Under What Conditions Can the Privacy of Others Be Invaded, Essay Example

The concept of invasion of privacy is relatively new to legal doctrines and occurs when an entity intrudes upon another’s reasonable expectation to be left alone (RCFP, n.d.). This type of infraction is classified infour main categories:

• Intrusion of Solitudeusually involves cases of “peeping Toms” entities that have illegally intercepted private phone calls, or foraging through another’s private records;
• Appropriation of Name or Likenessinvolves instances where an individual or company uses the name or likeness of another individual, usually a celebrity, for benefit without the permission of said individual;
• Public Disclosure of Private Factsis not recognized in all states and occurs when an individual reveals in publicimmaterial information about another that, although truthful, is offensive to a reasonable person if made public; and
• False Light privacy invasion involves the public disclosure of information that is misleading (or puts that person in a “false light”), but not technically false contain the following elements: (1) a publication by the defendant about the plaintiff; (2) it was done with reckless disregard; (3) it places the plaintiff in a false light and (4) it would be highly offensive or embarrassing to a reasonable person(Bussian & Levine, 2004).

Laws Regarding Right to Privacy

Respecting the privacy of others in the modern age of communication and computing technology is vital because the dissemination of information technology has enabled the collection and exchange of personal information on anunprecedented scale(RCFP, n.d.). The growth of information technology (IT) has also increased the overall potential for individuals to violate the privacy of others(ACM, 1992). As expressed in section 1.7 of the ACM code of ethics, professionals in the IT industry have a duty to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of data describing individuals(ACM, 1992). This responsibility consists of taking safeguards to preserve the accuracy of the information, whileshielding it from access or accidental disclosure to unauthorized individuals(ACM, 1992).

The indications specified in this section of the code of ethics implies that only the mandatory pieces of personal information be compiled in a system with clearly defined and enforced retention and disposal periods and only used for the specific purpose it was gatheredunless specific consent of the individual is provided(ACM, 1992). These principles are especially applicable to electronic communications, such as e-mail, and prevent procedures that record or observeelectronic user data, messages, or system operation and maintenance details without the authorization of users(ACM, 1992). Like all other user information, data acquired during typical system operations and maintenance must be regarded with the most rigorouslevels of confidentiality, except where such activities are evidence of a violation of law, organizational regulations, or this Code and must be reported to the proper authorities(ACM, 1992). Section 1.8 of the ACM code of ethics discusses the concept of honor confidentiality, which expresses how the principle of honesty also involvesconcerns of information privacyin circumstances wheresomeone has explicitly promised to implicitlyrespectprivacy when private information not directly related to the performance of one’s duties becomes available(ACM, 1992). The public has the impression that there is an ethical obligation for businesses as well as the government to respect the confidentiality of employers, clients, and users unless released from such obligations by duties associated with the law or principles withinthe ACMcode of ethics(ACM, 1992).

Social Impressions of Rights to Privacy

The modern technological advancements have provided an array of equipment or applications that provide electronic monitoring and surveillance. Electronic monitoring is currently used by numerous employers to observe their employees’ performance without the physical presence of a person, by law enforcement to track offenders following their release from custody, by security companies in performance of their service to their client’s, and by government or city officials using closed circuit television networks to secure public spaces, such as malls, courthouses, public parking structures, and streets(Michelman, 2009-2010). Many large cities, includingLondon, New York, Paris, and Chicago, have installed electronic monitoring systems in public areas as initiatives geared towards crime-prevention.

In many major cities, high-traffic streets, freeways, parks, busy thoroughfares, and other public areas are monitored by closed-circuit security camera systems (Mosser, 2010). Although some residents feel that these ‘eyes in the sky’ provided through electronic surveillance always watching brings a sense of comfort, others feel as though they are a constant invasion of privacy since surveillance measures should only be engaged when a crime has been committed. While the consensus is that, hypothetically, should an emergency arise, assistance should arrive faster because the cameras can pinpoint the exact location of the disturbance, citizens are still uncomfortable about being watched or photographed without their explicit consent or knowledge, since there is no way to know exactly when or where surveillance cameras are pointed at us. Additionally, many employers watch theiremployees’ communications and online activities, which is typically interpreted as an invasion of their privacy.

Monitoring Systems

The introduction of the CAPPS (Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-screening System) in January 1998 was implemented to prevent future incidents similar to the crash of flight 800 on TWA airlines and the bombing at the Atlanta Olympics (U.S.G.A.O., 2004). CAPPS I was the original monitoring system that usedseveral variables, such as travel history, names, addresses, criminal records, and other non-specificpassenger data, the improved model, CAPPS II,is based on a more sophisticated system of predictive neural-network based software that conducts real-time threat analyses of passengers when they purchase their ticket (ACLU, 2003). The newer system uses the customer’s travel history, credit card numbers, and factors such as the date of the ticket purchase relative to the date of travel, if the ticket is one-way or round-trip, and if the customer paid cash to determine each traveler’s threat level (U.S.G.A.O., 2004). All of the variables are entered into the database by the governing agent responsible for maintaining the system (U.S.G.A.O., 2004).

With the CAPPS II system, passengers are color codedand these designations indicate their perceived threat level, which determines how they will be handled by security such that a red threat level will be strenuously scrutinized by security or barred from flight (ACLU, 2003). The Transportation Security Administration, a division of Homeland Security, implemented CAPPS II, forcing airlines to check passenger’s private information against a comprehensive database including criminal and commercial records at the ticket sale point, and the database also includes records from the department of motor vehicle records as well as a wide-ranging Terrorist Screening Database, although credit and medical records are not supposed to be included (ACLU, 2003).

How Surveillance Invades Privacy

The sensitive nature of the data collected using the CAPPS system is considered as an invasion of privacy since the databases gather private information without the individual consent of the person and uses this data, which may or may not be accurate, to makeinferences about the subject. Furthermore,government agenciesuse this pilfered data to compiledossiers on numerous citizens and accumulate background information about their movements,patterns of behavior, associations, andtransactions (Michelman, 2009-2010). The rapid dissemination of the Internet has provided new forums for criminals and it has also been used by law enforcement,employers, government agencies, and other entities in improper manner (Introna, 2003). Recent surveys indicated that48% of the companies surveyed have video monitoring surveillance to prevent or deter violence, theft, and sabotagewhile over half of the surveyed employers have fired personnel for Internet and e-mail abuse (Introna, 2003). However, most employers inform their employees that there is anti-theft video surveillance and audio and/or video monitoringfor performance review purposes.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees our inherent right to privacy and history has shown that such preliminary interference often preludes other inappropriate actions that invades the privacy of citizens ad diminishespeople’srights (Michelman, 2009-2010).Even though some consider electronic monitoring as something that adds security, misuses have also discredited the potential of this technology since it is commonly used to invade people’s privacy. Many people have been videotaped during intimate activities, such as sex and bathing, without their knowledge or permission. These are two examples of daily activities that many would not like publicized or monitored even though there is no wrongdoing associated such actions. When

Invasion of Privacy versus Protection against Terror

Many who oppose surveillance systems such as the CAPPS system argue that such invasive monitoring did not prevent 9/11 from happening and there is no supporting data stating that the system has preventedany terroristic threats since 1998. Once the system identifies a person as a threat, they are included on the F. B. I. “no fly” list, and barred from flying. Moreover, the invasion of privacy that is purveyed using these systems has no countermeasures in place to avoid the chance of innocent people being misidentified and wrongly flagged as a terroristic threat. Once someone is placed on the “no fly” list, there is no method provided to clear dissuade Homeland Security of the notion that the information is incorrect, so their status as a potential terroristic threat remains. Once systems such as CAPPS II have flagged an individual, every time they try to fly, they will be stopped and searched, or the airline may refuse them the right to board the plane.

