Reflective Thoughts
This course has opened my eyes and knowledge to a lot of different topics that I was either familiar with or not familiar with at all. I enjoyed the discussion boards and seeing other’s viewpoints on security, whistleblowers, the Facebook scandal, etc. And I was glad the course provided opportunities to question those viewpoints and receive feedback and clarification. The Whistleblower analysis was an interesting topic to discuss and write about. It provided insight into how my peers thought about whistleblowers and if they agreed with the concept of being a whistleblower or not. I had always heard of whistleblowing, so it was not an unusual topic of discussion. But the readings within the case analysis provided descriptive and detailed information about the process of whistleblowing and how the life of a whistleblower can change. I agree that whistleblowing can be an unnerving and scary stance to take. But it also takes boldness and courage. So, I commend those that are in a position of knowing and even participating in wrongful doing, at some point, but reconsidering their actions, and publicizing the wrongdoing.
One ethical tool I relate to is the ethics of care. Ethics of care “is not a duty: it has an emotional component. But it isn’t just an emotion: it takes place within a history of interdependence in which we grow close to those we care for and care about, in relationships that become emotionally deeper and practically more and more intertwined.” This ethical tool is a good rule of thumb to live by. Because not only will caring for others create a better relationship between man and country, but it will also create a sense of trust. It’s like a domino effect. Caring is an attractable emotion and receiving care will cause someone else to show the act of care. When we see others willfully caring, it builds a relationship of respect and trust. There are so many subcategories that can fall under care. I may disagree with someone on a particular topic but because I care for them, I would still respect their values and agree to disagree. The great thing about ethics of care is that it’s not just for personal relationships, it can be extended to strangers and people who aren’t in one’s inner circle. I will try to be more mindful to use the characteristics of this tool in my day-to-day life.
Another topic that is relatable and important to discuss is privacy. In this course I realized that I don’t have as much privacy as I thought. Especially because of social media and then you have Google Street view and a number of other things that limits how much privacy we truly have. In reading the articles and journals about the case study that was conducted by gathering university student’s Facebook information, it actually helped me to take a step in the right direction in choosing to opt-out of Facebook. And some may say it’s too late your information is already out there, but its better late than never. Afterwhile, I adjusted to not having the app. It’s almost like out of sight, out of mind. I want to do my part in protecting my privacy to the best of my ability. Especially with what I have learned. A lot of times we think our profiles are safe because we click certain settings to filter out certain people. Or have a particular set of friends that can send a request. But technology is advancing and there are so many workarounds. I am not partial to those who continue to use Facebook or start using it because to each his own. I’ve learned that it’s not a necessity for me. In the future, If I need Facebook for entrepreneurial reasons, then I may reconsider opening a new account. Everyone has their own reasons for being active on social media whether personal or professional, and that’s okay.
Case Analysis: Whistleblowing
Case Analysis: User Data
Because it isn’t specified, I will choose from one of the two stances I have in mind when the question is asked “did Manning act out of loyalty to the United States when she released the footage of the video, Collateral Murder?” The United States can be divided into two categories. From my point of view there is the United States: We the People. And then there’s the United States: The Government. I believe Manning was acting out of loyalty on behalf of the United States: We the People and not so much the United States: The Government. I say that because majority of the people in the US “trust” their government or feel that the government has their best interest in mind. And the things that the government approves or engages in are to protect the betterment of this country. One would assume these things until proven otherwise. And that is what Manning has done by releasing the Collateral Murder video for the public to view. It brings to light the actions that are taken by the government, behind the scenes to “protect” the people. When in fact the actions are not always moral or just or even necessary to be defined as an act of protecting. But one would never know this if it isn’t brought to their attention. It’s almost like Manning is saying, here, look! Our government isn’t all that it portrays itself to be, and I have proof to prove it. The reverse of that stance, the government wouldn’t approve of Manning’s release of the footage, and they would say that she was being disloyal because it exploits their immoral act of murdering without cause.
In this case analysis I will argue that ethics of care shows us that Manning did act out of loyalty to the United States (We the People). And that her actions were moral in the case of whistleblowing. Ethics of care can be viewed in two categories: ethics of care and ethics of justice. “In care, we act on special obligations to show partiality to those we have relationships of interdependence with. Partiality (as opposed to impartiality) can be moral according to ethics of care; partiality where we support one another within a relationship of mutual interdependence and seek to grow that relationship and to allow it to flourish.” With ethics of care, it doesn’t have to be directly linked to people we know. It can be extended to the public, a stranger, a classmate, local bus driver, the train conductor, etc. But showing care doesn’t mean the act of caring will be accepted. For example, someone has an undercover alcoholic brother. The sibling who is a non-alcoholic suggest different resources for their brother to get help. Unfortunately, that doesn’t work. So, the sibling goes to an outside source to speak directly with their brother to help them overcome their addiction to alcohol. The sibling is showing signs of care and loyalty. But, from the alcoholics’ standpoint their sibling was disloyal because they exploited their condition to an outside source and now, they have to be placed in a rehabilitation center to help them recover.
One of the concepts Vanderkerckhove mentioned regarding loyalty is that “Duskasees whistleblowing as an obligation one has to the public to prevent harm.” And loyalty is described as “true to obligations, faithful to plighted troth, faithful or steadfast in allegiance to the sovereign or constituted government.” Ethics of care can be joined with loyalty. Usually, loyalty is something that grows and it’s not just in humans when we are born. Loyalty builds trust and all of those things can be built from showing love or care. Care is sometimes stepping out of our comfort zone to ensure our fellow peers are okay. Sometimes it’s taking risk like Manning did to exploit the bad to stay on a path of good. And ethics of care can be for those who are closest, but it can also be extended to the public. Another statement that was mentioned in Vandekerckhove was that loyalty is when a person acts in support of another but doesn’t expect a reward in return.
According to Solomon, in Vandekerchove’s journal in older time’s loyalty was a form of exchange, “you scratch my back I’ll scratch your back.” And a person might stay on a job because of financial incentives “but it will not inspire loyalty.” An individual who practices ethics of care whether for their family, friends or the public doesn’t expect a reward for their actions. Those who are on the receiving end of the individual who is performing the care of ethics will experience a since of loyalty, which in return would want them to be loyal. But it wouldn’t be out of obligation because from the person who illustrates ethics of care, it comes from a genuine standpoint. If someone is always there for a person, no matter the situation, not only will loyalty be one of the traits of the relationship but also trust. Care and Loyalty by Oxley and Wittkower in reference to relationships, states “although there may be an obligation to ensure that past care cannot be regained, especially in the case of a marriage which has become loveless, the relationship is rooted in a commitment based upon, but extending further than, reciprocity or the expectation of mutual benefit.” “Care is not a duty: it has an emotional component. But it isn’t just an emotion: it takes place within a history of interdependence in which we grow close to those we care for and care about, in relationships that become emotionally deeper and practically more and more intertwined.”
As the statement mentions, the illustration of care grows a relationship and bond people together. It’s not an obligation and is usually something that comes naturally. Many people can be influenced to show care by interacting with an individual the exudes care. As some say, if you stick around long enough Ill rub off on you. Which means some of that person’s ways and behavior will influence the other person to act in the same manner. So, if a person continues to show ethics of care it will influence others to also want to practice ethics of care. And according to Oxley and Wittkower it will be a “second-order mutual commitment to value one another and the relationship in a far more unconditional and giving way. “Because ethics of care isn’t geared solely to a specific group of individuals, care can be shown to family, friends, strangers, co-workers, etc. Usually, friendships that are “exceptionally close or long-lived, maybe viewed as being “beyond” the give and take of obligations and favors.” And “favors may be viewed simply as something friends do for one another, without any accounting of whether a favor is earned or deserved.” To reflect back on the whistleblowers that were discussed in this case, I can say with certainty that they expressed ethics of care. And with their relationship to the public or the people, they weren’t expecting a reward in return for whistleblowing. But, as people who care, they wanted to inform Americans of how the government operates in ways that aren’t always moral.
In closing, Manning showed ethics of care and loyalty to the American people by whistleblowing. And exploiting the immoral acts that the government allowed when it came to murdering those individuals. Unfortunately, there weren’t any repercussions for what was done but instead they were supported for committing murder. Some may say Manning was disloyal to the government for releasing that video. But ethics of care proves she made the right decision and was loyal to the people to reveal that the government actually approves and commends it soldiers for killing without reasonable cause. With ethics of care sometimes an individual will have to step up to the plate and take the rough road to protect others from harm.
GDPR stands for General Data Protection Regulation and was implemented in January of 2012 by the European Commission for data protection reform across the European Unit. This plan described by Palmer shows that Europe exhibits ethics of care for their people and the protection of their data. “The digital future of Europe can only be built on trust.” This was stated by Andrus Ansip, the vice-president for the Digital Single Market when the reform was agreed upon in December of 2015. This shows that the individuals in Europe who have authoritative power generally care about the people of Europe. They want their people to feel safe and secure with the companies that they work for and just solely interact with. Having trust in your government, employer, bank, etc. holds high value. And in this case analysis I will argue that ethics of care shows that the United States should follow Europe’s lead because having a foundation of trust is also a sign that they care about protecting their citizen’s privacy. Unfortunately, the “Taste, Ties, Time” project conducted by the researchers and approved by the committee of Harvard University showed ethics of care for their students. Before the project begin there were standard guidelines put in placing regarding the “protection” of a student’s information and data being extracted via Facebook. The information that was being used and extracted was already public on Facebook. However, the researcher’s plans failed considerably, and it wasn’t long before the identification of where the student’s attended school was figured out. It is understandable that even with the most secure protection plans, sometimes data breaches will happen. But at least there is something put in place that will attempt to counteract any malicious activity. Or if there is a breach, the security department of the specific company, organization, etc. will try to update their systems and provide an even more secure and beneficial method of securing consumer’s data. For the researchers when the data was released and accessible to the public there was an attitude of oh well, it’s already public information. And saying, “what might hackers want to do with this information, assuming they could crack the data and ‘see’ these people’s Facebook info?”
