Privacy and liberty of individuals - Case Study Example

Ethics Intelligent Test This case raises serious ethical issues concerning the privacy and liberty of individuals, as it is likely to seriously undermine civil liberties. If such a system as Federal Intrusion Detection Network comes into operation, it will undermine the individuals’ right to privacy. The right to liberty is one of the fundamental rights of human beings all over the world. This is a list of rights related to every fundamental right. For instance, related to the right to liberty are rights such as the right to privacy and the right to be independent in ones decisions. When confronted with an ethical dilemma, we need to consider if our action would protect the basic rights of all the individuals involved, and how their well being would be affected by the action. If the government agents are allowed to monitor emails and other private networks, it will violate the individuals’ right to liberty and privacy, which is a serious ethical issue. In this case, the right to privacy comes into conflict with the state’s intention to prevent attacks that could cripple government’s operation and national economy. In such a case, we must analyze which of the two considerations is more important. ‘Privacy refers to the ability of individuals to be alone from the larger society. This “aloneness” may take a number of forms. To be physically left alone, to have a sphere of influence over which one is free from coercion, to have one’s personal thoughts, characteristics and behaviour remain unknown to the rest of society — all these are examples of being endowed with privacy’ (Dodds, 2002). Subjecting all data traveling across private networks to surveillance by governmental agencies seriously interferes with this right. It exposes ones personal thoughts and behavior to the government agencies in a way that violates with the right to privacy. It violates not just the moral rights, but also the constitutional rights as the constitution of every country assigns its citizens the right to life, liberty and property as the most fundamental human rights. Such surveillance programs also carry the risk of information being leaked out and exploited in ways, for which the spy system is not officially intended. For example, such a system which is used for intercepting corporate information might as well steal trade secrets and pass them on to such companies that can benefit from them in unethical ways. These prospects of exploitation make the idea totally unacceptable. Such a spy system will make the lives of people cumbersome. It is likely to violate trade and business ethics because of every possibility of the fact that the spy system might share information with friendly companies, who might use it to their own benefit. One of the most significant interpretations of rights is based on the ethical theory of Immanuel Kant. According to Kant, everyone has a dignity that has to be respect. This dignity renders it unethical for anyone to use or abuse the other against his will. Hence it can be concluded that surveillance program like Fidnet is in utter violation of human rights and is ethically unacceptable from the global prospective. As the spy system is US based, it is likely to make the United States all powerful in business matters, and give it an upper hand to exploit others. The Case of the Sole Remaining Supplier If I am on the board of directors of the transistor company in this case, I will analyze the issue from ethical point of view. Firstly, the moral issue in the situation is to be recognized. In this case, the common good comes into conflict with the legal considerations. If legal considerations are given priority over the good of humanity, a large number of people are likely to suffer irreversibly. Coming to the facts of the case, the common good is that of the humanity in general, and of heart patients in particular, who can have at least have a chance of survival in the face of heart problems. On the other hand, the legal considerations include the fear of a lawsuit being filed against a company which supplies a pacemaker company, for the risks the new technology carries. The two stakeholders directly involved in this case are the pacemaker company and the transistor company. The third and the most important stakeholders are indirectly involved in the issue. They are the heart patients, to which a pacemaker can bring a hope of health and life. There are two available options for acting. One of the options is to stop selling the transistors to the pacemaker company to avoid the risk of being sued. While the second option is to face the risk and continue selling transistors to the pacemaker company as a moral obligation, lest the road to scientific progress should be blocked and the heart patients should be deprived of any chance of survival the pacemaker technology offers. The next stage is to evaluate both the options from ethical perspectives. If the transistor company refuses to supply the pacemaker company, it will be saved from the risk of being penalized in the court of law, but being the sloe remaining supplier, this will rather be an unethical act on its part. It will snatch from the heart patients any chances of recovery, and will hamper technological and medical improvements and research. It will deprive the pacemaker company of a chance to serve the humanity by bringing improvement in its product, which in its perfection can be a marvel of science. On the other hand, if the transistor company decided in the favor of the pacemaker company, it might be faced with legal risks, but it will be a sacrifice for the sake of a common good. It will serve to protect the heart patients’ right to life. Keeping in consideration all the aspects, I will make a decision in the favor of the pacemaker company and will exhort the other members of the board to continue to supply the pacemaker company with transistors to fulfill our ethical obligation to the heart patients, society and the humanity. References Dodds, S. (2002). Privacy and Endogenous Monitoring Choice When Private Information is a Public Good. Retrieved Jun 17, 2009, from . Read More