Vladislav Solodkiy’s Post

View profile for Vladislav Solodkiy, graphic

Nansen.ID l Founder & ex-CEO @ ArivalBank.com, a.id, SREDA.VC l Early investor in 5 digital banks

Confidentiality often operates under the assumption of an inherent right. But what happens when this veil of secrecy shields harmful actions, enabling injustice and perpetuating a cycle of abuse? At what point does confidentiality transform from a shield to a weapon, and silence become complicity?   The inherent tension lies in the conditional nature of rights. While confidentiality is often presented as an absolute, it is, in reality, earned through responsible conduct. When individuals or entities violate the rules, engage in unethical behavior, or fail to meet their obligations, they forfeit the privilege of confidentiality. This principle is reflected in various legal frameworks. Recent court decisions demonstrate that those aware of fraudulent activities but who choose to remain silent can be held accountable. This principle extends beyond the corporate world. Consider the tragic cases of bullying in schools. Bystanders, whether classmates, teachers, or parents, who are aware of the abuse but fail to intervene become complicit through their inaction. Their silence condones the harmful behavior, perpetuating a culture of fear and impunity. Let's explore a hypothetical scenario: Imagine encountering a company known for systematically violating business commitments, exploiting shareholders, and leaving a trail of unpaid debts. You operate within the same business circles, and after initial attempts to raise concerns are ignored, you are offered a financial settlement with the implicit condition of perpetual silence. This scenario presents a stark ethical dilemma. While the legal terms of the agreement may be meticulously crafted, accepting such an offer raises questions of moral responsibility. Does remaining silent make you complicit in their future actions? Knowing that this company will continue to engage with others in your community, are you ethically obligated to speak up, even if it means jeopardizing your own interests? Can you truly claim to be 'just doing your thing' while enabling their predatory behavior? This hypothetical situation highlights the limitations of a purely legalistic approach. While lawyers may find no fault with the letter of the law, the spirit of the law, encompassing ethical considerations and societal well-being, demands a deeper reflection. Confidentiality, when used to shield harmful actions, becomes a tool for perpetuating injustice. We have a responsibility, both to ourselves and to society, to recognize the limits of confidentiality and speak up against wrongdoing, even when it's inconvenient, uncomfortable, or potentially costly. Confidentiality is not an unconditional right but a privilege earned through responsible and ethical conduct. When silence enables harm, we must find the courage to speak up. The line between confidentiality and complicity is often blurry, but our moral compass, guided by a sense of justice and responsibility towards our community, can illuminate the path towards ethical action.

When Confidentiality Becomes Complicity: The Ethical Tightrope

When Confidentiality Becomes Complicity: The Ethical Tightrope

medium.com

Vladislav Solodkiy

Nansen.ID l Founder & ex-CEO @ ArivalBank.com, a.id, SREDA.VC l Early investor in 5 digital banks

1w

I need your help pls - sign it here: https://l.Nansen.id/change-ArivalUBOs

Like
Reply

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics