-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
ethics.html
33 lines (26 loc) · 4.17 KB
/
ethics.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta charset="utf-8">
<title>The Ethical Basis for Privacy</title>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="main.css" type="text/css">
</head>
<body>
<header></header>
<h3><a href = index.html>Home</a></h3>
<h1>The Ethical Basis for Privacy</h1>
<h2><a name="proargs">Arguments for privacy</a></h2>
<p>From an ethical standpoint, one typically considers privacy to be a "good." There are a few arguments to this effect; the first is that privacy is essential for human dignity and individual autonomy. In this frame, privacy is an inalienable right of humans and to deny a person privacy is to deny them their humanity.</p>
<p>Another argument is that privacy is essential for the development of interpersonal relationships; without privacy, one would be unable to form an intimate relationship with another individual. Others take the reductionist viewpoint that one's personal information is one's property, and therefore privacy falls without the bounds of property rights. Utilitarians see a trade-off: the happiness of the individual (attained by increasing privacy) must be balanced with happiness of the masses (attained by decreasing privacy in exchange for security).</p>
<h2><a name="violateprivacy">When can the government violate our privacy?</a></h2>
<p>The government obviously needs ways to circumvent privacy protections when the situation calls for it.</p>
<p>The law handles this through various burdens of proof placed on the agency that wishes to violate a citizen's privacy. A traditional warrant for searching your home or tapping your phone requires law enforcement agencies to show probable cause that the surveillance will turn up evidence of a crime. This isn't a huge burden, but is meant to prevent frivolous and unnecessary privacy violations.</p>
<p>However, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, surveillance warrants can be obtained with a much lower standard of evidence. The law enforcement agency must prove in a closed court that a significant purpose of the surveillance is to gather foreign intelligence, i.e. information about foreign spies, terrorists, or threats. There is no 'probable cause' requirement in these court proceedings - instead the government must show that the surveillance target is an agent of a foreign power.</p>
<p>Law enforcement officials argue that reduced burdens of evidence give them the tools necessary to combat foreign threats while privacy advocates say that these powers are being abused.</p>
<h2><a name="reasonable">A reasonable expectation of privacy</a></h2>
<p>"A reasonable expectation of privacy" is a concept based on hte landmark 1967 Katz vs USA case where the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot violate a person's privacy without a warrant if they have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that situation.</p>
<p>In the modern age, your expectation of privacy is forfeit if you have ‘knowingly exposed’ the information you wish to keep private. Initially this might seem innocuous, but it has interesting implications such as the fact that your trash is generally not protected under the Fourth Amendment - if you don’t shred or incenerate your documents, then you have no expectation of privacy to any information that can be found there. So, if someone steals your identity from documents found in your trash, they can have criminal charges brought against them but you cannot sue them for trespassing or damages.</p>
<p>This also has implications for electronic privacy because email, insurance records, credit records, travel records, phone records, etc... are all freely given to the companies that provide those services. This makes much of that information not protected by the fourth Amendement under current law.</p>
<p>Also, what society deems 'reasonable' can change with social norms and in response to government regulations. For example, the USA Patriot act and other government regulation has changed many people’s conception of what a reasonable expectation of privacy is. By the letter of the law (re Katz vs USA), this could make it legal for the government to more severely invade your privacy.</p>
</body>
</html>