Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
SOCIAL MEDIA AND PRIVACY
Blurred Boundaries: Social Media Privacy and the 21st Century Employee,
Questions p. 113
1. Advantages and disadvantages of a law to remove personal information upon
request.
Most students will likely agree that it would be advantageous to force social networking
2. Research: Social media privacy violations
A good source for court cases and other information related to social network privacy is:
3. College and university trawling
Students will likely disprove of this practice. It is similar to the employment decision in
that, just as employers want to hire employees who will fit well with their organization,
Free market ethics would believe that the only real consideration is what is best for the school.
The best situation for a college is when a student enrolls and remains as a successful,
Because of its focus on all who are affected by a decision, utilitarian analysis would oppose the
The truth based focus of deontology would likely see nothing wrong with the practice since
students should be willing to allow the truth about themselves to be known.
The ethical issue of violation of privacy would probably lead to a decision to oppose this practice
when looking at the practice using virtue ethics.
The ethic of care would focus on the impact such a practice has on the relationship between the
4. Employer password requests
Opinions will vary but, when viewed using the lenses of ethical theory, the results are
similar to those put forth in question three. One important difference to consider here is
the potential impact on employee loyalty and commitment if they feel trust has been
violated.
Free market ethics would approve of the practice as long as it is within the bounds of legal and
ethical considerations and improves the overall profitability of the company. Utilitarian
analysis would likely oppose the practice because the benefit to the employer does not outweigh
the cost to the employee. Deontology would likely see nothing wrong with the practice since
employees should be willing to share the truth about themselves. The ethical issue of violation of
privacy would lead to a decision to oppose this practice using virtue ethics. The ethic of care
would focus on the impact such a practice has on the relationship between employer and
employee. If employees feel a sense of betrayal, the practice would be opposed.
PRIVACY IN GENETIC INFORMATION
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, Questions, p.117 & 118
1. Violated GINA scenarios?
a. Predictive cancer gene: Assuming there is evidence that the employer gave a lower
rating because the employer wanted to terminate the employee based on the genetic
b. Family cancer: The information was acquired by the health professional under Section
202 (b)(2)(A) as part of a wellness program, but the supervisor did not acquire the
c. Medical leave documentation: Based on the information in the textbook, the employer
has not violated GINA. The employer did not request genetic information but requested
d. Obituaries: Employee D did not violate GINA, as the information was publicly
available. Likewise, nothing in GINA prohibits Employee D from sharing the information
e. Drilling company and toxic chemicals: The Employer violated a number of sections of
GINA. First, the acquisition of the information was in violation. Section 202(b)
prohibits acquisition of genetic information absent an exception. Section 202(b)(5) states
an exception where toxic chemicals are involved, but requires prior written notice to the
f. Mandated testing: As is mentioned above in sub-question e, Section 202(b) prohibits
acquisition of genetic information absent an exception. Section 202(b)(5) states an
exception where toxic chemicals are involved, and requires prior written notice to the
2. Fabricut and GINA
A press release from the EEOC may be found here:
Several other articles are also available about the case including:
3. Eugenics
Over the last few years, the public promotion of eugenics, or the study or belief that the gene
pool can be strengthened (or improved) by discouraging or preventing procreation by those
deemed genetically inferior, has declined. It is clear from history that disability, or perceived
disability, were not protected for years after race, religion and gender. Congress did not pass the
famous people who have openly discussed and advocated for particular disabilities from which
they suffer.
4. 1000 Gnomes Project
(a) Publishing names would violate GINA.
(b) Things that could be done to protect privacy need to be weighed against the usefulness
that is lost as a result. Hot identifying some component – age, gender or location for
PRIVACY AND CORPORATE PERSONHOOD
Hallowich v. Range Resources Corp., Questions, p. 122
1. Pennsylvania “doctor gag rule”
In December 2013, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court sent the case back to the lower court.
Several articles are available online regarding the case including:
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2013/12/20/supreme-court-sends-act-13-do
ctor-gag-rule-challenge-back-to-lower-court/
2. Judicial interpretation of law
Judge Seneca interprets Article 1 based on its wording or plain language – corporations are not
given the same rights as people because they were created, not born. She also looked to the
Commonwealth’s constitutional convention and determined again that corporations lack the
components required to be classified as People with rights. Opinions will vary on the second
part of the question. Perhaps, based on the final comments, it can be argued the Judge believed
that the rights of human beings should take precedence over the rights of business.
