MORALITY OF GOVERNMENT

SURVEILLANCE
By Cameron, Emma, Nicole & Vince
VUSM 400 The Ethical Life
WHAT ARE THE MORAL CONCERNS
WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S RIGHT TO
ACCESS PERSONAL ONLINE
INFORMATION OF ITS CITIZENS?
MAIN IDEAS THAT WILL BE PRESENTED

Trailer - Snowden
The Four Way Method (Truth, Consequences, Fairness, Character)
Most appropriate method of thinking
Overall decision and consensus
References
VIDEO - SNOWDEN

Snowden - Official Trailer

TRUTH

"Surveillance is, simply put, the observation and/or monitoring of a

person" (The Ethics of Surveillance, Stanford.edu)
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly
describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to
be seized" - U.S Constitution - Ratified 12/15/1791
TRUTH - SCENARIOS PRESENTED

The two scenarios:

If you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing
to fear.
People have the right to know about what happens to their
information regardless.
TRUTH - FOR SURVEILLANCE

If you haven't done anything wrong, then you have nothing to

fear.
If you dont do crime, you wont do time
Helps people to feel safe knowing that other suspicious
individuals are being tracked
Many terrorists have been stopped due to the
information gained from Government Surveillance.
TRUTH - SOMEWHAT AGAINST
SURVEILLANCE

People have the right to know what information is being used.

Most would agree that they would not be as upset if they
were told the whole truth from the start, rather than incidents
like that of Edward Snowden bringing the truth to light. This
now makes people question what they dont know.
In 2005, the New York Times revealed that Government
surveillance went back to at least 2002.
TRUTH - AGAINST SURVEILLANCE

Information has been used wrongly in the past.

In September 2007, a Special Agent of the Chamber of
Commerce, Benjamin Robinson, used the Treasury
Enforcement Communications System (TECS) for tracking the
travel patterns of an ex-girlfriend and her family.
He accessed the system illegally at least 163 times.
Information is only as safe as the hands in which it is held
TRUTH POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS?

Be honest
Tell everybody what will and won't be tracked and then they can decide for
themselves whether they want to buy an IPhone for example.
Do not go away from what the constitution states. If technology has
changed that much since the constitution was adapted, maybe its time to
reword it?
More than anything, tell the truth. Explain why you need to use tracking for
example and show how it is being used.
As stated before, if people haven't done anything wrong, they wont be as
worried about what information the government holds.
TRUTH THE QUESTIONS TO ASK

Does the technique cause unwarranted physical or psychological

harm?
Does the technique cross a personal boundary without permission?
Does the technique violate assumptions that are made about how
personal information will be treated such as no secret recordings?
Is the tactic applied in a personal or impersonal setting?
Does the technique produce invalid results?
CONSEQUENTIALISM

Potential Scenarios
Managed and properly maintained
Incorrectly managed (leaks, hacks, lost data)
CONSEQUENTIALISM - MANAGED
CORRECTLY

Who is most likely affected?

Criminals, mainly terrorists, suspected criminals/terrorists
How are they likely to be affected?
Law enforcement would likely intervene in an effort to prevent
crime, or to apprehend those who have already committed
crimes, use information from surveillance to correctly convict
CONSEQUENTIALISM MANAGED
INCORRECTLY

Who is most likely affected?

Most likely government officials, politicians, public figures,
celebrities. Less likely civilians as a hack or release of information
would most likely be politically driven.
Even if not politically driven those individuals would still be more
likely to be affected than average civilians.
How would they likely be affected?
Details of personal lives, secrets, and all digitally communicated
information would be exposed.
CONSEQUENTIALISM - SOLUTION
Which solution will be most beneficial and/or harmful to those
affected?
Assuming the question would be to either keep government
surveillance or end it's operation, the solution from the
consequences lens would be to maintain government
surveillance as a fully functioning operation of the government.
The only affected are criminals and terrorists, and if there were to
be a leak, the outcomes would be far less severe than expected,
and political figures and celebrities would be the most likely
targets and most affected.
FAIRNESS

Golden Rule
Respect & Dignity
Motivated by Goodwill
Enhance or Diminish Autonomy
DO THE SOLUTIONS TREAT OTHERS THE WAY
YOU WOULD WANT TO BE TREATED?

Solution: Allow government to Solution: End government access

access personal, online
to personal, online information:
information:
Privacy increased
Privacy concerns
Yes
Safety/Justice regulations
No
DO THE SOLUTIONS TREAT ALL INVOLVED
WITH RESPECT AND DIGNITY?

Solution: Allow Solution: End government access:

government access:
No, those affected often feel
violated and undignified
Lack of respect for privacy
Yes, those affected feel safe
knowing their personal information
is secure
ARE THE SOLUTIONS MOTIVATED BY
GOODWILL?
Solution: Allow
Solution: End government access:
government access:
Yes, intent to increase privacy and
Yes, the goal is to aid the
criminal justice system personal security
However, info not always used
for a purpose motivated by
goodwill
Wrongful convictions
Harmful use of info
DO THE SOLUTIONS ENHANCE OR DIMINISH
THE AUTONOMY OF ALL INVOLVED?

Solution: Allow Solution: End government access:

government access:
Enhance
Diminish Comfort in knowing that our info is
Little knowledge only being sent to whom we send
Who see's it?
it
Where does it go?
How is it being used?
RESEARCH ARTICLE

"Online Privacy, Government Surveillance and National

ID Cards"
ARGUMENT

Internet users concern regarding online privacy are likely

to increase as e-commerce and e-government services
continue to become more pervasive
RESEARCH METHOD

Online survey among Internet users in:

Bangalore, New York, Sydney, Seoul, and Singapore
Self administered
47 questions regarding:
Online privacy concerns and attitudes toward gov't surveillance
and national ID cards
Email invitation sent out until 300 participants per city attained
RESULTS

Internet users in Seoul had the most negative attitude toward

gov't surveillance
Users in Bangalore were the most positive
Users in NY and Sydney showed most negative attitudes toward
use of national ID cards
Neither of these cities use NID cards
STUDY CONCLUSION

All 5 cities had someone high levels of concern for online

privacy
Attitudes toward gov't surveillance and NID cards remained
more neutral
Internet users may view gov't surveillance & use of NID cards
as compromising privacy, but realize it may enhance
national security
CHARACTER

courageously
Is the proposed solution motivated by goodwill?
Will the proposed solution be implemented in a way that helps
build trusting relationships?
CHARACTER IMPORTANT TERMS

FISC: "Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court". Established by

Congress in 1978. The Court entertains applications made by the
United States Government for approval of electronic surveillance,
physical search, and certain other forms of investigative actions for
foreign intelligence purposes.
4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but
upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
things to be seized.
Quasi Constitutional Protection: Laws that paramount or
supersede laws enacted before or after.
CHARACTER ARE THE ACTIONS
DONE VIRTUOUSLY?

YES VIRTUOUS ACTIONS NO ACTIONS NOT VIRTUOUS

No: dishonesty, deception,
Yes: righteousness, courage,
contradiction
compassion, integrity.
Diminishes autonomy
Criminal Cases
Violates 4th amendment
Terrorist/attacks
No longer "innocent until proven
Allows for the government to guilty"
find out the truth.
Improper use of power
Ability to convict individuals
Wrongful conviction/frame individuals
Ability to protect from future
destruction
CHARACTER UNITED STATES VS
GRAHAM
Aaron Graham and Eric Jordan were convicted of a series of
armed robberies at McDonalds and Burger King in Baltimore,
Maryland, 2011.
Initially, defendants were only charged with possession of firearm
because police could not link them to robberies without more
evidence.
Officers collected their cell phones were able to pin point their
locations because of obtaining Cell-Site Locations information
without a warrant provided by Sprint/Nextel.
CHARACTER DISTRICT COURT
Government
Claimed third party doctrine. A person has
no legitimate expectation of privacy in info
he voluntarily turns over to third parties. The
defendants voluntarily conveyed CSLI to
Sprint/Nextel, so defendants similarly had no
legitimate expectation of privacy in such
data.
When a phone call is placed, cell phone
companies retain info that identifies the
cellular towers through which a persons calls
are routed as part of their ordinary course of
business. Cell phone users must realize they
convey such data in order for the cellular
service provider to complete the users
phone calls.
Graham and 4th Circuit
Defendants appealed their convictions,
challenging the admissibility of CSLI obtained
by the government. The Fourth Circuit
recognized several fallacies in the district
courts analysis stating that the warrantless
procurement of CSLI constituted an
unreasonable search in violation of the
Fourth Amendment.
Graham and Jordan claimed amount of
time being watched was violation of 4th
amendment. August 2010; February 5, 2011.
221 Days.
Permits one to infer where an individual lives,
but also where he goes to church or the
gym, how he receives medical treatment,
and even what his sexual habits are.
CHARACTER IS SOLUTION
MOTIVATED BY GOODWILL?

Yes No

Criminal convictions Diminished autonomy

Terrorist protection Unlawful conviction/framing

Closure for victims and families Overuse of government power

Finding the truth Possibility of hackers

CHARACTER DOES IT BUILD TRUSTING
RELATIONSHIPS?

