Were the punishments for James Gansman, Donna Murdoch, and Gerald Brodsky fair?
In my opinion, the punishments are fair for James Gansman and Gerald Brodsky because they both violated the law. I think that the sentence for Gansman should have been harsher because he leaked out his company information to Donna just to brag. This indicates how Gansman was being unfaithful to Ernst and Young and how the management issues affect the company. It is also too late for Ernst and Young to find out this activity. The company should have evaluated each employee before they get their promotion and determine whether their personality traits fit in that position.
However, based on he has done, it would be very difficult when he tries to find another job in the future. However, I think Murdoch is the one who really deserve a harsher punishment because she uses Gansman to achieve these information and share it with Brodsky. Even though there is no definition of inside trading in the U.S. law system, she has obviously breaks the law because it is not fair trading in this case. It is ridiculous that Murdoch has being set free.
Is Ashley Madison based on an ethical business model?
I think that Ashley Madison is operating as an ethical business model because they are meeting some needs in a special market. However, it becomes unethical when Gansman, Murdoch, and Brodsky use it as a tool to brag and share trading information. There is nothing to blame on a dating site like Ashley Madison. As long as they enhance their limitation on their service to prevent its users from breaking the law, I think Ashley Madison is an ethical business model.
How does Noel Biderman, the founder of Ashley Madison explain and justify the business? Does he fulfill his ethical duties to all those affected by his actions?
Noel Biderman explains and justifies the site “Ashley Madison” as a connection for people who are not happy about their marriage to meet someone else to complete the happiness in life.