Privacy Invasion Technologies - Term Paper Example

Part 1 Word count 2152 Artefact Privacy invasion technologies One of the technologies reported to greatly affect human rights to information privacy is the use of the Identity cards. ID cards are widely used in various ways in virtually all nations in the globe. The nature of the card, its functions, and integrity differs immensely. Whereas most countries have formal, mandatory national IDs use in various ways, several developed countries lack them. For instance, United States, New Zealand, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, Ireland, as well as Nordic nations. These cards are also made for different purposes with the main focus on the religion, race, and politics. The risks of religious discrimination, insurgents, and political extremism have all been a joint motivation for the adoption of the ID systems that would compel enemies of a country into registration, or render them susceptible with improper documents. For instance, in Pakistan, ID cards are employed in the enforcement of the quota system (Trepte & Reinecke, 2011). Most recently, these cards have been connected to state registration systems that in turn create a foundation for governmental management. In these systems, such as, in Thailand, Singapore, Spain, and Portugal, the cards have become just a visible element of much greater system. With the growth of the microprocessor and magnetic stripes technology, the cards may also offer an interface for receiving government services. Therefore, these cards have turned out to be a combination of service technology, and a form of identification. At the center of these plans, there is a corresponding growth in police powers. In fact, in democratic nations, police have a right to demand ID on pain of imprisonment. Besides, in several countries, the systems have effectively challenged on legal privacy grounds. For example, in 1998, the Philippine Supreme Court made a ruling that a national ID system invaded the legal privacy right. In 1991, the Hungarian Constitutional Court determined that a law making a multi-purpose personal ID number interfered with the right of privacy (Ebert, 2011). According to Trepte and Reinecke (2011), another way in which technology invades people’s privacy right is biometrics. This implies the process of gathering, processing and storing information on a person’s physical features for authentication and identification. The most common biometric ID include hand geometry, retina scans, voice recognition, finger prints, and digitized photographs. The technology has achieved the administration of companies and governments since unlike other types of IDs, such as, paper or cards, it has the ability to correctly and closely identify the targeted subject. Biometrics schemes are enforced all over the world. For instance, Spain has started a national fingerprint system for joblessness benefit and healthcare title. Besides, Russia announced its plans for electronic fingerprint system to be used at the banks. Similarly, Jamaicans must scan their thumbs in the certain databases in order to qualify for participate in elections. Germany and France tests are planning to establish equipment that stores fingerprint information on credit cards. The technology is also used in government agencies, retail outlets, police forces, child care centers, and ATMs (Keenan, 2005). Information privacy can also be infringed through communication surveillance. Almost all nations have put in place some type of wiretapping ability over fax, telephone, and telex communications. In several instances, these intercepts are introduced and permitted by law implementation agencies. There are some detected wiretapping abuses in various countries, at times happening on a large scale that involves thousands of illegitimate taps. The abuses always affect any individual related to a government. Targets include student leaders, political opponents, and human rights employees (Ebert, 2011). It is worth noting that law execution agencies have conventionally worked together with telecommunications firms in formulating plans that would produce phones that can be easily wiretapped. These arrangements vary from giving physical access to the police, to telephone interactions, to equipment installation, and to automation of interception (Global Internet Liberty Campaign). In an attempt to reduce these cases, the United States, for instance, has made efforts to restrict the individual privacy and promote the ability of its intelligence and police services to eavesdrop on private conversations. The campaign comprised of two plans including making it compulsory for digital telephone connections, satellite and cellular phones, and all growing communication systems to enable surveillance abilities (Ebert, 2011). The second strategy is limiting the spread of software that gives encryption, a method that enables people to scramble their files and communications in order to bar others from accessing them. Similarly, the United States is in the forefront in the promotion of wider adoption of electronic surveillance and suppressing the bank secrecy regulations. In fact, FBI director, Louis Freeh has traversed the globe trying to promote the utilization of wiretapping in newly independent nations, such as Czech Republic, and Hungary (Global Internet Liberty Campaign). Ethical issues The latest computer technologies used in the collection, storage, manipulation, and communication of data are changing the utilization and dissemination of information. In the process, they tend to cause ethical dilemmas among the users. The efficiency and speed of the systems that include global and local networks, programs and databases necessary in information processing compel people to confront wholly new responsibilities and rights in the information usage and to refocus on code of conduct created prior to the introduction of computers (Global Economics Crisis Resource Center, 2010). Ethics is essential in information