Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!falstaff!long
From: long@falstaff.crd.ge.com (Andrea M Long)
Newsgroups: comp.society.futures
Subject: Privacy
Keywords: privacy
Message-ID: <13930@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 16 Nov 90 15:09:55 GMT
References: <_&_^R9#@rpi.edu>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Reply-To: along@pawl.rpi.edu ( Andrea Marie Long )
Distribution: comp
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Lines: 59

I would like to pose a thesis for discussion:

One of the big ethical issues facing computer professionals today
deals with privacy.  The privacy issue has intensified with the advent
of large centralized databases used by various agencies such as:
insurance and credit companies, the FBI, and even the link between state
Motor Vehicle Departments.  This brings up concerns such as the harmful
effects of incorrect information, and the control of just what information
is allowed to be known.

Just what DOES privacy embody?  Is it a right?  If you ask people if they
feel it is a right, they will probably say yes, although it is not explicitly
stated in the Constitution.  In an attempt to clarify this, James Rachels(1)
poses that privacy protects the notion that a crucial part of our lives is 
that our relations with others are organized.  This has a problem, however,
without the control of information, the organization mentioned above cannot 
be maintained.  In addition, our behavior in certain relationships has a
direct correlation with the amount of information we allow the other
party to have about us.  We feel that if someone were to obtain information
about us without our knowledge, our privacy will be violated.  As a result
of this violation, the control of information has passed from our 
supervision, our control in the relationship is broken down and we are
therefore at a disadvantage.

Conversely, Alan Westin(2) proposes that privacy is a right for an 
individual to decide for himself, what parts of himself will be exposed to 
theg eneral public. ( An exception being when those parts are harmful to
the interests of society )  Westin clarifies this by saying that privacy
protects the "core" self and that we wear "masks" to protect it on 
different levels depending upon the intimacy level of the particular 
relationship.

I would like to propose a hybrid of the theories of Westin and Rachels.
I feel that there is a definite inequality with the amount of information
I feel is necessary in order to maintain everyday relationships.  My
behavior is correlated to the intimacy level and therefore the amount of
information I perceive the other party to have about me.  Additionally,
I also find that this behavior is a "role" ( as oppossed to Westin's "mask" ) 
in order to make some everyday task easier to accomplish. 


Any thoughts, comments?


(1)  James Rachels, "Why Privacy is Important", Ethical Issues in the
                                                ---------------------
     Use of Computers, Deborah G. Johnson and John W. Snapper, ( Wadsworth 
     ----------------
     Publishing, Belmont CA, 1985 )

(2)  Alan Westin, "Privacy in the Modern Democratic State", Ethical Issues
                                                            --------------
     in the Use of Computers, Deborah G. Johnson and John W. Snapper,
     -----------------------
    ( Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont CA, 1985)


Andrea Marie Long
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute