No editor statement.
Why Don't We Protect the Privacy of Jurors?
This is outrages. First you wind on a jury, and then you risk being abused, or worse. What happened to protecting the rights of citizens? Are the accused deserving of more protection than the jurors? A fair trial for the accused should not be an unfair trial for a juror! We need to change this now! (Thursday Aug 14 | post #1)
Search for missing girl in Vermont sets off clash between polic...
Unfortunately there is no good answer for this problem. While the police were looking for information on the missing girl, the computers had information from anyone who used them. It's not the girl's privacy that was being protected, it was the privacy of all of the other library patrons. If the librarian had just turned over the computer without a warrant, the police would have been free to look at any information on the PC. With a warrant, the police were limited to what information they could gather and use. The police know how this process is supposed to work. Why did it take 8 hours to get a warrant? Why couldn't the police use the computer at the library like any other library patron while they were waiting for the warrant? There are questions here that probably have good answers. We don't know what they are and are speculating. It's possible the librarian expected the warrant would issues quickly, thus protecting everyone's rights without hindering the investigation. It's possible the police on the scene did not know how to gather the data from the PC. My guess is that both sides did what they thought was reasonable at the time and that neither side is happy with the outcome. (Jul 20, 2008 | post #7)
GPS Mapping Shows Where the Action Is
Creepy is the word that comes to mind. Why in the world would anyone want to look at their cell phone to know where other people like them are? Worse yet, even though this is not tracking any specific individual, it could. Here’s the problem. This is the start of tracking people. First we see data in aggregate. Then each person could be assigned a unique identifier which may or may not tie back to their identity. As they move about, they can get messages on their cell phone based on their habits. For example, if I frequent Starbucks and the system knows it, then when I pass a competing coffee house, they might send me a text message offering a deal to try their coffee. On the surface this sounds great. Over time this can become an intrusion into our personal lives and habits. Offers can become annoying and feeling watched can be creepy. On the flip side of the argument, if users explicitly agree to this service it could provide value. Some people will appreciate the benefits and not mind the loss of privacy. What we need is to make sure the laws catch up to the technology and ensure that people have the right to opt in to services and not be forced to opt out instead. (Jun 10, 2008 | post #1)
Another view: Transplants and - bad' recipients
Privacy, morality and ethics have long been tied together in disconcerting ways. While the question raised is whether or not criminals should be allowed to receive transplants which could have saved the lives of “good” people, the article does not address the very slippery slope that the question raises. If doctors can learn about a person and make medical decisions based upon what they learn, what’s to stop doctors from deciding not to treat individuals because they don’t agree with their political views, religion, sexual orientation, etc…? While it’s clear that doctors need complete medical history, and understand behavior as it effects health, doctors should not learn more than that about patients and certainly should not make judgments based on non medical factors. This is the privacy dilemma. It can be argued on both sides that more information affects the decision process. Here are the questions from both sides of the argument: Do you really want doctors judging you instead of just treating you? What if a transplant went to a criminal instead of saving the life of a loved one? It’s easy to answer both questions if they affect you. But then again if you really think about the questions, maybe it’s not so easy after all. (Jun 8, 2008 | post #1)
Study secretly tracks cell phone users outside United States
Without a doubt this is an invasion of privacy. If you read the full story it states that the users who were being tracked were not aware that they were participating in the study. While the university is in the U.S., they conducted their study outside of U.S. border because what they did is illegal in the United States. (Jun 6, 2008 | post #1)