3. Research: Hallowich v. Range Resources
The appeals court reversed the decision.
http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2012/12/07/appeals-court-agrees-with-news
papers-in-sealed-fracking-case/
CHAPTER PROBLEMS
1. E-mail Privacy and web-hosted e-mails
The argument that there is an expectation of privacy is because the e-mails were from a
non-company webmail server and that the employee no longer worked at the company, giving
the company no legitimate business interest in seeing those documents. Because the reasonable
expectation of privacy is based on all of the circumstances, students should questions whether
the e-mails were sent using the employer’s equipment or from the employer’s premises. In
addition, students should question whether the company has a policy that states equipment
should be used for business only.
Research: The history and settlement of this case may be found here:
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/connecticut/ctdce/3:2008cv00710/81493/ .
2. Google Glasses
An Internet search provides many sites with information about Google glasses and privacy. One
of the most comprehensive, that discusses both the glasses themselves and the privacy concerns
may be found here:
http://epic.org/privacy/google/glass/default.html
3. Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group
Detailed information about the case and its outcome may be found here:
http://www.dmlp.org/threats/hillstone-restaurant-group-v-pietrylo
4. Videotaping of citizens
Individuals have more of an expectation of privacy when in a dressing room or motel room than
on a public street or cafe. One remedy available to someone taped, for example, in a motel room
would be an action for invasion of privacy. State criminal laws would also likely be involved.
(a) Constitutional analysis of the video surveillance requirement passed by Garden Grove
The case referenced occurred in California and is reported at VO v. City of Garden Grove, 115
Cal.App.4th 425, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 257 (Cal.App. 2004)
Constitutional concerns would center on the right to privacy protected by substantive due process
and First Amendment rights to free speech. Laws infringing on those fundamental rights is
examined using a strict scrutiny analysis. An opponent of the law would say that the government
had other means at its disposal to protect the public.
On the other hand, as the majority concluded, having surveillance cameras in place is no more an
invasion of privacy or an obstruction of other rights than would occur if, for example, a security
guard were present.
(b) Research: Information on the problems in Europe are reported in a Bloomberg’s article:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-30/google-street-view-shows-need-for-ne
w-privacy-rule-reding-says.html?cmpid=yhoo
Another good site for detailed information about investigations in both Europe and the U.S.:
http://epic.org/privacy/streetview/
(c) Research: Information on the $7 million settlement may be found here:
http://www.rttnews.com/2075400/google-settles-streetview-privacy-lawsuit.aspx
5. The Ethics of RFID
This is another good question for classroom discussion. Several universities have begun to use
this technology to allow access to residence halls or to track attendance in classes. Students
could be assigned to look up those cases:
http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/view/7628
6. Research: Federal Communication Commission v AT&T
The Supreme Court decision may be reviewed here:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1279.pdf
7. Research: French court and Twitter
(a) This question could lead to a classroom discussion comparing freedom of speech and
privacy issues in the United States with those in France.
(b) There are many web articles that report the result of this controversy including:
http://www.itworld.com/legal/360990/french-appeals-court-confirms-twitter-must-identify
-authors-racist-tweets
8. The Ethics of Newspaper Postings
This is a good group activity problem. Groups could be assigned to do a complete ethical
analysis of one of the cases or each group could be assigned one of the ethical theories and
analyze all the cases using that theory.
9. DNA Samples
(a) This question is debatable. The fourth amendment prohibits unreasonable search and
seizure. Since the suspect was arrested for a violent crime, was it unreasonable to obtain a
DNA sample that was used for an unrelated crime?
(b) The act would likely violate GINA privacy rules.
(c) The Supreme Court of the United States in a divided 5 to 4 vote held that DNA is like
fingerprinting and thus taking a DNA sample from someone who has been arrested does
not violate fourth amendment rights.
http://open.salon.com/blog/charlesjware/2013/06/04/maryland_dna_collection_act_maryl
and_v_alonzo_jay_king
10. Consumer Privacy Bill of Rights
More information regarding this can be found on several websites including:
http://epic.org/privacy/white_house_consumer_privacy_.html
