Posted: July 6th, 2015

You’re Well-Being or Your Privacy.

When discussing about a person’s privacy and well-being, we need to discuss the ethics behind domestic surveillance and it’s many interesting issues and views. Everything that is well-thought-out to be ethical will vary depending on the theory or perspective that is chosen to view the issues. The question will be asked and answers will be demand on where should the line be drawn throughout each community, state, country, and even each individual which will also vary. We will consider how much of our privacy we are willing to surrender to protect and serve the well-being of our county as a whole. “Ethics and law might agree that maintaining a delicate balance between privacy and protection is necessary, if difficult. To provide security, law enforcement needs as much information as possible; if threats are known before becoming realities, then the citizens can be protected from intentional harm.”(Mosser 2013).

From a deontology perspective would have us believe there is a legitimate reason why our privacy is invaded. It is try to make us believe that it is for the greater good and that invading our privacy would be greater than the consequence. “Rather than looking at the consequences of an act, deontology looks at the reason for which an act is done, and the rule according to which one chooses to act. Deontology doesn’t deny that acts have consequences; rather, it insists that those consequences should not play a role in our moral evaluation of such acts.” (Mosser 2013). Is the protection of an individual and their property more important than their right to privacy? Image that you were attacked by a criminal on the loose and the event was caught on camera without you or the person committing the act knowing, the video now becomes evidence during the investigation to put the criminal away and help protect the next victim in that area. Also if we take for example, rapist, murder, child molesters that have been released on probation, for their punishment they should be monitored twenty-four hours a day which will help the community in which they live in have some kind of peace on mind knowing that these criminal being monitored so that they do not commit any further crimes. In the case of a video surveillance at an abuse shelter capturing on film the attack of a resident may have saved her life. “The system’s primary purpose is to enhance the security and safety of the residents, staff and premises and its value was made abundantly clear when an incident did occur.”(VMS Helps Domestic Abuse Shelter Enhance Awareness,Protection, 2013).

In Russia during the Olympic winter games, there was much to be desired about the hotel living arrangements. Not only were these issues televised, but there was even particular social media accounts documenting the strange events taking place. Russian government officials claimed they needed to put cameras in the showers because hotel residents would turn the water on and simply leave the room for the entire day. “Yet critics also voiced a different concern: that some of Sochi’s unprecedented surveillance systems outstrip what is necessary to protect the Games from attacks, and seem designed to also sweep up the communications of journalists, activists and even athletes.” (Allen, 2014). A deontology perspective would have been applied in these circumstances because the officials were more concerned about what they wanted versus what was morally and ethically right. A woman reported that she had no running water and when she confronted the hotel staff, they told her they would restore her water but not to use it on her face as it may contain dangerous substances. The deontology perspective is involved considering they were more concerned about their property than their hotel guests.

Now if we look at this from Utilitarianism prospective, we can say that for some people losing a small amount of privacy for the greater good an entire population is understandable. There are occasions where it is surely in the best interest of the general public to use domestic surveillance. In some communities, states, and countries where crimes are being committed every day, it should be acceptable in those areas for the use of an invasive form of surveillance that will prevent crime from happening. Think about these even such as the DC sniper event, the September 11 events, how much of your privacy would you have given up to prevent those attacks from happening? “A program, referred to in leaked documents as “PRISM,” reportedly allows the NSA and the FBI to access “audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs” collected by nine leading U.S. internet companies, including Google and Facebook.” (Gray, 2013). If the NSA and FBI were able to collect data that could possibly prevent another attack, the Utilitarian outlook of this being for the benefit of the group rather than the individual would be apparent. “A natural way to see whether an act is the right thing to do (or the wrong thing to do) is to look at its results, or consequences. Utilitarianism argues that, given a set of choices, the act we should choose is that which produces the best results for the greatest number affected by that choice.” (Mosser 2013). In every country, there are groups of people that are monitored for the safety of others to live without worrying about themselves and their families’ safety. No matter what the intention is as long as the goal benefits the well-being of the people than hurt the general public that it is trying to help, it is acceptable in the eyes of the utilitarian. “Surveillance might also violate the duty-based perspective to treat all people in an impartial way since government surveillance is often targeted at specific minority or radical groups.” (Hughes, 2012). As long as these particular groups have previously proven to be challenging then it cannot be considered an un-ethical approach.

On the ethical relativism side, it can be argued that what is acceptable in one culture, community, state, and the country may not be acceptable in another due one’s belief. In the United States, for example, there are people of higher power that takes advantage of those of the lower class that have Constitutional Rights. We need to put into consideration of other countries that has different view, beliefs, cultures, and right, also where most of our same right that do not exist. They are many people that will argue that traveling to other countries not holds the same right as them is right. They believe that they should still be able to enjoy their rights of their country, but as you know when visiting another country you must abide by their customs and traditions which may be very different than your own. There are many culture and traditions that we cannot change or maneuver around. The cultures and tradition that have women in certain countries to be required to be completely covered to not make the men of that country lust are put in place for a reason. Other county accepts nudity as an inspiration because the body is reflected to be a work of art, and other countries exploit a naked body for no reason. We cannot go to another country and expect them to speak our native language. That is way multiple languages are being tough by different countries to get past the language barrier to communicate with citizens in a more efficient manner. “The view of ethical relativism regards values as determined by one’s own ethical standards, often those provided by one’s own culture and background. Rather than insisting that there are moral absolutes, moral claims must be interpreted in terms of how they reflect a person’s viewpoint; moral claims are then said to be “right in a given culture” or “wrong for a given society.”” (Mosser 2013).

References:

Allen, Kate (2014)Get set for records at Sochi – in electronic spying.

Toronto Star. Toronto Star (Canada). 01/23/2014.

Gray, David; Citron, Danielle (2013).The Right to Quantitative Privacy.

Minnesota Law Review. 2013, Vol. 98 Issue 1, p62-144. 83p.

Hughes, Sunny Skye (2012). US Domestic Surveillance after 9/11: An Analysis of the Chilling Effect on FirstAmendment Rights in Cases Filed against the Terrorist Surveillance Program

Canadian Journal of Law and Society. Vol. 27 Issue 3. 2012, p399-425. 27p Language: English, Database: Project MUSE

Mosser, K. (2013). Ethics and social responsibility (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

VMS Helps Domestic Abuse Shelter Enhance Awareness, Protection.

SDM: Security Distributing & Marketing. Sep2013, Vol. 43 Issue 9, p152-154. 2p. , Database: Corporate ResourceNet