Should the United States adopt something like Europe’s new Privacy Laws?
Danny Palmer presents the ethical issues that arise with user data that is collected and if there should be regulation put in place in “What is GDRP? Everything you need to know about the new general data protection regulations.” Palmer explains how Europe has implemented the GDRP which not only gives the users more control over how their data and information is used, but it also holds companies accountable and responsible for violations. Palmer illustrates the importance of not only giving users the right to control how their information is used but also the importance of quickly notifying users when breaches have occurred. The GDRP brings back the importance of consent. In this Case Analysis, I will argue that the deontology theory shows us that the United States should follow Europe’s lead because by not asking for consent for user data is untimely violating the user’s privacy. Based on deontology, doing something wrong, even for a good reason is still doing something wrong.
In the text “But the data is already public: On the ethics of research in Facebook,” Michael Zimmer explains the central concept of the ethical concerns regarding collecting personal information from social media platforms for research, specifically in the “Taste, Ties, and Time” project that was conducted. Zimmer focuses on not only the project research itself and how it collected its data and published it, but he also looks at the overall ethical process and procedures that are expected when using personal information and data from social media platforms. Zimmer discussed whether it was ethically correct for the researcher to have collected the data in the way that they did and if they took the correct precautions when determining how and what was going to be published in order to protect the user’s privacy. He questions not only this specific research project but also the process and procedures that need to be followed when conducting any type of research project with the use of social media information and data.
Based on the deontology theory, it is not ethically correct for the researchers to have collected the student’s information from the university itself and from Facebook. The deontology theory classifies actions are right and wrong based on the action itself and the reasoning behind it. In simpler words, do good things because they are good and not because you will get something out of doing them. The researchers of this project collected information and data belonging to a cohort of students from the university they attended as well as Facebook. The students themselves had no idea their information and data were being collected and consent for it to be released as data for the research was never obtained either. From the deontology perspective, the researchers were acting unethically by collecting the student’s data due to the fact that the students never agreed to any of it. The researchers themselves pulled personal information and data by violating the students’ privacy. Even if the students had agreed to data being collected from Facebook, they were never asked or informed about their data being collected and used for a third-party research project. Even if the data and information were collected for research purposes, there was a privacy violation. Violating the students’ trust and privacy in order to obtain data for a research project that did not benefit the students was unethical. From the deontology perspective, the researchers used the students as sources of data rather than respecting and treating them with the same dignity they expect in return from others. Looking at another perspective as to why this research process and execution is unethical based on the deontology theory is the intention behind how the data and information were protected. While the researchers claimed to have done their best in trying to protect the data, they chose to ignore taking certain steps to better protect the students’ data. The researchers knew they were not experts on data protection and chose to not consult a privacy expert. Based on deontology, the researchers were acting unethically by taking the easier route, rather than properly consulting an expert to guide them in better protecting the data. Violating an individual’s privacy and knowingly skipping steps to better protect that information is unethical regardless of the results that doing so could produce.
In the text “Considering the Ethics of Big Data Research: A Case of Twitter and ISIS/ISIL,” Elizabeth Buchanan explains the central concept of the ethics behind user data being collected and used and if user subjects are and should be considered the same as human subjects in regards to consent and rights. Buchanan begins by explaining two different sides to how data mining can be used. On one side certain algorithms can help terrorist groups target certain audiences in order to recruit and market their beliefs and on the other side the same data that is mined and algorithms can be used by law enforcement as a tool to identify groups or individuals that pose a threat to the nation’s safety. The question here is whether or not it is ethically okay to use mined user data regardless of which reason it is being used for. She also brings up the question if data subjects are and should be treated ethically the same way as human subjects. Is it ethically correct to not have to request consent and offer the same rights to data subjects since they themselves are not human subjects?
Based on the deontology theory, it is not ethically correct for user data that has been mined to be used by third-party individuals or companies, regardless of the reason behind it. Looking at this from the deontology perspective, regardless of whether the data mined is being used for terrorist group recruitment or as a tool by law enforcement to better protect the people, a violation of privacy and individual rights is still occurring making this unethical. In the same way, law enforcement cannot just legally go through someone’s phone or home without proper process and consent from either the person in question or by a court, law enforcement should not be able to use user data for these purposes. While the reasoning maybe with good intentions a bad act is being committed which makes it unethical. Another reason why this action would be considered unethical based on deontology is that for algorithms to work, they heavily rely on discriminatory and stereotyping methods. In order to create algorithms, the bad act of stereotyping and discriminating would have to occur which would make this unethical. The other central concept that Buchanan explains in her writing is whether or not data subjects and being treated ethically the same as human subjects and if they even should be. Based on the deontological theory if no consent is being given to using the user’s data for research purposes, then that would be the same as stealing or taking without permission which would make it an unethical act. The issue with this is that not only are researchers taking and using user data without consent, but they are disregarding the individual and their rights altogether. By taking away the human factor from the equation, researchers are ignoring the user’s right to privacy and simply seeing the users as a resource and not taking them into consideration. This is unethical due to the initial violation of privacy by taking the data without consent but also because the individuals are not being regarded with respect and are seen as objects to help the research. Based on deontology, these are two bad acts occurring.
In conclusion, based on the deontology theory, it is not ethically correct to use user data and information without the user’s consent regardless of the reason behind collecting and using it. Based on this ethical theory, it would be ethically correct for the United States to adopt something similar to Europe’s new Privacy Laws. In Zimmer’s case, user data was collected without consent and when the research project was published, the students’ identities were discovered within days. The users were never asked for consent or even informed how their information was being used, making it unethical. In Buchanan’s case, users’ privacy and consent were not considered when their data was used. Regardless of the reason for which the data was used, good or bad, there was a violation of user privacy. Violating someone’s privacy is untimely a bad action, making it unethical or wrong. Based on the deontology perspective, regardless of the outcome or reason, the individual users must be respected and valued enough to get consent before using their data.