For this reason, many believe that surveillance and other types of monitoring are a gross invasion of privacy since there have been many instances when people have been filmed or recorded without their knowledge or consent. Once an image is captured, the owner can do what they please with it and the person has little to no control over it. However, new technology is emerging at such a rapid pace that many laws have yet to include the relative offenses, and this includes electronic monitoring systems (Mosser, 2010). This makes such crimes extremely difficult to prosecute since no laws have been written that declare these acts as offenses punishable by law (Mosser, 2010).

The most interesting application of electronic monitoring software is the facial recognition software. This software can take minute aspects of a facial structure or just a silhouette and reconstruct a likeness from those tiny details. Also, the age-progression software is an amazing feat of technology. Over the years, the technology has gotten so good that the likenesses that used to look like generic faces now look almost like digital photographs. It is very scary to think what damage could and is being done with this technology, in the wrong hands. Since there are many programs that enable the user to construct images of people, crimes involving identity theft will increase, especially considering how easy it is to gain access to these programs.

Conclusion

For many, privacy and security are synonymous, and, in many circumstancessecurity is not possible without privacy. Security provides and enables privacy to exist by giving the person apeacefulenvironment.Many professionals in the IT field state that there is no way to completely secure digital information thatschools, credit cardand telephonecompanies, and millions of other businesses, store on electronic databases. Furthermore, no information submitted over the Internet can ever be completely ‘deleted’, individuals that know how to retrieve this information can access and use it fraudulently. Surveillance and monitoring consistently invades the privacy of anyone in a public place being monitored. However, crime prevention insists that diligently monitoring what transpires with our information in hopes of catching identity thieves before they wreck our credit ratings and pray there are no cameras in the dressing rooms at clothing stores.

In this information age, millions of people carry wireless phones with GPS applications that allow the service providers to know the user’s exactly location and this is just one form of voluntary surveillance millions of people subscribe to every day. Surveillance cameras installed in businesses such as gas stations and in malls observe patrons from corners and storefronts and patrons seldom consider this constant monitoring.When users log onto the Internet from their homes to access their favorite website, the individual seldom considers how advertisers follow their every mouse-click as they surf even when they have programs engaged to prevent such monitoring. The fact that laws had to be created governing the use of people’s private information and the rights of others to access it is proof of the fact that there is a continuing problem regarding how closely individuals are watched and how little privacy ‘free’ citizens have (Beekman & Beekman, 2009).

References

ACLU. (2003, August 25). The five problems with CAPPS II. Retrieved from Amerian Civil Liberties Union: https://www.aclu.org/national-security/five-problems-capps-ii

ACM. (1992, October 16). ACM code of ethics and professional conduct. Retrieved from Association for Computing Machinery: http://www.acm.org/about/code-of-ethics

Bussian, J. A., & Levine, P. J. (2004, August). Invasion of privacy and the media: The right “To Be Let Alone”. Retrieved from The Florida Bar: http://www.floridabar.org/DIVCOM/PI/RHandbook01.nsf/1119bd38ae090a748525676f0053b606/dfc00ac22467b7f5852569cb004cbc2a

Introna, L. D. (2003). Opinion: Workplace surveillance ‘is’ unethical and unfair. Surveillance & Society, 1(2), 210-216.

Michelman, S. (2009-2010). Who can sue over government surveillance. UCLA Law Review, 57(71), 71-114.

Mosser, K. (2010). Introduction to ethics and social responsibility. San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc.

RCFP. (n.d.). Invasion of privacy. Retrieved from Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press: http://www.rcfp.org/digital-journalists-legal-guide/invasion-privacy

U.S.G.A.O. (2004). Aviation Security Computer-Assisted Passenger Prescreening System Faces Significant Implementation Challenges. Washington, DC: United States General Accounting Office.