long@falstaff.crd.ge.com (Andrea M Long) (11/16/90)
I would like to pose a thesis for discussion:
One of the big ethical issues facing computer professionals today
deals with privacy. The privacy issue has intensified with the advent
of large centralized databases used by various agencies such as:
insurance and credit companies, the FBI, and even the link between state
Motor Vehicle Departments. This brings up concerns such as the harmful
effects of incorrect information, and the control of just what information
is allowed to be known.
Just what DOES privacy embody? Is it a right? If you ask people if they
feel it is a right, they will probably say yes, although it is not explicitly
stated in the Constitution. In an attempt to clarify this, James Rachels(1)
poses that privacy protects the notion that a crucial part of our lives is
that our relations with others are organized. This has a problem, however,
without the control of information, the organization mentioned above cannot
be maintained. In addition, our behavior in certain relationships has a
direct correlation with the amount of information we allow the other
party to have about us. We feel that if someone were to obtain information
about us without our knowledge, our privacy will be violated. As a result
of this violation, the control of information has passed from our
supervision, our control in the relationship is broken down and we are
therefore at a disadvantage.
Conversely, Alan Westin(2) proposes that privacy is a right for an
individual to decide for himself, what parts of himself will be exposed to
theg eneral public. ( An exception being when those parts are harmful to
the interests of society ) Westin clarifies this by saying that privacy
protects the "core" self and that we wear "masks" to protect it on
different levels depending upon the intimacy level of the particular
relationship.
I would like to propose a hybrid of the theories of Westin and Rachels.
I feel that there is a definite inequality with the amount of information
I feel is necessary in order to maintain everyday relationships. My
behavior is correlated to the intimacy level and therefore the amount of
information I perceive the other party to have about me. Additionally,
I also find that this behavior is a "role" ( as oppossed to Westin's "mask" )
in order to make some everyday task easier to accomplish.
Any thoughts, comments?
(1) James Rachels, "Why Privacy is Important", Ethical Issues in the
---------------------
Use of Computers, Deborah G. Johnson and John W. Snapper, ( Wadsworth
----------------
Publishing, Belmont CA, 1985 )
(2) Alan Westin, "Privacy in the Modern Democratic State", Ethical Issues
--------------
in the Use of Computers, Deborah G. Johnson and John W. Snapper,
-----------------------
( Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont CA, 1985)
Andrea Marie Long
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute urban%monty@RAND.ORG (Michael Urban) (11/17/90)
Just to clarify one of Andrea Long's points, privacy *is* a right explicitly guaranteed by the Constitution of the State of California, and perhaps other States.
peterm%halcyon.uucp@seattleu.edu (11/18/90)
Further to Michael Urban's post of 11/16, reacting to Andrea Long-- Michael's point about the CA Constituion and(its's not "perhaps")about state constitutions somewhat more generally, is a very good, and important, one. A number of states, including PA and WA, have privacy provisions in their consts. similar to CA's, and some good things have come from this. On another level, such good things have been an affair of the tendency for state supreme courts to be somewhat more progressive than the US Supremes and the Fed. Const. itself, in the privacy area. There are some good specific examples.
jeffd@ficc.ferranti.com (Jeff Daiell) (11/18/90)
The Federal Constitution, while not employing the word, does indeed
guarantee privacy through the 4th and 9th Amendments.
Jeff
--
"The lesser of two evils -- is evil."
-- Seymour (Sy) Leonercn67@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) (11/18/90)
long@falstaff.crd.ge.com (Andrea M Long) writes: >Just what DOES privacy embody? Is it a right? If you ask people if they >feel it is a right, they will probably say yes, although it is not explicitly >stated in the Constitution. Which constitution? Scotland doesn't have one. The UK doesn't have one. The local SF club does have one. I hear the United States has one too. Try to remember that this is a planet, not just a bunch of states between Mexico and Canada. -- A Friend of Fernando Poo
janssen@parc.xerox.com (Bill Janssen) (11/20/90)
In article <7209@castle.ed.ac.uk> ercn67@castle.ed.ac.uk (M Holmes) writes:
Try to remember that this is a planet, not just a bunch of states
between Mexico and Canada.
Good point.
I think that this is what makes the privacy discussion essentially
fruitless. No matter how many privacy laws are enacted, there will be
countries that will allow businesses to amass and sell information
about things. And these businesses will be only a phone call away...
However, privacy laws may make the gathering of the information more
expensive, so the cost of providing it will go up, which will provide
some small disincentive for some users of the service. Which seems
good.
Bill
--
Bill Janssen janssen@parc.xerox.com (415) 494-4763
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center
3333 Coyote Hill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304