hence they are directly responsible.  They did not consider the possibility of an IT breach, despite the Chinese government having a history of helping itself to information that it wants.

        My suggestion for the company would be to stay in the market.  The potential revenue, among other incentives, is too high to give up on.  The company would certainly need to invest in some more heavy duty IT protection.  They would also need to find some way to send a message that their customers information is off limits.  This should be done to prevent any further hacking.