On Monday, we discussed what privacy entails and the ever changing environment in privacy issues. Privacy is not guaranteed as a human right. Here in the US, we have “zones of privacy” as can be noted in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th amendments as mentioned in class. What interested me in class was the Privacy Act of 1974 followed by the film.
The government has the role of regulating personally identifiable information. There should be no secret records and when errors found, they can be fixed. In a perfect world this sounds great. But in a bureaucratically heavy state, files and information are fragmented. We have the NSA, CIA, Dept. of Homeland Security, DIA, FBI and the military branches all with intelligence, all with our information. Furthermore, information isn’t just limited to intelligence, but the IRS and treasury dept. All departments and agencies have information. Citizens have little access to reach them, see their information, and correct it if need be.
The film in class brought up issues of concern with me. I found it extraordinarily interesting on the issue of fragmented information and the general problem of too much information. All of the programs like MATRIX and NORA seemed really interesting, possibly unethical, but definitely with their merits. Yet, they cannot discriminate between good information and bad information. What can we expect as an output when there are poor inputs?
I believe information is necessary. Although it concerns me how much of it is sold and traded for marketing purposes. Yet, I see the need for having an organized intelligence system. It was intriguing how NORA managed to find multiple hijackers after the fact and connect 13 of the 19 in unexpected ways. How do you feel about information being so open and unregulated? Technically 1974 suggests that it be better guarded. Where is it appropriate and inappropriate? What should we think of the idea that when telemarketers call, they may know more about you than your neighbor? But shouldn’t we also see the big picture and national security? Where should the line be drawn?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems to me that the ethics of these kinds of information systems (like nora) are difficult to assess in their current forms. The fragmented nature of information makes correcting errors and even successfully using information for security purposes very difficult. These flaws make it easier to feel that systems like nora are unethical. However, if these programs were well centralized/unified and therefor easier to correct and potentially much more useful, would it be that much easier to accept them as ethical?
ReplyDeleteI think it would certainly make the programs easier to accept, but it wouldn't necessarily make them more ethical. Kant, at least, would say that the ethicality of the information systems should not be swayed by their usefulness/effectiveness.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't have much of a problem with data about me being collected and sold for marketing purposes or for military intelligence, particularly if it can help prevent harm to innocent people, regardless of how effective the system is.
The problem with proposing that the system can be fixed so that the data is always accurate, is that this is impossible. With data mining, information is coming from many different sources to be combined into an understandable output. When people have fairly common names it is hard to distinguish accurate information about them. Also, the original data found can be flawed. The system can become more accurate, but it will never be perfect until everyone is donating their own information and somehow can't lie.
ReplyDeleteI think it is interesting to think about how all of this even started. When we did the group work during that lecture my group was in charge of "filters and freedom." We learned that the Children's Internet Protection Act (CPA) was the whole reason this started. Then later came in the use of the filters. All of these steps took place after the Privacy Act took place. Although these programs might be hard to follow through with, the concept of internet filters also have problems. For instance. filters restrict research into health, science, politics, arts, and other educational issues because they work by censoring searches on key words, such as "drugs." Filters replace educational judgments by teachers and librarians with censorship decisions by private companies that do not disclose their operating methods, their political biases, or their lists of blocked sites. This comes to show there is not any one clear cut answer to the privacy issues of the internet and we are still researching other possible solutions.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I think that in the world we live in today it is probably necessary for the government to be able to keep records of our information if it can in any way be used to ensure safety and security for U.S. Citizens. I (personally) am willing to sacrifice some of my privacy if it means that I can be better protected by government or anyone else - if I'm doing nothing wrong, why should I really care what they know or don't know? Many people feel it is an invasion of privacy, and I agree, but I just think that today we must accept our "zones of privacy" and realize that other information is always out there about you. HOWEVER, if the information is being used for something other than security, I do think it is unreasonable--for example, why would I want to allow Harris Teeter to track my grocery purchases via my VIC Card so that they can sell it to marketing companies? That marketing agency can pay ME if they want to know what my shopping habits are, and I'll tell them for the right price.
ReplyDeleteSecurity and issues of national concern should be the only reason for very personal information to be obtained. As a previous post mentioned, why should we be concerned if we are not doing anything wrong? However, as seen with many on the Terrorist Watch List- this information is not always correct. Citizens should have the ability to view information the government has on them and appeal such information if it is incorrect. Not only would this protect wrongly identified citizens, it would also allow the government to focus on those that are truly a threat.
ReplyDeleteAlthough, I'm going into the field of advertising/marketing and such technology would be incredible beneficial, I do not believe stores should sell my information to marketing companies. As the above blogger mentions, this is my personal information. If I choose to participate in marketing surveys or consumer patterns research, I should be compensated for these efforts.
Having so many systems with so much of our information is something out of our control. I don't see the trouble in a lot of the government departments having so much of our information, but when it is being sold to people that really make use of it just for profits then its something that should be controlled and limited. The greatest good for the greatest number idea would advocate privacy because so many people would want their information safe rather than some one person trying to reap in profits.
ReplyDeleteI'm not really sure how I feel about this topic. It has never really bothered me how much information is kept on me by the government; I have nothing to hide. However, I do not condone the selling of this information or its openness to misuse. I think that overall, the zones of privacy are okay. Like Utilitarianism, this issue is looking to work for the greater good of the greater number of people. These systems should just be regulated and make sure information is correct. If we had had a NORA-like device before 9/11, we could have perhaps prevented such atrocities.
ReplyDelete