This week’s topics brought forth intriguing and provocative implications of how technology affects personal realms of privacy. Like James Moor has pointed out, one of the complicated issues with computer ethics is that there is no conceptual framework in which we can structure a policy for action against digital wrongdoings. Ideally, it would be prudent to establish an agreed-upon set of ground rules before implementing actions such as extensive workplace e-monitoring, released genetic information, and data mining. However, some of these activities often occur without an individual’s consent. What kind of policies would you suggest to protect one’s privacy rights against any of the practices that were discussed this week?
In the Jenning’s video, I considered some of the data mining programs as socially beneficial and some as dangerously intrusive. The NORA (or Non-Obvious Relationship Awareness) program mines data to detect relationships between potential customers and previous cheaters in casinos. I find NORA to be beneficial because it is merely a preemptive screening process to detect possible cheaters of the casino business. Some other data mining programs create a large collection of people’s personal information such as credit report, mortgages, and even personal interests without consent. These can potentially feed into a dangerous black market, in which people sell such information to others, resulting in identity theft. In general, would you consider data mining programs to be ethical or useful/necessary for society?
The genetics and privacy presentation brought up several concerns for me. As genetic testing becomes more accessible and popular, I foresee the media portraying one’s genetic history as the ultimate determinant for one’s actions. As this kind of technology becomes more accurate and refined, people may eventually abandon the “nurture” side of the nature v. nurture debate (that is, do genetics or experience determine behavior?). To reiterate what someone said in class, one of the potential risks of wide access to genetic testing is dehumanization. For example, genetically designing your baby is something that seems absurd right now but it is entirely possible, especially with the techniques of in vitro fertilization and amniocentesis testing. Who is to determine which qualities make up the “perfect” human being? What other concerns did you have in regards to genetics and privacy?
I think that people and employees should be informed about e-monitoring if it is to occur. As long as people are informed, I do not have a problem with it in the work place. While managers and executives would like to believe all of their employees act ethically, this is rarely the case in a large company. E-monitoring insures that companies do not get put in dangerous situations because of the actions of one employee. Furthermore, this gives motivation for employees to stay focused on their work since they could potentially get caught shirking on the job.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brad - e-monitoring has its place if all individuals are informed they are being monitored. In addition, where, how and when computers are monitored should be fully disclosed to all parties. E-Monitoring should focus on encouraging hard work from employees, rather than punishing employees for possible distractions.
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, the privacy of genetic testing produce more hesitations. I take concerns with police officers identifying criminals based on their genetic history. I believe we will simply implement the self-fulfilling prophecy when police have the ability to convict individuals based on their predispositions. Information will be presented very accusatory - one is 50 percent more likely to commit this crime because of a violent pre-disposition. Individuals will be discriminated upon a pre-disposition that no one else needs to know. Furthermore, this pre-disposition does not mean the individual will commit the crime.
Lastly, data mining scares me simply because of the volume of information that will be available. Behavior and attitudes will change as soon as individuals become paranoid that NORA may have information on them or others that will cause discrimination. NORA may hold power over individuals and prevent people from living their lives in a normal sense.
I'm in full agreement with Brad. The issue with E-Monitoring is that many companies don't agree that their employees should be informed about what actions are being monitored. An environment in which employee and employer are blatantly upfront with regard to company policy and employee access/permission is likely a more productive/efficient environment. If I were working for a company and they told me that I'm allowed to do X Y and Z, but not allowed to do A & B, then there's no grey area. I believe that it's the grey areas that employees begin to test the company's limits, decreasing productivity and putting their jobs at risk.
ReplyDeleteI think that data mining borders on being unethical. Obviously information like this helps companies succeed, but I think it should be more general. Surveys give an accurate impression of the state of the market without divulging which specific person thinks what. NORA seems like a useful tool, but it would be pretty much useless without data mining.
ReplyDeleteI think that e-monitoring has gone too far. Your value to a company used to be based on whether or not you could produce. Now you must deal with being watched at all times. I like to break up my workday into segments and many times I do better when I can rest my brain for 15 minutes in between tasks. With the fear of being fired for checking the news looming over-head I will no longer do so. By the end of the day there would be a significant decline in my productivity and I would be too burnt out to enjoy my time off. I am not at work to be a slave for the man.
