Privacy Continued

1. More Privacy. (From Baase, 2.36). Philosophers and ethicists often distinguish between positive and negative rights. A positive right is the right to be allowed to do something (for example, the right to vote). A negative right is the right to be protected from something (for example, the right not to be convicted without a trial). Baase provides a longer description on page 35.

Consider privacy, particularly digital privacy, from each point of view and give some examples and/or analogies of what it would mean for privacy to be either a positive right or a negative right. In your opinion, which formulation of privacy is more appropriate and why?

In a world of Facebook, Myspace, Google StreetView, and other social networking sites, personal privacy is quickly becoming a thing of the past. But the more that people are tagging their friends and co workers in photos to share with the world, the more some people believe that we are going in the wrong direction and should pay more attention to protecting personal privacy. The same strange dichotomy can be applied to government activities, especially when looking at the activities of the US government. In order to protect the freedoms of US citizens, the government has decided to curtail those same basic rights to non-native residents and visitors, detaining them for "questioning" for months on end without being charged with a crime. On one hand, the government should be allowed certain leeway to ensure the well being of their citizens, but on the other hand, this country was built on the ideals of being a safe haven to everyone else in the world. Should we compromise our ideals to ensure safety?

I'm sure there is a correct balance between personal security and anonymity, however with the increasingly world-wide data, photo, and information sharing infrastructure that is in place, we are gravitating more towards sharing everything about our lives with anyone who cares to look, while still guarding vital information, such as social security numbers. Personally, I'm okay with the balance that seems to be emerging, but there will always be people who will object to the information sharing.

2. Read Chapter 3 of Cress and write a blog entry corresponding to the first two bullet points in Exercise 3.4 (p38). (you may skip the part about ALPs)

• The assistant chief of police in this story may or may not have personally objected to the mural, however he was most certainly reacting to perceived political pressure that also may or may not have been real. In the modern day and age of being "politically correct," many people are afraid that something under their control may cause a public uproar, offending other people in an unacceptable way. While this is a genuine concern, creative efforts should be left alone as much as possible to make sure that our youth do not grow up being constantly afraid of offending someone else. It is important that people think and decide on issues for themselves instead of simply following the acceptable social norm.

• The United States has been built on the ideas that an individuals rights are protected. This protection has been such an integral part of our ideals that it has been directly written into our laws, however those same laws are also written to make sure that one persons individuality does not infringe upon another persons rights. This balance is constantly examined though lawsuits and bills in our legal system to ensure that it is still meeting the demands of todays society. In the previous example, the needs and liberties of a few individuals (the artists) were being challenged by a representative of the community (the asst. chief). Often in these situations there is no correct answer to this problem, so the wants of individuals are sometimes compromised to ensure that the community is also served.