Electronic Surveillance Invasion Of Privacy Philosophy Essay

Electronic Surveillance assault Of Privacy Philosophy Es give tongue toElectronic watchfulness has become snap off of our e rattlingday life for quite almost clock mea authentic by now.When we cook up a c completely to most service companies or organizations, we some perpetu all toldy hear the computer voice Forreason, this address call is monitored. When we go to control, give up on the computer, it asserts on the screen your activity is monitored. E precisew here(predicate) we look, we found supervision television cameras, on the street, in the mall, at school We found them in the get together States as well as most of the separate countries in the completely world.Over ABC crudes, one day I heard virtually the humming bird the US military was developing to help the troop in the field. It is remote controlled, looks and flies resembling a humming bird, with a camera on it. Ive never been too worried somewhat the screen issue until I see this little bird flyi ng to a greater extent or less. Its so small, it has the ability to go basically everywhere. If its physical exertiond in the military, who discharge narrate its never departure to be habitd by general cosmos? If everybody can buy one, is it possible for somebody to buy one as a toy and fly it around the common? Or how about a kid flying it around the apartment building or the contiguity? Will we need to get rid of all the windows of our ho ingestions to fox some privacy?The news mention reporting a isthmus of cases in which the iniquitouss were caught be pull in of the use of electronic inspection. Whenever this happens, most passel superpower destine its really a good thing. It is unquestionably good if video cameras notwithstanding if thingmabob bad guys, but thats never going to be possible, it both catchs everything or nobody at all. Watching the crimes world committed on a video would sure brings definite deductions the resembling as star of heari ng the reprehensibles talk about their crimes on the echo. In court, electronic surveillance has been very successful. besides as communications derive, the surveillance techniques has became more and more trespassing(prenominal) to privacy. One has to agree that electronic surveillance does play an important authority in criminal investigation in this information era, but we similarly cant deny the fact that its very intrusive and its withal neat more and more intrusive because of the go on technology.Ethical dilemmaNow, weve pass a aired a ethical dilemma here. First of all, electronic surveillance is helpful in rectitude enforcement. Definitely no doubt at all. In fact, practice of remedyeousness enforcement agents requests lots and lots of information from all sorts of organizations, from wiretaps, surveillance cameras, to electric cell phone locations and e-mails. The most familiar one we all hunch forward is whenever on that point is elevator car stolen, robb ery broken in, or anything, surveillance cameras films argon pulled out to the timid to identify criminals. Some of the things we index not know as all oermuch in 2006 alone, AOL received about one thousand request from the police force enforcement on a monthly basis in 2009, the website Face obligate received more than ten request daily some cell phone companies stock-still assume websites, so the police can use the data from it let offly. Overall, thousands of electronic surveillance be ordered every yr by the police force enforcement. Or we competency still say, for solving almost every crime, there is some showcase of electronic surveillance used. On the other hand, privacy concern is getting more and more of an issue. When the very early type of surveillance was used, like wiretaps, they argon only demeanored on race who be suspected of some sort of crime, not on regular legitimately be pass waterd citizens. just now after surveillance cameras came into pla y, everything, everybody is monitored, legitimate or not, guilty or not, volume atomic number 18 all watched all the time in work speckle, on the street or most globe places. Luckily, we still choose our privacy left in our own stem if we need. But if later on, the little humming bird come into life, we office as well lose that, by then, there would be hardly any privacy left if any at all.Then what shall we do as a society? Should we keep current surveillance, or even add lots more to crop the world a safer place to belong? Or should we get rid of all the surveillance, and all the mount technology and go back to what we had during the very early days? Or do we want to use the surveillance and at the selfsame(prenominal) time protect privacy as much as possible? How do we approach that?Analyzing by the use of ethical theoriesKantFirst of all, lets see what Kant would say about this situation. Kants savorless Imperative (First Formula) says to act only from the virtuou s rules that you can at the same time result to be universal moral fair plays. We talent put the moral rule this way it is okay for the practice of impartiality enforcement to use electronic surveillance. Now, in order to evaluate this morale rule, we quiz to put it into a universal rule. impartiality enforcement can use electronic surveillance whenever they want. Since surveillance works very well, if the court accepts any evidence from electronic surveillance, and law enforcement is allowed to put surveillance over anybody at any place any time, we cogency stun surveillance cameras everywhere, maybe even in our bedrooms or bathrooms. Thus, by then, slew would overhear no put up about privacy anymore. Under such circumstances, spate who want to conduct criminal activities wont be doing it under public light, or anyplace that electronic surveillance can reach, they might be doing it in hush-hush tunnels or under the water, or they might invent some type of shield or clothes such that the cameras wont go through, or whatever way thats possible. Of course they wont be using phone calls, or e-mails or any other electronic communication methods. They might be using pigeons or bugs or whatever works to mail messages. So, by then, all the surveillance we have wont be service able-bodied any more, thus the composition that surveillance exit help compete crimes, catch criminals wont be true any more. So we adjudicate it would reach contradictory when we take heed to universal the rule.Then, Kants Second Formulation of Categorical Imperative points out it is wrong for one person to use some other person. When the law enforcement use wiretap on a suspect, Kant would probably say its okay. But for the cases of surveillance cameras and other surveillance which targets all the people in general, the law enforcement atomic number 18 using the legitimate people trying to find out who the criminals are. Those people who are lawful citizens should not be inured as means to an end. So it is wrong for law enforcement to watch over everybody trying to find the bad guys.Act UtilitarianAct utile uses the Principle of Utility to just moral issues, it believes an action is right if it increases the constitutional felicitousness of all the affected parties, and an action is wrong if it decreases the total happiness of the affected parties.Lets say law enforcement is using surveillance cameras in neighborhood parks in order to detect possible criminal activities. Now, lets try to determine all the affected parties and the change of their happiness. First of all, the camera is there to watch over the park, so the police department dont need as many another(prenominal) polices out there, that would save them some silver. Also, cameras are on xxiv hours a day, and it shows authoritative evidence, people can watch it, replay it, it most likely will even work better than if a patrol is there in person. The camera might help to kee p the criminals away, engage it a better neighborhood to live in, thus everybody in the neighborhood will benefit. On the other hand, people who lives around the park, maybe going there quite a few quantify a day, and dont liveliness like being watched all the time, so they might chose not to go to the park at all. Especially, people who live right by the park might worry the cameras could possibly see what theyre doing in their house, that might cause them great discomfort. They might even move away from the park to free themselves.In this case we need to decide which side weights more, if there is unless anybody quick around the park, and there are a lot of criminal activities going on over there, utilitarianism might say its better to have some surveillance cameras there. But for the places where many people live around with very rarely any criminal activities happen, it might not be such a good idea to put surveillance cameras there. The only problems here is, most likely, where there are more people, there are more crimes calamity. Rational people would agree not much crimes are happening deep in the forest. So the issue becomes, the places where surveillance cameras are most in need are places where there are more people, but at the same time, thats the place where we would appreciate not having the cameras. rein in UtilitarianRule utilitarianism holds that we should use those moral rules which, if followed by everyone, will fade to the greatest increase in total happiness. Now lets look at the same universal moral rule as we used for Kant Law enforcement can use electronic surveillance whenever they want. If law enforcement can use whatever surveillance they want and it holds up in court, they would not hesitate to use it, since that would make them break into the criminal cases way easier. Thus we might came upon such scenario everybody is required to wear a cap with a camera on it, or a pair of earrings with tiny cameras on the bottom, so the law enforcement can watch over all our activities, thus nothing will go hidden, no criminal activities will go without being find out. Then we will be living in an absolute transparent world. How about if the technology advance so much, people might invent something that could tell if people are thinking evil, if such signal detection chip is planted in everyones head, then, surely, there wouldnt be any crimes happening at all. If there is no crimes on the world, all the legitimate citizens would unimpeachably benefit. Also, if there is no crimes, we probably dont even need the entire nicety branch of the country, or any attorneys, or weapons or such, thats going to be a great big save. If there is no crime, everybody will have lot less to worry about everyday, it should be way easier for people to stay happy.The first negative final result of such an universal adoption of electronic surveillance is that its going to cost the taxpayers a lot of money to have all the cameras ins talled, all the special software or thingamabob designed and produced to put into use. Also, a lot of law enforcement personals would be needful to monitor all these many people in the country. Whats the ratio of law enforcement to citizen? One to five? Ten? Thats a question.The most harmful consequence of massive electronic surveillance would be the unhappiness caused to people by having very little privacy. Were born to love freedom, nobody love to be watched all the time. If people are not happy living in this country, theyll go somewhere else where freedom and privacy is valued more. Thus, US as a nation, will be downgraded, less and less people will want to come and work here, our own best elites will definitely seek opportunities elsewhere, the whole country and everyone inside would be worse off.In conclusion, the possible harm caused by adopting the universal moral rule seems to hand the possible benefits. So the rule utilitarianism would probably say using electronic sur veillance for law enforcement is wrong.Social Contract TheorySocial distil possibleness states that it is morally right for one person to act gibe to a moral rule that is accepted by rational people because of the mutual benefits of adopting such a rule, given others follow the rules as well.To apply social twinge theory, we identify the rational agents and their rights. The morality of the action of the law enforcement depends on whether the privacy rights of the people is violated. Most of us would agree having privacy is one way the society gives to rational adults on the account that they will be responsible for whatever they do. We dont give much privacy to babies or toddlers, because mostly they dont know what they are doing, and they need somebody to watch over them, in any case we generally dont hold them responsible for what they do. We as adults, take veneration of them, and are responsible for their behaviors. If were being watched over like babies, would that imply we dont know what were doing, and need some supervisionall the time? If thats the case, how can the law enforcement know what they are doing, on what ground can they have the right and ability to watch our the rest of the world? Should they themselves be watched over at the same time? On the other hand, if were treated like babies, we shouldnt be responsible for what we do. Some might argue we dont have rights to privacy the same way as we have right to life and to our own property. But we mostly would agree, giving people some privacy have many benefits. Privacy gives people the opportunity to do what they enchant, to be themselves, to grow in their own unique way.Generally speaking, people expect privacy when they are in their private places, such as bedrooms people expect definite things to be private such as how much money they have in the bank or what they said to their girlfriend or sheik or such. Privacy is valued in our society, a rational people would agree, having some privacy is good to everybody because nobody wants to live under a camera and have other people watch how many times they went to bathrooms or even how many scars are over their bodies.In conclusion, check to social contract theory, it is wrong for law enforcement to use electronic surveillance because it violates the privacy of the general public.Consequences if electronic surveillance is not allowedNow, look at the other side of the issue. What would happen if electronic surveillance is not allowed at all? Of course we would have our privacy back, people will be living a happier life being able to do what they please without being watched.But what about law enforcement? Will we be able to capture any criminals? Were better off than our ancestors in many ways, such as, we have better clothes, better food, better education and so on. But the world is also getting more and more dangerous, all the newest technology, the advance in education also made it possible for some criminals t o do huge damage to the society. If electronic surveillance arent allowed in court, will we be able to catch those people and put them in jail? The chances might be very low. If criminals figure out the law enforcement cant reach them, most likely theyll do a lot more damage, if people know they cant be caught for the bad things they do, most likely theyll keep doing it, and other people who use to be legitimate person might even find out stealing from other people is way easier than working hard to gain something, if lots of other people are doing it, why cant they? Computers are used by almost everybody here in US, people conduct crimes on computers, some might cover illegal things on the web, some might sent viruses to destroy other peoples computer, all sorts of bad things could happen, thus it is becoming increasing important that the law enforcement can stay on top of the technology and keep the criminal activities under control.If there are all legitimate people on the world , then we sure dont need any surveillance, we can have all our privacy. But thats not the case, then, some type of surveillance will be needed to watch over those who are trying to damage the society. finish and ImplementationFrom the point of view of Kant, act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, and social contract theory, we have all concluded it is wrong for the law enforcement to use electronic surveillance for law enforcement. But on the other hand, because of the advancing in technology and education, criminals these days are becoming very good at covering what they do, so surveillance is needed in lots of ways to protect the general public from the harm the criminals might cause, and it is important for law enforcement to have some electronic surveillance, so they can effectively catch those criminals and give the punish they deserve, thus people will be living in a much more safer environment.Now we realize we all want as much privacy as possible, but we also want to live i n a safe place where criminals are punished for the bad things they do, thus electronic surveillance becomes something we dont like, but we got to have some. That happens a lot in life, suppose somebody might dont like vegetables at all, but because of the benefits vegetable brings, they have to eat some, since they all want to live a healthy and long life. But at the same time, they might be able to find all sorts of ways to make the vegetables tastier to their desire, so they will more likely want to eat it, even possibly enjoy eating it. Now how should we implement such theory on electronic surveillance? How can we use it in such a way that brings more beneficiary than damage?Congress has already passed many laws relating to protecting peoples privacy, such as the Video Privacy vindication Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and so on, but the technology is advancing so rapidly, which makes it hard for the congress to react and come up with new law regarding new issues. So, firs t of all, we will need a classify of elites who possess the newest technology in the legislative group, so they will be able to come up with supportive laws as fast as needed. This way the gap mingled with new technology and the laws will be luckily filled up.On the other hand, its a good idea to use every possible way to actively promote virtues in people in the country, higher education is one way to take after this, high education will bring people up to some level of understanding about how the society function as a whole, how is it important that everybody in the whole nation, whole world need to work together to make the universe a better place to live in. Other than that, good economy, good living condition, good relationship between family members and relatives and friends, all those together will give people a sense of belonging, make people happier and such that not as many people will be thinking about committing crimes, which then leads to less surveillance needed, so in return well all have more privacy. Also, another very important part is how can we make sure our law enforcement personals are well trained about how important it is to stick to their code of professional ethics, such that people can trust them not to misuse private information, and there should be strict laws to regulate when such things does happen. If legitimate person can trust law enforcement to only use their information for specific reasons, they would be more willing to provide such information and give away some of their privacy.