Freedom of Speech, Privacy and Intellectual Property - Essay Example

Freedom of Speech, Privacy and Intellectual Property Question Hellen Nissenbaum Privacy Paradox Hellen Nissenbaum talks about the privacy paradox, which must be addressed if the issue of privacy can be addressed in a practical way. The paradox she is talking about is the fact that with regard to privacy consent and disclaimers, too much information works against the spirit of privacy and at the same time, too little information works against the same. She is talking about the notice-and-consent approach to addressing information privacy. The notice-and-consent is a concept where the gathers of information are required to notify the owners of information about their privacy policies and then require them (the ones from whom the information is being collected) to consent to the privacy policies. On the one side, when too much information about the privacy policies of the information gatherer is provided, the problem is that the people it is intended for will not be willing to read it, and in most cases even if they read it, they will not be able to understand it especially where too much technical terms are used (Nissenbaum, 2011). On the other hand, if too little detail is provided, there may be some important details which will be left and these details could the ones that are important for individuals to make choices on if they want to give up their information or not. In this case, it then appears that more information is just as counterproductive as little information with regard to the privacy policies notice-and-consent. This then leads to what Nissenbaum calls the privacy paradox. This issue of privacy paradox applies a lot in the internet due to a number of issues. One, most online firms that collect data from the internet users only implement the notice-and-consent in a technical way, only as a disclaimer in order to veil their interests against any legal issues (Wu & Yoo, 2007). Most of them do not try even in the little bit to make it easier for the users to really read and understand the terms and conditions use and the privacy policies that these firms use. In this case, they only provide a long sheet of information that is filled with technical terms and this makes it harder for the readers to read and understand. The way the privacy paradox appears in most online sites is not with regard to too little information but with regard to too much information being used. Most sites only provide a link to their privacy policy page and at the same time also provide the users with a button to click as a way to agree to the terms and agreement. This allows many people to click on the “agree to terms” button without even bothering to read the terms and conditions. Anyway, even if they were to read the terms, they would not be able to understand them and this would then mean that they still would have the option to agree with the terms without really understanding what they are getting into, or forget the services provided by the firm altogether. Although there are few instances in which this leads to adverse results for the users, some cases do occur. At the same time, this kind of environment also creates the right conditions for anyone trying to abuse the trust the people have to end up being successful. Question 2: Adam Moore and privacy theory Adam Moore considers privacy to be necessary for individual to have a quality life and flourish. This argument that he develops arises from a number of factors that he has explained in his article. One, he points to the effect that privacy is as much a property as any physical property. He says that if someone was to take away the physical property of another person, he would diminish the quality of life for that person by taking away his right of controlling that property (Moore, 2010). He argues that the same applies to the privacy of an individual since when it is taken away, he is unable to control that privacy, and thus his quality of life will be diminished. He, however, tries to deal with other factors, such as the fact that the newer generations who have growing in the digital age seem to be less concerned about their privacy. This new generation, he argues, seem to share too much of their privacy with the world. He says that although this can because to shoot down his argument that privacy is a universal need that is necessary for human life to flourish, it would not stand, if critically considered. To make that clear, he argues by giving an analogy and says that if an individual decided to take calories that are fewer than he needs for his body to be sustained, that would not make taking inadequate calories a quality decision. Likewise, he argues that if individuals decide to consume less privacy than they need, that would not make privacy less important. His theory of the role of privacy in determining the quality of life is also expanded by arguing that the need for privacy is the universal requirement for all human beings, not the piracy itself. He argues that the levels and types of privacy as well as the rules that govern this privacy may vary from one culture to another, but the need for privacy remains a constant in all societies and cultures. He even talks about privacy as being a necessary part not only for human but also for non human animals. This theory with regard to personal privacy is valid. Privacy has to do with the dignity of an individual and therefore when it is protected, it leads to higher quality of life and when it is violated, it leads to lower quality of life. This is because humans live in a society where how people regard others depending on what they know about them. For instance, person with alcoholism is likely to be prejudged and therefore his quality of life diminished. It would then be necessary to protect the privacy of such an individual in order to help him have a quality life. Failing to do this wool lead to the person having a low quality of life and this would then mean that the person is not able to enjoy his lifetime and be able to flourish. Question 3: John Stuart on freedom of speech John Stuart is one of the champions of freedom of speech. He has produced many writings on the issue of freedom of speech. Although his argument on the freedom of speech is broad and encompassing a lot of philosophical perspectives they are based on four major anchors. The four major anchors of Staurt’s argument for freedom of speech flow in a semi-logical manner and are as follows; The suppressed opinion could be true and therefore deserves to be heard Stuart (1963) argues that the suppressed opinion could be the truth and that suppressing it will lead to that truth not ever being discovered. He argues that even if the opinion is untrue, it may still contain some amount of truth which could be useful in the quest for the ultimate