Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
SURVEILLANCE
By Cameron, Emma, Nicole & Vince
VUSM 400 The Ethical Life
WHAT ARE THE MORAL CONCERNS
WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO
ACCESS PERSONAL ONLINE
INFORMATION OF ITS CITIZENS?
MAIN IDEAS THAT WILL BE PRESENTED
Trailer - Snowden
The Four Way Method (Truth, Consequences, Fairness, Character)
Most appropriate method of thinking
Overall decision and consensus
References
VIDEO - SNOWDEN
Be honest
Tell everybody what will and won't be tracked and then they can decide for
themselves whether they want to buy an IPhone for example.
Do not go away from what the constitution states. If technology has
changed that much since the constitution was adapted, maybe its time to
reword it?
More than anything, tell the truth. Explain why you need to use tracking for
example and show how it is being used.
As stated before, if people haven't done anything wrong, they wont be as
worried about what information the government holds.
TRUTH THE QUESTIONS TO ASK
Potential Scenarios
Managed and properly maintained
Incorrectly managed (leaks, hacks, lost data)
CONSEQUENTIALISM - MANAGED
CORRECTLY
Golden Rule
Respect & Dignity
Motivated by Goodwill
Enhance or Diminish Autonomy
DO THE SOLUTIONS TREAT OTHERS THE WAY
YOU WOULD WANT TO BE TREATED?
courageously
Is the proposed solution motivated by goodwill?
Will the proposed solution be implemented in a way that helps
build trusting relationships?
CHARACTER IMPORTANT TERMS
Yes No
No
Yes
4th amendment and constitution
Victims feel more safe because
are deceiving
government is making an effort to
protect from criminal activity Individual conversations and
whereabouts are not private
Population has more sense of
security from terrorist Unsure of what is happening with
our information or how it can be
The truth can be found out
used
CRITICAL MORAL ANALYSIS
Truth
Consequences
Fairness
Character
OVERALL CONSENSUS
Method of thinking
Consequentialism
Solution
QUESTIONS?
REFERENCES
Barr, A. C. (2016). Guardians of Your Galaxy S7: Encryption Backdoors and the First Amendment.
Minnesota Law Review, 101(1), 301-339.
BEDI, M. (2014). SOCIAL NETWORKS, GOV ERNMENT SURV EILLANCE, AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
MOSAIC THEORY. Boston University Law Review, 94(6), 1809-1880.
Bellman, Steven, Eric J. Johnson, Stephen J. Kobrin, and Gerald L. Lohse. "International Differences in
Information Privacy Concerns: A Global Survey of Consumers." The Information Society 20.5 (2004):
313-24. Web. 5 Apr. 2017.
Berman, E. (2016). Quasi-Constitutional Protections and Government Surveillance. Brigham Young
University Law Review, 2016(3), 771-836.
Claypoole, T. (2016). Smarter Devices = MoreV ulnerability to Government and Criminals . 33(11), 1-5.
Culnan, M. J. and Amstrong, P. K. 1999. Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness and
Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation. Organization Science 10 (1): 104 115.
DATA MINING, DOG SNIFFS, AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. (2014). Harvard Law Review, 128(2), 691-
712.
Franklin, S. (2016). Big Brother Is Watching You: Government Surveillance Through Cell-Site Location
Information and The Fourth Circuits Attempt To Stop It. Wake Forest Law Review, 51(2), 493-515
Heidel, E. S. (2013). Warrantless GPS Tracking: Who Cares About V ehicle Transponders -- What About
Your Cell Phone?. Journal Of International Commercial Law & Technology, 8(1), 1-12.
Levinson-Waldman, R. (2017). HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT: A FOURTH AMENDMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
ANALYZING GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE IN PUBLIC. Emory Law Journal, 66(3), 527-615.
REFERENCES - CONTINUED
Luiza, S. (2013). A Gov ernment That's All Ears. 126(33), 30-32.
Michelman, S. (2009). WHO CAN SUE OVER GOVERNMENT SURVEI LLANCE?. UCLA Law Rev iew, 57(1), 71-114.
Robis, L. A. (2014). WHEN DOES PUBLI C I NTEREST JUSTI FY GOVERNMENT I NTERFERENCE AND SURVEI LLANCE?. Asia-Pacific
Journal On Human Rights & The Law , 15(1/2), 203-218. doi:10.1163/15718158-15010209
Sarabdeen, Jawahitha, et al. "E-Gov ernment Users Priv acy and Security Concerns and Av ailability of Laws in Dubai."
I nternational Rev iew of Law, Computers & Technology, v ol. 28, no. 3, Nov . 2014, pp. 261-276. EBSCOhost,
doi:10.1080/13600869.2014.904450.
Semitsu, J. P. (2011). From Facebook to Mug Shot: How the Dearth of Social Networking Priv acy Rights Rev olutionized
Online Gov ernment Surv eillance. Pace Law Rev iew, 31(1), 291-381.
Standing -- Challenges to Gov ernment Surv eillance -- Clapper v . Amnesty I nternational USA. (2013). Harv ard Law
Rev iew, 127(1), 298-307.
SUN SUN, LI M, et al. "Online Priv acy, Gov ernment Surv eillance and National I D Cards." Communications of the ACM,
v ol. 52, no. 12, Dec. 2009, pp. 116-120. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1145/1610252.1610283.
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 4 - The U.S. Constitution Online. (n.d.). Retriev ed April 24, 2017, from
https://w w w.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am4.html
Woods, A. K. (2016). Against Data Exceptionalism. Stanford Law Rev iew, 68(4), 729-789.
Wu, T., Chung, J., Yamat, J., & Richman, J. (n.d.). The ethics (or not) of massiv e gov ernment surv eillance. Retriev ed April
24, 2017, from https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/ethics-of-surv eillance/ethics.html