Case 2: In 2013, computer expert and manager at Computer-World, a major laptop trading company, John River, released confidential company documents to the press informing the public about a faulty feature in the new laptops which the company was planning on introducing them to the market within weeks. According to the company code of conduct, River violated the code which prohibits employees from sharing confidential company information. Yet despite the fact that he broke the company law, River argued that he had a moral obligation to act. He gave a justification for his "whistleblowing" by stating that he had a duty to inform the company's consumers". According to River, the company's unethical actions had to be exposed regardless of legality. Various journalists were conflicted about the ethical implications of River's actions. Some thought, He may have committed a crime...but he had done the company's customers a great service. Others did not see him as a hero, but a criminal: by violating the code of his company, rather than reporting it through legal channels, River chose to break the law. The CEO of the company thought that River has to be punished for his actions, arguing that: "River's actions broke the company's code of conduct which is supposed to help keep confidential information safe from our competitors". a. Did John River blow the whistle internally or externally in this case? Explain why you think so. (5 points) b. Do you agree that River "had a duty to inform the company's consumers"? Explain why by referring to the five conditions of an ethical whistle blowing in chapter-7 of your course textbook. (5 points) c. Do you think "Cyber-liability" applies to the above case? Explain your answer and give evidence from the case. (5 points)