ReplyDeleteI think privacy issues extend further than we realize in the Internet world. Sites such as Juicy Campus, and other gossip-based sites, allow people to sit behind the anonymity of a computer screen without facing any repercussions. This simply encourages people to spread rumors. While this site has not been shut down, I think it is important to look at the behaviors of people on the Internet compared to their real-life demeanor. It shows that people are less inclined to care about privacy values, and more inclined to act in ways they normally wouldn't. This principle extends to nearly all aspects of privacy invasion on the Internet.
ReplyDeleteI think that people should be informed of the information that is out there concerning their personal activities. I don't think that it is necessarily bad that companies such as banks and hospitals keep records because these assist with future visits and transactions, but I think that people should at least know about what is out there. When a file is posted on line we can never permanently delete it, and we should at least know of its existence. I think that privacy issues should be vigorously examined by the government and further regulated to ensure our safety.
ReplyDeleteI think Cameron made a great point about the need for companies to be explicit with what e-monitoring policies they follow. You make an active choice to work for a particular company and you must therefore abide by the policies the company had in place. If e-monitoring is a major concern in the work environment, then workers should weigh a given company's e-monitoring policy in their decision making.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day, I believe the company has a right to protect its trade secrets and business practices. The speed and anonymity of communication on the internet jeopardizes that so companies should be allowed to take the necessary steps to mitigate information leaks.
I think a lot of the current issues surrounding privacy stem from the often confusing concept of how much privacy we have. It seems that many people assume they're anonymous online, and behave accordingly. When it turns out that our 'anonymous' activities weren't so anonymous, that's when issues often arrive.
ReplyDeleteI'm not advocating a push to make all information available to the public; in fact, i think many things, such as medical records, spending habits, bank records, etc, should remain private. But it seems to me that a good number of people take issue with some of the things that wind up online about them that they've posted themselves.
While I have heard of the controversy (and have seen Minority Report as someone mentioned in class),I was unaware of the degree in which genetic testing can seriously jeopardize one’s privacy if it becomes more and more available on the internet. It seems unethical that our country is moving closer to a path in which we become entirely reliable on technology and genetic predictions. If we spend our government’s time and money “predicting” predators based on genetic makeup, our focus will be shifted from reality to the “what if” aspects of society. While predetermining one’s predictable behavior and actions seems ideal, I feel as though the means will not justify the ends. Furthermore, I think genetic information is rather personal and it should be an individual’s right to release their records to the public. We must keep in mind the discrimination element with private records going public. Basically, I agree that we will drift away from the “nurture” aspect of life as our focus will be directed purely on the “nature.”
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete(In regards to the third paragraph)
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what you posted. I think there are definitely some issues that have yet to be discussed openly.
Throughout the entire presentation I was thinking about the ongoing nature and nurture debacle, and how for go reason, there is/are no resolution(s).
The one thing that stuck out to me was the court/trial example. I feel that genetic analysis and the resulting lists of predispositions can not be equated to psycho-analysis. One is clearly more concrete then the other. And not to mention, if genetic analysis is used to convict someone, it should be equally use to acquit that same person. we would be simply removing the "nurture" from reality and as a means to many behaviors!
While I initially thought that e-monitoring seemed pretty intrusive and unethical in regards to an individual's personal privacy, the more I thought about it I don't find it all that unreasonable. When you sign on to work for a company, you are agreeing to follow company rules and protect private information. Also, these computers are property of the company you have agreed to work for. Therefore, they have a right to their property and the information that is disseminated through the computers. However, I do think that employees should be notified about whether or not they are being monitored and to what extent.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with I yuen on this one. Spying on every single thing you do during your workday seems a little extreme. It's hard to say whether e-monitoring is truly effective or not because every person works differently. So if you're the type of person that needs a break between tasks to recover should you have to settle for becoming a totally different person just to get by at your job? I don't think you should have to change who you are for anyone. If you're a solid worker and you contribute to a company and it's productivity then you should be able to check out CNN from time to time or check and send an email without the worry that your boss is sitting behind his desk reading everything you are writing! But at the same time I do agree that you are an employee and you are using a companies property and therefore you should respect it. I worked at ABC-11 last year in the newsroom and I wasn't allowed to go on the internet and check my email. Mainly for security purposes and also so that I wouldn't screw up their server. I signed a waiver form agreeing to that at the beginning of my internship and for the most part I stuck with it. The only times I used the internet were when it was necessary for research on a story or breaking news. There is definitely a line of privacy and if e-monitoring is to go on in the workplace, the employees have the right to know the extent to which they are being watched. Otherwise, I feel like that's invasion of privacy.
ReplyDeleteAlong with most of these privacy topics, I really think that "invasion" of privacy by tracking details about individuals, monitoring your Internet habits, cataloguing personal information, etc. is only reasonable without the person's explicit consent if its goal is security. We watched the video about NORA and realized most of the terrorists involved in 9/11 could have been connected to each other - in this case, I think it is a good thing. But doing these things for marketing purposes or other superficial reasons without the individual's consent is not reasonable.
ReplyDeleteThe NORA program would be useful to society, but they are not moral. They could end up drawing wrong conclusions and accusing the wrong people for being guilty. I also agree with Brad. Work places can be monitored if the employees are aware that they are being monitored. This awareness should prevent any problems to begin with. I think genetic engineering is something that will develop whether people think it is ethical or not. The research that’s going on right now is not going to stop, so I think it will eventually develop into something that can be used. For the people who think it’s unethical, they do not have to use it. I think it would be useful in preventing diseases, though, which is much different than trying to create the “perfect” human being.
ReplyDeleteOriginally I thought e-monitoring was ridiculous because privacy is something I take very serious and for an individual to have no idea that they have NO privacy at work isn't fair. Similar to many thoughts brought up by posts above me I thought it would be more fair if everyone in the company was aware of it. I don't think it would scare people away because the chances of them to do anything wrong knowing they under watch would be unlikely.
ReplyDeleteI intern at a company that actually let off an entire sector of the company and after that was done they were warned that everything would be tracked. Because we were told and informed that our privacy on our email and company phones were no longer private I felt like it was okay.
I completely agree with the aforementioned comments that it is the material being monitored and the reasoning behind such action that defines the ethical boundary. Medical records, insurance information, credit card information and other personal material should be available for no one's viewing except the individual and those they deem permissible. Conversely, a program such as NORA could have been used to prevent the death of thousands of people on 9/11. In a perfect society one would be able to regulate exactly who has control of such programs and who does not. Since this is clearly not the case, society must take control of their own personal information by being smart about the information they choose to release. Regarding workplace monitoring, it is the responsibility of the employer to let you know exactly how you are being monitored. Similarly, to avoid distrust and frustration with the government society should be aware of the capabilities of governmental monitoring. The future of such technology is inevitable- society should come to this realization and take action accordingly.
ReplyDeleteTo go back to what other people had said about e-monitoring, I completely agree that e-monitoring is just too much. I work in a restaurant, and they are installing 8 cameras all around that have audio and video feed to a large monitor where the manager will stand during the night. Not only that, it will also feed to our manager's house so that he can watch what is going on in the comfort of his own home. While I understand that he is trying to look out for the restaurant, but if all of this is needed to just watch the employees, I feel that there is something else that is the underlying problem. If a company appreciates its employees, and they enjoy working there, then monitoring would not be necessary because workers would then want to maintain working there. I just feel that even though we are at work, e-monitoring (to the effect of knowing exactly what is going on, watching the employee's movements on the computor) is over the top.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that policies need to be implemented to protect employees from unnecessary e- monitoring in the work place. In today's times, people do not need to risk getting fired for a little thing like emailing you husband at work. The stress over our economy creates a high level of anxiety in so many professions about the potential of losing one's job; thus, added stress over being over monitored is not beneficial for a company.
ReplyDeleteLike the genetics and privacy group pointed out in their presentation, it can be unfair to force employees to get genetic testing before supplying them with health insurance. Like Virginia said, it should be a personal decision to release these tests. We should not waste our time searching for people that are "predisposed" to committing a crime.
Additionally, the idea of being able to create the "perfect" human in the future is quite scary. I think it would result in humans being too similar; what makes each of us who we are is the different combination of genes. It is interesting to think about the future of genetic testing, but it can also get too invasive.
Lastly, I agree that NORA is beneficial for casinos. However, like e- monitoring, consent is a very critical component, in order for these practices to be considered ethical.