This school of thought holds that an action is immoral if it does not conform to established rules in that field. It then follows that FBI’s attempt and reported hacking of the suspect’s device was an unethical act. User privacy is one of the promises that the manufacturer of the device made to consumers of their devices. Many users will argue that they chose the devices and services they use because of the privacy they were assured they would enjoy (Chin et al., 2012). Compromising this privacy regardless of the purpose would invalidate their purpose for acquiring the devices. It would therefore be unethical for either the FBI or Apple to attempt accessing the device without its owner’s consent.
Nonetheless, this view of the situation completely undermines the security of the same people who want privacy. Terrorists have been seen to be changing tactics and are today using lone suicide killers to execute their missions. Authorities have admitted that detecting and preventing such missions is extremely difficult without having access to people’s private communications (Giroux, 2016). For instance, the French Police say that they would have been able to detect the Nice terrorist attack by a truck driver that left eighty-four people dead had they access to communications by the attacker. From this event and the US murder that led to the FBI hacking the iPhone, one thing is clear – privacy is to blame. Ethics should not contradict itself; but in this instance, it seems to present conflicting results. If privacy is a good thing, it should not bring about bad consequences. This statement challenges the authority of the deontological approach to the ethical question of privacy. Perhaps, this is the biggest shortcoming of the deontological approach to addressing the ethical issue of privacy in information technology (Milkoreit, 2015).
From a utilitarian perspective (Teleological ethics)
This belief system holds that actions are immoral if their consequences are harmful. In the context of the information privacy, it would be unethical to access private information for use against a person. This interpretation is clearly ambiguous to automatically suit any situation. For instance, in the particular murder case that led the FBI to request forceful access to the suspect’s device, information found on the device would most likely be used against him (Liu, 2015). Some would argue that according to teleological ethics, this forceful access would be immoral because information obtained would be used to harm the suspect. However, such an opinion would be short-sighted. It does consider that information obtained forcefully from the suspect’s device would help serve justice to the slain victim and his family. In this scenario therefore, the dilemma would be in deciding between the suspect and the victim whose interests should be protected first. Assuming both interests are equal, then, the society would have to decide if will lose the chance to fight terrorism or it will fight to protect privacy. The logical choice here is very clear.
With increasing threats to security, privacy cannot stand in the way to ensuring the safety of people because when people are insecure they might not be able to enjoy the privacy. If the problem in this dilemma is decomposed into a matter of priorities, it becomes clear that, if a society must choose, it shall choose security first. Privacy is invaluable, particularly if it is viewed from the sense that is an element of human dignity. Therefore, from a utilitarian perspective, accessing private information for the good of the society is perfectly ethical. For if society is allowed to make choices that harm it, it can be seen to be self-destructive and society shall not be allowed to destroy itself. Ethics does not foresee itself as being a barrier to achieving common good (Akrivou & Sison, 2016).
Conclusion
It is difficult for people to see the need compromise privacy even for their own security. Most users of technology demand to have absolute privacy over their information without considering the impact of such a decision on their security. This view has created an ethical dilemma in emerging issues regarding information technologies. However, it can be concluded that it may not be unethical to compromise personal security for the good of the society. Deontological views suggest that privacy should be upheld regardless of its cost. However, utilitarian ethics have shown that it is important to weigh the costs and benefits of privacy of information before deciding if it can be compromised. From an evaluation of these two ethical beliefs, the utilitarian approach is more practicable in addressing information privacy.
1,212,718Orders
4.9/5Rating
5,063Experts
Turnitin Report
$10.00Proofreading and Editing
$9.00Per PageConsultation with Expert
$35.00Per HourLive Session 1-on-1
$40.00Per 30 min.Quality Check
$25.00Total
FreeGet
500 Words Free
on your assignment today
Get
500 Words Free
on your assignment today
Request Callback
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....
Lock in your expert now.
Pay the rest only after you're 100% satisfied.
Why this is a no-brainer: