From our guest author Alfred Doll:
The purchase of pinched bank data causes a stir – it is a classic decision dilemma between law, morals and ethics.
Currently, politicians, lawyers, journalists and the German citizens are excited about the fierce discussion about whether or not stolen bank data of potential tax evaders should be bought. On the one hand, there is the argument of tax fairness, on the other hand, there is due process of law, political risk and the question of making crime attractive. It is a judgemental dilemma and an excellent example showing how responsible decision should be arrived at and how not.
Both lawyers and data protection specialists call the intended purchase of illegal data unlawful. The term “concealment of stolen goods” has also been frequently heard.
Our state should remember its constitutional principles and see to it that the law is adhered to, instead of breeding more injustice. We expect our constitutional government to keep laws decreed in parliament. If now we have to balance between two violations of law, namely between tax evasion and illegal data acquisition, then that means we have a true dilemma situation.
It can only be solved by either finding alternative solutions or by taking the higher good/value as an orientation. We are confronted with an ethical evaluation of goods that must be approached dialectically.
As an alternative, we have to find out if the unlawful purchase of illegal data is really the only way to prove that tax has been evaded. I am sure that is not the case. To be sure, it might well be the easiest and most obvious way in the current situation, but it is not the “Ultima Ratio”.
If we, nevertheless, assume that there is no alternative way for the state to prove the tax evasion, then the question of the higher good/value has to be asked. It is not a given that the decision is based on the actual worth in money, in this case the 2,5 million Euros for the data purchase as opposed to the up to 100 million Euros in back duties. What counts is the ethical value: is the principle of constitutional rights a higher value than a certain amount of money?
The considerations would certainly have to be different if we were, for instance, talking about stolen data of drug dealers. A new balance of goods between constitutional rights and the protection of our citizens would have to take place. Is the state allowed to buy something from criminals in order to protect the population? Which good/value has preference? The duty of the state to protect its citizens, or the principle of constitutional rights? As we see, there has to be an individual balancing of values in order to arrive at responsible decisions and behaviour. You cannot say: “we have been there before, let us do it again in the same way”.
The representatives, first and foremost among them Frau Dr. Merkel, came to their conclusions both as evaluators and models: if there is an economical profit, you can buy from criminals.
So what right do these politicians have to demand from entrepreneurs and managers that they follow constitutional and social principles when making decisions and deciding how to behave, instead of just following the economical advantage?
I hope that our readers will be more careful and responsible when faced with similar decision dilemmas. For all those who are not quite sure, atunis offers an extensive range of dialectical methods for decision finding.
ad
(Translated by EG)
Loading ...