Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Privacy vs. Security - Coggle Diagram
Privacy vs. Security
Bibliography
Tauber, Alan. Stanley v. Georgia, mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/417/stanley-v-georgia.
Maniam, Shiva. “Americans Feel the Tensions between Privacy and Security Concerns.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 19 Feb. 2016, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/02/19/americans-feel-the-tensions-between-privacy-and-security-concerns/.
Swoboda, Kevin. What Privacy Means to Me.
Quarry, Alexandra. Identity Assignment.
Gong, Sheng Dong. What Privacy Means to Me.
-
Sampson, Austin. What Privacy Means to Me.
Carson, Jacob. What Privacy Means to Me.
The knowledge gained from the study of collected information outweighs the importance of the privacy of U.S. citizens. Security is more important than privacy.
-
-
This side of the argument only condones an invasion of privacy when security is at risk. Day to day surveillance that invades privacy without probable cause is unethical.
-
Protecting the privacy of U.S. citizens outweighs the importance of the knowledge that could be gained by collecting and studying information collected about those citizens. Privacy is more important than security.
The US Constitution can be interpreted to grant the right to privacy, therefore an invasion of personal privacy for security could be breaking the law.
-
The Fourteenth Amendment has a controversial interpretation adopted by Warren and Brandeis that gives citizens "the right to be let alone".
Stanley v. Georgia: The Supreme Court recognized the First Amendment claim of the right of privacy and ruled that, "the state has no right telling a man what he can read or watch in his own home" (Tauber).
The Third Amendment says that soldiers will not be quartered in ones home, a right to privacy at home.
-
The Fifth Amendment can be viewed as providing citizens with privacy to their thoughts and knowledge.
Personal privacy is necessary to the well being and safety of citizens, more so than at the national level.
Personal information that is crucial to protect includes, "most importantly personal finances, social security, tax, and job information" (What Privacy Means to Me, Sheng Dong Gong).
-
-
Defense: The knowledge gained from the study of collected information outweighs the importance of the privacy of U.S. citizens. Security is more important than privacy.
Act Utilitarianism: If more good is done by invading privacy then harm, it should be allowed. As long as personal details are not exploited, invading personal privacy can help to combat and prevent plots of mass destruction and criminal activity that harms others.
Some people accept that their privacy is invaded and don't worry or even appreciate the reasons for it. One student commented, "So yes, my privacy has been violated. But it’s never been anything that I’ve ever really worried about" (Identity Assignment, Alexandra Quarry).
This indicates that if an invasion of privacy is limited to those only trying to protect and serve us as a society, then people may just ignore it or accept it. By those grounds, if it doesn't affect citizens and can prevent detrimental events then it is ethical.
Rule Utilitarianism: If the law prohibits an invasion of privacy then privacy should be respected unless invading privacy is essential to the security and protection of a larger population who needs it.
An example could pertain to a terrorist attack. If the nation could prevent a terrorist attack by the invasion of privacy, either on citizens or the suspects themselves, it would be necessary to do so to preserve the lives of the innocent.
"Pew Research Center surveys since the 9/11 terrorist attacks have generally shown that in the periods when high-profile cases related to privacy vs. security first arise, majorities of adults favor a “security first” approach to these issues" (Maniam).
-
Kantianism: If the intention of invading peoples' personal privacy is for security and to serve and protect each individual then it is justified. This action is not justified if the intention is something that benefits the perpetrator and uses the individual as a means to the perpetrator's desired outcome.
A bad intention which would not be acceptable would be if an organization were to collect and sell data for financial gain.
An example of this is the scandal regarding Facebook selling personal data and profiles to Cambridge Analytica to develop personality profiles. This method of profiling then was used to produce personalized adds to influence voters in the 2016 election.
A good intention would be where the collection of data and invasion of privacy would be to track down and stop a network of terrorist organizations.