INFS 1602 Homework week 6

1. We’ve used Kant’s categorical imperative for assessing ethical behavior: Act as if you would have your
behavior be a universal law. As a litmus test, we’ve said that if you’re willing to publish your behavior in The
New York Times, then your behavior conforms to the categorical imperative

1a) Consider the inverse of that litmus test. Is it true that if you’re not willing to publish your behavior in The
New York Times, it is unethical?

-In my opinion, considering Kant’s categorical imperative, if you are not willing to publish your
behavior in The New York Times, then it is considered unethical.

1b) Considering your answer to question a, if data brokers are unwilling to say what data they are collecting
and how they are processing it, is it reasonable to conclude their behavior is unethical?

-In this scenario, although the data brokers are unwilling to say what data they are collecting and
how they are processing it, I do not consider their behavior unethical. The reason the data brokers may not
be disclosing the data they are collecting or the way they are processing it is just part of the experiment.
They are eventually going to disclose their findings from the data that was collected, they just won’t reveal
how they collected the data. I do not believe this practice is considered unethical under Kant’s categorical
imperative.

2. Using business intelligence on purchasing data for targeted marketing seems innocuous. Is it? Using both
the categorical imperative (pg. 16-17) and utilitarian (pg. 40-41) perspectives, assess the ethics of the
following:

2a) Some people, whether from genetic factors, habit, lack of education or other factors, are prone to
overeating junk food. By focusing junk food sales offers at this market segment, data brokers of their
customers are promoting obesity is their behavior ethical?

-In this case, I would say the data brokers are only doing their job by promoting junk food. Under
Kant’s categorical imperative I would say their behavior is ethical. However, when you start looking at this
scenario from the utilitarian perspective, this is not considered ethical. Utilitarianism tells us that a behavior
is only ethical if it maximizes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. We all know the
harm and long term damage eating junk food will have on people, therefore, I consider this to be unethical
from the utilitarian perspective. People who consume large amounts of junk food can suffer from diabetes,
obesity, and heart conditions. Being sick or unhealthy will not make anyone happy.

2b) Data brokers claim they can reliably infer ethnicity from consumer behavior data. Suppose they also
determine that one ethnic group is more likely to attend college than others. Accordingly, they focus the
marketing of college-prep materials, scholarships, and university admissions application on this ethnic
group. Over time, that group will be guided into positive (assuming you believe college is positive) decisions
that other groups will not. Is this behavior different from ethnic profiling? Is it ethical?

-I would say this behavior is unethical under both Kant’s categorical imperative and utilitarianism.
Data brokers will not be willing to admit they are only targeting all their college prep material to a certain
ethnic group. Therefore, it would not be considered ethical under the categorical imperative. Under the
utilitarianism theory, this would be unethical as well because by not targeting all ethnic groups equally, they
are not maximizing the greatest happiness, or the greatest happiness in the greatest number of people.

3. Suppose a data broker correctly identifies that your grandmother is addicted to playing online hearts.
From its business intelligence, it knows that frequent heart players are strong prospects for online gambling.
Accordingly, the data broker refers your grandmother’s data to an online gambling vendor. Grandma gets
hooked and loses all her savings, including money earmarked for your college tuition.

3a) is the data broker’s behavior ethical?

-When looking at this from the categorical imperative, the data broker might be willing to discuss
his actions and publish them for everyone to see, and he might be safe because it is his job to know which
people to market to. However, under utilitarian views, although he is doing his job, he is not being ethical
because in the long run, he is harming Grandma and her family and relatives. He is causing more harm. As
well as Grandma, there are many other users that can get hooked and this will create a chain reaction and
end up harming more people than helping people. In this case the only ones to benefit are the owners of the
online gambling.

3b) Assume the data broker says “Look, it’s not us, it’s our customer, the online gambling vendor, that’s
causing the problem.” Does the broker’s posture absolve it of ethical considerations from Grandma’s losses?

-Just like in the previous scenario, the data brokers are basically saying they were just doing their
job. They can say they did not know what their information would be used for. They will even publish about
their data collection in The New York Times, this will show under the categorical imperative they are being
ethical. The story changes when you submit them to the litmus test under the utilitarianism theory. They
are still harming many people and their relatives.

3c) Assume the online gambling vendor says, “Look, it’s not us, its Grandma. We provide fair and honest
games. If Grandma likes to play games where the odds of winning are low, talk to Grandma.” Assume in
your answer that the gaming company has gone to great lengths to provide the elderly with an emotionally
rewarding user experience for games with low winning odds. Does the vendor’s posture absolve it of any
ethical considerations for Grandma’s losses?

-I would have to say the gambling vendors could keep their stance on how they view their low
winning odd games if they were not providing the elder with emotionally rewarding experiences. These
emotionally rewarding experiences are what keep the elderly coming back to the gambling websites and
makes them want to bid on the different low winning odd games they offer. They should not be enticing the
elderly with the rewards they are offering. This makes the vendors seem like they are only targeting the
elderly because they know how to make their games appealing to the older crowd.

4. According to the Privacy Act of 1974, the U.S. government is prohibited from storing may types of data
about U.S. citizens. The act does not, however, prohibit it from purchasing business intelligence from data
brokers. If the government purchases business intelligence that is based, in part, on data that it is prohibited
from storing, is the government’s behavior ethical? Use both the categorical imperative and utilitarian
perspectives in your answer.

-If the government decides to purchase data from data brokers that they are prohibited from
storing, then they are acting unethically from both perspectives, categorical imperative, and utilitarian. The
government will not be willing to publicly disclose the fact they are purchasing the same data they are not
allowed to store. This is why it is not ethical under Kant’s categorical imperative. If the government is not
allowed to store certain kind of information it must be for a good reason, because it goes against the
citizen’s Privacy Act of 1974. The fact the government is basically finding a way around the act is also
unethical under the utilitarian theory. The government might possibly use the citizen’s private information
for their own good instead of the good of the citizens.