Who Owns Your E-mails - Case Study Example

The parents' claim that his son's email account should be made accessible to them was bluntly rejected by the Internet giant Yahoo on the ground that it violated the privacy rules (Chambers, Yahoo denies family access to slain soldier's e-mail). The question is whether or not his parents should be allowed access to his email account. The killed marine's father, John Ellsworth, argues that his son's email account, with its complete details, works as a journal for future generations as it provides an opportunity for people to go through the actual words from someone directly on the war front in Iraq (who owns your e-mails Para 5).

Many experts feel that Yahoo management had acted correctly (Leach 12). But, the father seems to be right going by the utilitarian principles as the act of providing access by the Yahoo to the son's email account brigs about certain utility to the family in shape of happiness. Here, the parents of the killed soldier are guided by the family's emotions and sentiments ant that particular act of accessing the son's email account would result in moments of happiness for the family. Utilitarianism, as per the theory advocated by John Stuart Mill, aims at the ultimate utility and happiness of people.

It sustains greatly even if one person derives pleasure from the act of others and on the act of his own (Mill, 10). Mill further says that this great act of providing happiness to others stems gradually through the cultivation of a noble character. There is no need to make a special mention that noble character builds from the fundamentals of ethics. Utilitarianism, therefore, draws its strength directly from ethics and morals. The killed soldier's parents, aghast at their son's untimely death, might have wanted to keep the messages in the e-mail account as memoirs throughout their lives.

From an ethical point of view, the parents of the young American soldier should be provided full access to the mailbox of their son to make them happy. Further, by making the mailbox messages available to the family, Yahoo would lose nothing except being accused by its users of violating the privacy policy. Sure, it can support its case on ethical grounds if it provides access. But, certainly, it is not violating the privacy of others. Knowing this full well, the Yahoo management has refused permission fearing that it may lose popular support.

One may support Yahoo's argument under the principles of negative utilitarianism which prescribes the promotion of least amount of harm/evil or prevention of the greatest amount of harm/evil for the greatest number (Negative utilitarianism, Para 1). Here, providing accessibility to the e-mail only results in happiness to the parents. Moreover, the question of promoting evil does not arise. The company may argue that by denying the access of the mailbox to the parents, it is preventing a possible greatest harm to its greatest number of users.

But, the possible greatest harm indicates a hypothetical tendency and the principles of negative utilitarianism can never be applied in this context as it is not a certainty that providing access to the e-mail.