The more technology is updated the more of a chance our privacy is threatned. What new threats to privacy are likely to develop from new computer and Internet applications in the next five years? Include discussions on Smart-Phones, iPhone, iPad type devices, GPS-enabled vehicles etc.

The rapid increase of technology is also a rapid increase of threats to our privacy. As stated in the book “Computers, the Internet, and a whole array of digital devices, with their astounding increases in speed, storage space, and connectivity, make the collection, searching, analysis, storage, access, and distribution of huge amounts of information and images much easier, cheaper, and faster than ever before” (pg. 47). A lot of this may seem like they benefit us however they threaten our privacy. Threats to privacy include the invasion of our computers, smart phones, iPhones and other GPS devices including vehicles. Information that we put out on the Internet can always be recorded and copied and used for other things. Any type of documents or files such as pictures or videos that we put out on the Internet can be stolen and used for malicious reasons. GPS devices that we use can be used by others to track our every movement and location. With the increase of storage capacity this can lead to more threats in the future because it increases the chances of lost or stolen data. Smart phones, iPhones, iPads, and vehicles that are GPS enabled are a convenience but are not always safe. These devices also allows us to use the web and put just as much personal information on them as we do our computers which increases risk.  Another important thing is that the applications we fill out on the Internet with our personal information like SSNs, address, and phone numbers, the company does not always store this data safely. Information like this is can easily be hacked and used for identity theft.

References

Baase, S. (2008). A gift of fire: Social, legal, and ethical issues for computing and the Internet (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Briefly list and explain the following (a) Right, wrong, and okay; (b) Distinguish wrong and harm; (c) Separating goals from constraints; (d) Personal preference and ethics; (e) Law and ethics.

Right, wrong, and okay

“In situations with ethical dilemmas, there are often many options that are ethically acceptable, with no specific one ethically required. Thus, it is misleading to divide all acts into two categories, ethically right and ethically wrong. Rather, it is better to think of acts as either ethically obligatory, ethically prohibited, or ethically acceptable.” (Pg. 34).

           

Right, wrong, and Okay can be divided into three separate categories depending on the situation. Being right is being absolutely certain that what you are doing is the right thing to do. Doing the right thing is being truthful to yourself and other people. Wrong is never ok nor is it acceptable in my opinion. Okay is neither right nor wrong but it is acceptable at times.

Distinguishing wrong and harm

         “Carelessly and needlessly causing harm is wrong, but it is important to remember that harm alone is not a sufficient criterion to determine that an act is unethical. Many ethical, even admirable, acts can make other people worse off” (pg. 36).

         Causing harm to people is wrong but not in every situation I would say. Causing harm to individuals who are innocent and unable to protect themselves is always wrong. In a situation where a person committed a crime causing harm to someone else or his or her family then in this case I think harm is justified for the person who committed the crime.

Separating goals from constraints

         “Economist Milton Friedman wrote that the goal or responsibility of a business is to make a profit for its shareholders. This statement appalled some ethicists, as they believe it justifies, or is used to justify, irresponsible and unethical actions. It seems to me that arguments on this point miss the distinction between goals, on the one hand, and constraints on actions taken to achieve the goals, on the other—or the distinction between ends and means. Our personal goals might include financial success and finding an attractive mate. Working hard, investing wisely, and being an interesting and decent person can achieve these goals. Stealing and lying might achieve them too. By most ethical theories, stealing and lying are unacceptable. Ethics tells us what actions are acceptable or unacceptable in our attempts to achieve the goals. There is nothing unethical about a business having the goal of maximizing profits. The ethical character of the company depends on whether the actions taken to achieve the goal are consistent with ethical constraints.” (pg. 36.)

         As a company having the goal to maximize their profits isn’t in any way uncommon or ethically wrong. That is the whole point in being in business, to make a living. Achieving goals consistently with ethical constraints gives the company ethical character.

Personal preference and ethics

“Most of us have strong feelings about a lot of issues. It might be difficult to draw a line between what we consider ethically right or wrong and what we personally approve or disapprove of.” (pg. 36).

           

Law and ethics

“Some laws enforce ethical rules (e.g., against murder and theft). By definition, we are ethically obligated to obey such laws—not because they are laws, but because the laws implement the obligations and prohibitions of ethical rules.” (pg. 37).

Laws and ethics sometimes go hand in hand. Laws are supposed to be obeyed because it is ethically right to do so.

References

Baase, S. (2008). A gift of fire: Social, legal, and ethical issues for computing and the Internet (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

What does the term secondary use mean? Give an example.

Secondary use is “the use of personal information for a purpose other than the one for which it was supplied” (pg. 52). Some examples of secondary use include consumer information being sold to marketers to use for various reason running schemes on people. Another example would be the use of information in various databases to deny someone a job or to tailor a political pitch. Information like this is used as secondary information to give employers the information they need to know whether they want to hire you for the job or if they do not want to hire you for the job. The Internal Revenue Service using databases to find various information on individuals is another example. People have little control over the secondary uses of their personal data. The secondary use of individuals’ personal information are used for different uses in different situations. In most cases other examples include data mining, computer matching, and computer profiling.

References 

Baase, S. (2008). A gift of fire: Social, legal, and ethical issues for computing and the Internet (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Re-identification mean? Give an example.

As stated in the book “Re-identification means identifying the individual from a set of anonymous data” (pg. 49). It is the process by which anonymous personal information is matched with its true owner. In order to protect the privacy interests of consumers, personal identifiers, such as name and social security number, are often removed from databases containing sensitive information. This anonymous information safeguards the privacy of consumers while still making useful information available to marketers or data mining companies. An example of re-identification would be posting something on the Internet as anonymous and then having it retrace back to you by the IP address on your computer.

References

Baase, S. (2008). Internet (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. 

http://epic.org/privacy/reidentification/

 

Which kind of ethical theory, deontologist or consequentialist, works better for arguing that it is wrong to drive one's car on the left side of the road in a country where people normally drive on the right? Explain.

  On one hand you have deontologists who follow the rules that are given no matter what. They are all for duty and absolute rules to be followed if they lead to good or even ill consequences in particular cases. They agree that logic or reason determines rules of ethical behavior, that actions are intrinsically good because they follow from logic. On the other hand consequentialists judge acts to be right if the consequences are good and the act as being wrong if the consequences are bad. For this argument a deontologists would say that if it is illegal in that country to drive on the left side of the road where people normally drive on the right side, then it is wrong and should not be done. Also if everyone in that country is clearly driving on the right side then it only makes complete sense to drive on the right side as well to ensure safety. A consequentialist would argue that if driving on the wrong side of the road will lead to bad consequences such as an accident then don’t do it, but if driving on the wrong side of the road does not lead to any bad consequences then it is ok. I myself consider on both sides of the fence I think I would consider myself to be on both sides of the fence because I do believe in following the rules but not so much of going by everything in the book because that doesn’t make it always right. Then again as a consequentialist I do believe that if it doesn’t hurt any body then there isn’t anything wrong with it.

References

Baase, S. (2008). A gift of fire: Social, legal, and ethical issues for computing and the Internet (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.