truth. Most opinions have some amount of falsity Secondly, John Stuart argues that in fact, most opinions, either popular ones or unpopular ones are never completely true, but their collision leads to an end result of a totally true stand point. Consequently, he argues that it is important and important to allow all opinions to be expressed and heard and given a fair chance of consideration since no opinion is ever completely right or wrong. His argument in this second segment of his argument is that all opinions have some amount of lies in them and when bombarded by other opposing opinions, these lies will evaporate and be replaced by some truth, thus making them completely truthful. Without being contended, mainstream opinions are likely to lose meaning Thirdly, Stuart argues that even if the popular opinion be true, and wholly true, it will only be received as prejudice unless it can prove itself to be true by being contended by other opposing opinions. He argues that if the popular opinion (that which almost everybody seems to agree with) can be assumed to be true, it should still be necessary to allow countering opinions because these countering opinions would be necessary to not only test the validity of the popular opinion, but would additionally be used to prove its truthfulness. What Stuart seems to be arguing is that when the right opinion is uncontested, it is likely to end up losing meaning. Therefore, it is only by being contested against and challenged that they can prove themselves to be the right and truthful opinions. Lack of opposing opinion leads to dogma And fourthly, if the popular onion is accepted and the unpopular opinions are rejected and suppressed, the popular opinion will become nothing but just dogma and the recipients of the opinion will never have the benefit of receiving the heartfelt understanding of the opinion. These four arguments about freedom of speech are very valid because of a number of factors. First, despite them being so simplistic and almost commonsensical, they are also well expressed and they hinge on the reality of life. It is not hard to imagine that not all opinions are ever completely true. This can be easily proved by the history of mankind. For instance, over the course of human history, many opinions which were firmly held as the final truth have continued to be changed. Even constitutions of great nations such as the United States continue to be amended over time in the quest to reach that final constitution that is ultimately perfect for everybody. Stuart’s argument seems to ride on this fact, the fact that opinions are never completely true and always need to be checked over time. This could only be achieved when all opinions, no matter how unpopular is given the chance to be heard and considered. Question 4: Barlow, Stallman and Moore on intellectual property rights Barlow argues that intellectual property should not be projected by a copyright since they are not rivalrous and can therefore be used by an infinite number of people concurrently. Stallman seems to agree with Barlow, but with a more elaborate idea on how this intellectual property should be shared. While Barlow argues that this property should be free to use all, Stallman looks at these issues from a different angle of view. He argues that although people should be allowed to use this information, they should only be allowed to use it on one condition, that the resulting work they will produce by using this intellectual property will be also similarly accessible to others (Moore, 2014). This is very important and definitely a much better argument than Barlow’s. If Barlow’s argument was to be implemented, then one could use another person’s intellectual wealth to gain economic benefit to themselves at the cost of the original owner. For instance, one could copy the source code of software made by another person and then use it make money by selling it either after modifying it or without modifying it at all. However, in the Stallman’s argument the person accessing the intellectual property of another individual cannot do this, he can only create another piece of intellectual property that is freely accessible, or only as accessible as the intellectual personality from which it was derived. Moore however has a different opinion. Unlike the utilitarian view that is held by Barlow, Moore believes that intellectual property should be protected by lay law and that the owners of this property must be able to protect their work. Moore belongs to a class of philosophers who believe that privacy and intellectual property protection is important in the protection of individual personality for a human being. He argues that the intellectual work of a person is the extension of the personality of the owner and therefore interfering with this work without his permission would amount to interfering with their personality and privacy. Moore is the philosopher who argued that privacy is necessary for the quality of life to be achieved and for human life to flourish. Moore extends his argument for the right of privacy to the intellectual property rights by connecting the intellectual property to the privacy of an individual. This view of intellectual property is not totally wrong in that the intellectual property of an individual is to some amount of degree a resemblance of their mental faculties and therefore interfering with this is as good as interfering with their privacy. For instance, if an individual writes a piece of software and another person copies this software and modifies it to do something that is not morally right, this may harm the reputation of the original owner of that software. Who is right? All of these arguments and opinions are right in that they address an important aspect of intellectual property. Intellectual property range from the less important to the biggest such a s the trade secrets. While these intellectual properties are all similar, each type may require a unique type of protection and this may be any of the three methods put forward by the three philosophers. However, the Stallman argument is the most useful and practical one. This is because this argument reconsiders the need to protect intellectual property and the need to make intellectual property as accessible as possible. References: Moore, A. (2003). Privacy: its meaning and value. American Philosophical Quarterly, 40 (3), 215-227. Nissenbaum, H. (2011). A Contextual Approach to Privacy Online. Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences,140 (4), 32-47. Wu, T. & Yoo, C. (2007). Keeping the Internet Neutral?: Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo Debate. Federal Communications Law Journal, 59 (3), 575-592. Moore, A., "Intellectual Property", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . Stuart, J. (1963). On Liberty. Boston, MA: Ticknor and Fields. Read More