systems because information empowers people and progressively, enhances prosperity among the users. Subsequently, advancements in information systems also engage political and social relations and thus ethical considerations in information usage are vital. Electronic systems are currently at all government levels, at workplace, and people’s private lives to a degree that even individuals with no access to them are greatly affected. New legal and ethical decisions are indispensable in the balancing rights and needs of everyone (Stamatellos, 2007). Just like in the latest technological fields, legal decisions are relatively slow in the technical advancements. Ethics tend to fill the gap as individuals negotiate on the best way of using electronic information (Global Economics Crisis Resource Center, 2010). Ethics encompass moral choices that individuals make regarding the community, standards of desirable behavior, and rules that govern members of a given profession. The wide issues concerning electronic information systems comprise of regulation and access to information data misuse, privacy, and global considerations. All the issues relate to electronic databases, electronic networks, and more particularly, geographical information systems. Certain problems in each of the aforementioned three fields, nevertheless, need slightly various types of ethical decisions (Quigley, 2008). Networks attract loyal users that recognize the importance of the new way of human interaction and consider future uses and character of the networks. They have also become widespread and their impact more pervasive, yet they are revolutionizing under the power institutions and people that are considerably new to the systems. Funding that presently comes from commercial, private, and sources, and this shift in financing and possibility of electronic systems has encouraged hotly debated matters. This vary from simple questions of acceptable conduct and their use to more significant issues of communications control, political power, privacy, and equal access (Hongladarom & Ess, 2007). It is worth noting that cultural values and norms define a society’s explanation of a proper behavior. Online codes of conduct are based on the societal norms within which networks are created, but these wider values and norms are usually challenged by the nature of human interaction in electronic networks. Networks exist in various societies with different traditions and values. Computers used are capable of permitting people to do what they could not before anonymously (Global Economics Crisis Resource Center, 2010). Eventually, the latest networks have their unique social history in which somehow distinct norms have been set. The individuals occupying this virtual community tend to acknowledge free expression, individuality, free information exchange, anarchy, as well as non-compliance with as compared to other groups. Desirable conduct on the networks, thus, has slightly varied standards. This is subject to change with the entry of others users in the networks (Hongladarom & Ess, 2007). Yet, these less traditional internet codes of conduct have been strictly protected by old users of the network. These users ordinarily are individuals with strong feelings regarding the life’s shape on their different networks and its future shape. Besides, new internet users and distinct smaller systems must know that they are joining a modern social community (Reynolds, 2014). What is more, Floridi (2013) asserts that internet usage requires netiquette, which implies the appropriate behavior on the systems. Netiquette is an issue of common sense and one considering the context of the conduct. The system’s focus on free expression has implied that what may be seen as rude elsewhere will usually be tolerated on different networks so as to safeguard the individual’s principals of expression. In fact, groups discuss all imaginable topics, obscenities are noticeable on certain parts of the system, and pornography is widespread. Instead of squashing uniqueness with wide regulations, system managers have since seemed to negotiate or referee particular circumstances in which conflicts happen. Nevertheless, actions that would be doubtful offline must be handled with some view and stored to certain parts of the systems, such as, in bulletin boards made for particular purpose, where those that might find them offending can avoid (Quigley, 2008). It is also imperative to note that those activities that may offend users often happen when the abilities of computers for permitting instant, efficient communication and allowing access to other individuals’ networks are misused. For example, sending a confusing message to others with an e-mail address at a domestic state university is not perceived as proper although computers do that effortlessly. Unsolicited advertising is particularly disliked and will always get an unsolicited response (Reynolds, 2014). In order to effective use the internet and ensure information privacy, the following guidelines are essential. It is essential for users to avoid wasting other users’ time, threatening or disrupting them. They should also avoid taking up systems storage space with unnecessary large downloaded files. Using other people’s files or systems without permission is also illegal. It is also vital to add smileys and emoticons and expressive symbols in order to clarify information meaning (Himma & Tavani, 2008). Moreover, Quigley (2008) says that since online communication lacks the tone, body language, and facial expression, it is crucial for the users to write clearly, spell correctly, and adopt good grammar. Ethical usage of information in the internet also involves users avoiding personal attacks. This is because flaming mostly results in wars and interferes with rational discussions. It is also critical for users to avoid hatred as they may be banned from the systems. Besides, to enhance clarity, users should incorporate e-mail addresses. Shouting needlessly, for instance, by using capital letters is undesirable (Global Economics Crisis Resource Center, 2010). Suitable use policies Use policies differ across networks. Systems that jointly create the internet have various functions, and they permit a passage of various traffic. Individuals that communicate via these systems should learn what each network allows them to do. For instance, commercial systems cannot be used for education and research purposes. These regulations currently exist due to education and research networks aided with public money. Nevertheless, these will be supported by private funds in the future (Dudley, Braman & Vincenti, 2012). On the other hand, commercial purposes will get more famous aspect on the internet. Most of researchers using internet are presently concerned with transition from public to private financial aid. They view commercial functions, such as advertising, as interference on attention and time of individuals at work. The degree of hostility towards such purposes is becoming higher; thus, the way research, commercial, or education purposes will combine is uncertain even as public financing becomes unclear (Hongladarom & Ess, 2007). Another way of using information systems ethically is through written guidelines that highlight restrictions and permissions. Different systems have established written statements that outline the kind of traffic to allow. Most people just state the function of a system at hand and limit users on the purpose. Majority others clearly forbid frivolous, disruptive, obscene, and illegal communications, accompanied with different forms of harassment. Besides, others just attempt to balance free information exchange via the internet, with regard to unfair utilization of what is freely given (Torremans, 2004). Conclusion Evidently, the issue of information privacy is of great importance to every individual in the world. Despite its numerous advantages, the fast growth in technology tends to accelerate the cases of information privacy invasion in the globe, today. People’s information privacy is under threat since most of the communication systems are interconnected and contain individuals’ personal data. Therefore, vital personal information concerning health, family, financial accounts, education, and business are frequently accessed and abused by unauthorized persons or groups. Consequently, this violates human rights to privacy. Therefore, in order to promote information privacy, it is critical that individuals, government agencies, businesses, and groups observe ethical provisions regarding the handling of personal information. References Quigley, M. (2008). Encyclopedia of information ethics and security. Hershey Pa: Information Science Reference. Pp. 516-520. Reynolds, G. (2014). Ethics in Information Technology. New York: Cengage Learning. Pp.134- 140. Stamatellos, G. (2007). Computer ethics: a global perspective. Sudbury, Mass: BostonJones and Bartlett Publishers. Pp. 1-35. Torremans, P. (2004). Copyright and human rights: freedom of expression, intellectual property, privacy. The Hague New York: Kluwer Law International. Pp. 1-30. Trepte, S. & Reinecke, L. (2011). Privacy online perspectives on privacy and self-disclosure in the social web. New York: Springer-Verlag. Pp. 40-70. Part 2 Word Count 1082 Critical evaluation . There are several cases of information privacy invasion in various parts of the world, which have left negative effects on people. Information privacy is a human right, and requires strong ethical considerations. This section intends to explain the selected human rights topic and elaborate on various aspects of the work. Human rights and information privacy As per Holtzman (2006), privacy is an essential human right acknowledged in the Declaration of Human Rights in the UN, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in several other regional and global treaties. Privacy reinforces human dignity and other vital values including free speech and expression. This has also turned out to be very significant human rights matters presently. The documentation of report shows the increasing prominence, complexity and diversity of the right. The fast information technology development and its ability to gather, analyze, and spread on people has led to urgent demand for laws. Additionally, Moore (2005) says that latest developments in medical care and research, telecommunications, financial transfers, innovative transportations systems have increased the amount of information made by every person. Computers connected together by high speed systems with developed processing networks may create complete databases on any individual without a need for a central computer network. Advanced technologies created by the security industry tend to spread into civilian agencies, law enforcement, and private agencies. As per opinion polls, there is a greater concern regarding privacy violations than in the past. Consistently, populations across the globe express concerns on the privacy encroachment, motivating an extraordinary number of countries to make laws that particularly protect the citizen’s privacy. Human rights organizations are worried about the fact that technology is being spread to developing nations that have inadequate protections. Presently, there are obstacles to the profession surveillance systems. It is also general wisdom that capacity, speed, and power of information systems are growing rapidly. The degree of privacy invasion or the possibility of invading privacy is also increasing (Wellman, 2005). As Tavani (2011) argues, beyond the apparent aspects of cost and capacity, there are various trends that promote privacy violation. Firstly, globalization enhances privacy violation by removing the geographical restrictions of the data flow. For example, the growth of the internet demonstrates how globalization accelerates the privacy infringement. Secondly, information privacy violation is also promoted by convergence. This is possible through the