No
Yes
4th amendment and constitution
Victims feel more safe because
are deceiving
government is making an effort to
protect from criminal activity Individual conversations and
whereabouts are not private
Population has more sense of
security from terrorist Unsure of what is happening with
our information or how it can be
The truth can be found out
used
CRITICAL MORAL ANALYSIS

Truth
Consequences
Fairness
Character
OVERALL CONSENSUS

Method of thinking
Consequentialism

Solution
QUESTIONS?
REFERENCES
Barr, A. C. (2016). Guardians of Your Galaxy S7: Encryption Backdoors and the First Amendment.
Minnesota Law Review, 101(1), 301-339.
BEDI, M. (2014). SOCIAL NETWORKS, GOV ERNMENT SURV EILLANCE, AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
MOSAIC THEORY. Boston University Law Review, 94(6), 1809-1880.
Bellman, Steven, Eric J. Johnson, Stephen J. Kobrin, and Gerald L. Lohse. "International Differences in
Information Privacy Concerns: A Global Survey of Consumers." The Information Society 20.5 (2004):
313-24. Web. 5 Apr. 2017.
Berman, E. (2016). Quasi-Constitutional Protections and Government Surveillance. Brigham Young
University Law Review, 2016(3), 771-836.
Claypoole, T. (2016). Smarter Devices = MoreV ulnerability to Government and Criminals . 33(11), 1-5.
Culnan, M. J. and Amstrong, P. K. 1999. Information Privacy Concerns, Procedural Fairness and
Impersonal Trust: An Empirical Investigation. Organization Science 10 (1): 104 115.
DATA MINING, DOG SNIFFS, AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT. (2014). Harvard Law Review, 128(2), 691-
712.
Franklin, S. (2016). Big Brother Is Watching You: Government Surveillance Through Cell-Site Location
Information and The Fourth Circuits Attempt To Stop It. Wake Forest Law Review, 51(2), 493-515
Heidel, E. S. (2013). Warrantless GPS Tracking: Who Cares About V ehicle Transponders -- What About
Your Cell Phone?. Journal Of International Commercial Law & Technology, 8(1), 1-12.
Levinson-Waldman, R. (2017). HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT: A FOURTH AMENDMENT FRAMEWORK FOR
ANALYZING GOVERNMENT SURVEILLANCE IN PUBLIC. Emory Law Journal, 66(3), 527-615.
REFERENCES - CONTINUED
Luiza, S. (2013). A Gov ernment That's All Ears. 126(33), 30-32.
Michelman, S. (2009). WHO CAN SUE OVER GOVERNMENT SURVEI LLANCE?. UCLA Law Rev iew, 57(1), 71-114.

Robis, L. A. (2014). WHEN DOES PUBLI C I NTEREST JUSTI FY GOVERNMENT I NTERFERENCE AND SURVEI LLANCE?. Asia-Pacific
Journal On Human Rights & The Law , 15(1/2), 203-218. doi:10.1163/15718158-15010209

Sarabdeen, Jawahitha, et al. "E-Gov ernment Users Priv acy and Security Concerns and Av ailability of Laws in Dubai."
I nternational Rev iew of Law, Computers & Technology, v ol. 28, no. 3, Nov . 2014, pp. 261-276. EBSCOhost,
doi:10.1080/13600869.2014.904450.

Semitsu, J. P. (2011). From Facebook to Mug Shot: How the Dearth of Social Networking Priv acy Rights Rev olutionized
Online Gov ernment Surv eillance. Pace Law Rev iew, 31(1), 291-381.
Standing -- Challenges to Gov ernment Surv eillance -- Clapper v . Amnesty I nternational USA. (2013). Harv ard Law
Rev iew, 127(1), 298-307.

SUN SUN, LI M, et al. "Online Priv acy, Gov ernment Surv eillance and National I D Cards." Communications of the ACM,
v ol. 52, no. 12, Dec. 2009, pp. 116-120. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1145/1610252.1610283.
U.S. Constitution - Amendment 4 - The U.S. Constitution Online. (n.d.). Retriev ed April 24, 2017, from
https://w w w.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am4.html

Woods, A. K. (2016). Against Data Exceptionalism. Stanford Law Rev iew, 68(4), 729-789.
Wu, T., Chung, J., Yamat, J., & Richman, J. (n.d.). The ethics (or not) of massiv e gov ernment surv eillance. Retriev ed April
24, 2017, from https://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/ethics-of-surv eillance/ethics.html