This mindset nor this statement shows a sign of ethics of care or that the researchers who conducted the study could be trusted to perform another study without releasing an individual’s or group of individuals identifiable information. Another statement that seems to brush the failed privacy protection of the research project under the rug was, “we’re sociologist not technologist.” As if that is to say well don’t blame us because we’re not in the technology field we just conduct research. However, an individual who exhibited ethics of care would have partnered with someone within the IT department to make sure the student’s information would be protect. Because after all, the students were not aware that they were being studied and that their identifiable information was made public. this project continued for 4 years. “The Taste, Ties, and Time project existence is dependent on extensive collection of personal data.” I believe that the researchers and the Committee didn’t know the extent of the project they were putting in place. So, I don’t fault them in that sense. It’s more so the attitude and reaction of finding out the student’s identifiable data being accessible to the public. It was almost as if the students were only seen as data needed for the project to be successful and that’s it. When did collecting data for a project become more important than protecting an individual’s privacy? Ethics of care is not the forefront of this project, and it is very detectable in the responses and security plans that were not implemented to protect the students’ information This project was conducted for 4 years. If the general data protection regulations were implemented the students who were being researched would have been notified that their information had been released to the public. And that their identifiable information very well maybe in danger of entering the wrong hands. The Committee and the researchers would also be accountable held accountable for not having the correct plans in place. And a lot of times when rules aren’t enforced it’s easy to let it slide a second time or for individuals to not take the offense seriously.
Who’s to say the individuals of the study didn’t have stalkers because of this data release. Hopefully, that is not the case but there are a number of things that could have resulted in this bad data protection planning. But, overall, I would say 95% of the identifiable and re-identifiable data would have been protected under the general data protection regulations. Obviously, I can’t say 100% because again even with the most secure protection plans in place, unfortunately, someone who is determined to access the data, can still possibly breach the system. But at least it wouldn’t be with the help of the individuals who are supposed to protect the student’s and create a safe environment.
In reading Elizabeth Buchanan’s case I can see how her ethics of care correlates with her concern for IVCC maintaining ethics of research. So, with IVCC they implement research and data collection based off tips and words that trigger anything regarding ISIS. And there’s a question of whether the individual’s information that is collected is being used in an ethical manner that to both protect “the people” from terrorist attack. And also, not breach any personal data privacy laws. It can be tough to find the line of collecting one’s data for protective and preventive measures and collecting one’s data and crossing the privacy line of that individual. For IVCC, the ethics of care is put in place because the data of the 119,156 participants was collected to ensure safety of America. And the information collected is being publicized or released so malicious activities can take place. For example, if that information was to be released with a perception of these individuals are potentially a part of ISIS or assisting ISIS, the results would not be good. I believe there would be a lot of threats and unfortunately, even more killing because of the perception that these specific individuals’ data was collected and research because of potential ISIS activity.
I can see why Elizabeth would question if the Twitter users were seen as subjects, participants, or simply data because a lot of times the privacy protections and rights are overlooked when a certain goal is in place. And if that goal is to protect an important asset, country, company, whatever the case may be, the ethics of care can be disregarded. So, Elizabeth is genuinely concerned about how the participants are viewed and if their human rights are still regarded. And IVCC cares about protecting America. In the sense of ethics of care, I believe it’s a good thing that IVCC has research methods and protection plans in place to prevent potential terrorist or ISIS attacks. Because great detail wasn’t provided how the participants are viewed or what is done with the data after its determined that the individual isn’t a threat; it leaves unanswered questions. A great method to put in place would be to collect the individual’s data, if something is triggered in the system with anything related to ISIS, study the subject for a period of time and then place that individual in a folder until something else is in the system is triggered by what that individual says or writes. This will provide a sense of we care for the American people, so we are taking steps to protect the country as a whole. But we also care about each individual so until an alarm goes off or warning signs then this participants data will no longer be under surveillance. From the US-regulatory perspective it would be impractical to receive consent from all 119,156 participants because there will likely be majority of the participants who wouldn’t respond to the request, protest, or just simply decline consent and the studies that are involved have minimal risk. It’s a win-win for both parties.
Earlier I mentioned having trust as a foundation for a relationship with the people and their government, employer bank, etc. And I stand on that point because it does show and is a fundamental of ethics of care. And I agree with IVCC studying individuals via Twitter who have shown interest in the topic of ISIS. It seems contradicting and I believe it’s because the fine line of ethics of care has been determined. In both cases, Europe implementing the General Data Protection Regulation and notifying individuals when their information has been accessed and IVCC researching participants to protect the country from terrorist attack both show ethics of care. But in two very different ways. The IVCC structure is almost like the “don’t ask don’t tell” policy while the General Data Protection Regulation is an alert to the public about their privacy being compromised. After its all said and done both the General Data Protection and IVCC are in place to protect and show care for people. Whereas the “Taste, Ties, and Times” project didn’t protect their subjects enough.