elimination of obstacles between networks. Current information systems are progressively interoperable with other networks, and may mutually process and exchange various forms of information. Besides, multimedia combines many types of expression and transmission of images and information to ensure that the information collected in specific form may easily be changed into other kinds (Global Economics Crisis Resource Center, 2010). With reference to the human rights, privacy is categorized into information, bodily, communication and territorial privacy. The current privacy benchmark at a global level may be found in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights that particularly safeguarded communications and territorial. The article states that no individual must be subjected to random interference with his family, privacy, correspondence, and home, not assaults on his reputation or honor. Everybody is entitled to the safeguarding of the law against these attacks and interferences. Many global human rights agreements provide particular reference to privacy as a human right (Lauren, 2011). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), UN Convention on Protection of the Child, and UN Convention on Migrant Workers use a similar language. Regionally, the rights are being enforced. The 1950 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms articulate the people‘s rights to respect the family and private, his correspondence and home. It also prohibits any disruption of public authority with the right unless specified by law in a democratic country with reference to public security, national safety, or economic welfare of the nation. It also allows privacy invasion during crime prevention, health and morals’ protection, and others’ freedom rights (Solove, 2004). Additionally, the Convention established the European Court of Human Rights and European Commission of Human Rights in order to oversee implementation. Both of them have actively participated in the implementation of the privacy rights and have constantly perceived the article’s protections widely and limitations narrowly (Morsink, 1999). Dealing with privacy issue One way of maintaining information privacy in firms is by complying with laws and regulations created. Firms should abide by the Data Protection Act as well as the Housing Act 2004. However, there no standard on information security that helps to protect housing associations. Electing a competent data protection agent at the top level in order to promote information privacy and management presently and in the future is crucial. According to George (2003), organizations should always create and encourage a philosophy of privacy among its employees. This can be done effectively by ensuring cultivating a notion of information privacy from the top management to the junior workers. Because of their fiduciary duties the obligation of care for the board of directors and CEOs comprise of responsibility for safeguarding both organization and personal information systems (Jørgensen, 2006). Early studies revealed that the senior management’s values affect the organizational results since the executives hold the status essential to impact crucial organizational activities. Consequently, managers will capitalize on policies, ethics programs, and structures so as to show their dedication to moral obligation. Nevertheless, firms have sluggish to take up the responsibility. In addition, implementing privacy control processes is highly indispensable. Firms could wrongly assume that complying with privacy laws encompasses a condition in which proper regulations have been put in place at a given time (Solove, 2004). Nevertheless, such an opinion presumes a fixed world. Rather, businesses require governance processes in order to ascertain that privacy conduct is in conformity with the relevant laws, and that privacy platforms correctly reflect their preset risk environment and their information practices. Also, firms may improve their privacy platforms by implementing a total governance structure that involves both the senior management and the board, and the workers using and managing information (Holtzman, 2006). What is more, it is critical to avoid decoupling in an attempt to enhance information privacy. State and federal courts, privacy advocates, and researchers similarly have discovered that privacy issues are naturally personal. However, firms tend to be incapable or reluctant to consider them private. Usually, companies tend to use multifaceted processes to handle personal privacy matters, decoupling real practice from corporate structures when interests of the institutional environment seem to contradict managerial expectations (Freeman & Peace, 2005). References Freeman, L. & Peace, A. (2005). Information ethics privacy and intellectual property. Hershey, PA: Information Science Pub. Pp. 1-25. Holtzman, D. (2006). Privacy lost how technology is endangering your privacy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 20-60. Solove, D. (2004). The digital person: technology and privacy in the information age. New York: New York University Press. Pp. 1-30. Jørgensen, R. (2006). Human rights in the global information society. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Pp. 131-150. Morsink, J. (1999). The Universal Declaration of Human Rights origins, drafting, and intent. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Pp. 250-280. Lauren, P. (2011). The evolution of international human rights: visions seen. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Pp. 1-50. Tavani, H. (2011). Ethics and technology: controversies, questions, and strategies for ethical computing. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley. Pp. 20-50. Wellman, C. (2005). Medical law and moral rights. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer. Pp.138-150. Moore, A. (2005). Information ethics: privacy, property, and power. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Pp. 390-405. Read More