Philosophy 223Technology in the Workplace:

The Concern for Privacy

Morality and Privacy

What is the moral status of the claim to a “right to privacy?” One way to think about it is to remind ourselves of how

rights work: they protect us from vulnerabilities.

All of us have facts about ourselves that, if known by others or in the right circumstance, would make us vulnerable to harm. It is on this basis that something like a right to privacy

is thought to have moral standing.

Clearly, work is one of the circumstances where we could potentially be harmed by other’s knowledge of certain facts about ourselves. Like all rights the right to privacy must presumably be

balanced by the compelling rights of others.

Johnson, “Privacy”

Johnson examines the effects that computers have had on record keeping and as a result on personal privacy.

Examining the justifications for a right to privacy, she raises several issues regarding privacy and the manner in which we use computers in record keeping.

Four Scenarios

Johnson begins her discussion by detailing the sort of concerns that technology in the workplace have raised about privacy.Fund Raising and Potential DonorsTaking Data HomeWorkplace MonitoringData Mining

What concerns do these scenario raise?

Computers have changed record keeping five primary ways

The scale of information has changed.

The kind of information that can be gathered has changed.

The scale of exchange of information has changed.

The effect of erroneous information can be magnified.

Information about events in one’s life may endure much longer.

Why do Businesses Collect the Information?

Institutions justify information gathering by arguing that it helps them make better decisions: i.e. banks make better loans, law enforcement agencies are better able to identify and capture criminals, etc.

The question we have to consider is how do these sorts of considerations balance against the rights to privacy of employees, suppliers, customers, etc.

Arguments for Privacy

Information Mediates Relationships: Control of information is central to the control of relationships and this extends to Individual-Organizational Relationships and thus reduces our autonomy.

Information as a Social Good: Harms our autonomy, when we alter behavior because we know we are being observed and recorded, has the potential to stifle creative and critical activity, aspects central to a flourishing democracy and an important social good.

Thus, privacy should be seen as a competing social good alongside the social goods used to justify the gathering of information such as law enforcement.

Smith, “Internet Content Providers and Complicity in Human Rights Abuse”

Smith examines the recent issues that have emerged surrounding ICPs operating in China. She argues that there is an important difference between active and passive indirect violations of human rights. As a result, she encourages ICPs operating in China to strive for more passive responses to demands that are likely to violate human rights.

Problems raised by internet censorship in China

Regulatory efforts to block access to Web sites, filter information, shut down information portals, and gather information off the Internet on activities of individuals violate basic human rights:

the right to expression

political association

entitlement to privacy in matters of legitimate, peaceful social action.

The Role of ICPs

ICPs have been instrumental in the carrying out of directives of the Chinese government, including: filtering content; turning over personal information in order to aide in

the prosecution of Chinese citizens for unlawful political speech.

What Should the ICPs do?

Complicity: Authorization, toleration, neglect, or assistance in the commission of abuses of human rights by another.

Direct Violations – characterized by the intention to deprive an individual of some human right.

Indirect Violations – violations that would not occur but for adherence to a directive issued by some authoritative individual, organization, or agency. Active Indirect Violations – acts that take positive steps to deprive

individuals of their rights where the extent and methods used in the violation are at the discretion of the secondary party.

Passive Indirect Violations – acts that are compliant to a specific directive issued by a principal authority.

Resistance through Passivity

Since passive indirect violations constitute instances most in line with merely following the specific directives of an authoritative power, these acts are the least morally problematic.

Additionally, by restricting compliance to the most specific demands and requirements some human rights violations may be deterred or prevented.

Thus, ICPs should aim for greater passivity with regard to government censorship of the internet.