For the Record

     The growing threats to our privacy caused by technology are exponentially increasing. For a moment, let’s put aside the massive amounts of data that is floating around in cyberspace, the patterns that it creates and the conclusions that can be drawn from analyzing them. For a moment, remember being a kid. 

     Remember those old Polaroid instant cameras? Now imagine if every kid you had ever known in your life had been carrying one every time you did anything remotely ignorant or ill advised. There were times in my life someone’s safety might have been placed in jeopardy during the quest to reclaim some of those pictures.

     Even worse, what if it was too late to reclaim the evidence? Sometimes the other kid is faster and there is nothing you can do but take it when he snatches the love letter you were trying to pass and begins to read it out loud in front of everyone. We all have embarrassing moments, and one of the most redeeming things about childhood is that you can put them behind you until you can look back and laugh. Some incidents take longer than others to reach that point.

     Children today face a whole different type of threat to their privacy than we did at their age. In our time our privacy was threatened by violation. Their privacy is threatened with extinction. Anything they do is subject to being published on the internet at any time. Your little sister snaps a picture of you in the tub with your baby brother’s gigapixel i-Rattle and thirty seconds later your Transformers and rubber ducky are on You-Tube before you can even scream “Mom!!”

     Today people are giving up their privacy quite willingly. If young Joe Smith hadn’t posted that his status was “Taking a bath”, young Jenny would never have known to grab the camera and set out down the hallway. Instead, young Joe will be receiving his diploma as Duckytron Smith

.

     Privacy faces many challenges in the years to come, and who will protect it if no one even wants it?

Hello, Mrs. Jones?

     How sure can you be that when you give someone your information, they’re going to use it for what they say they are. Misuse of personal information has led to tons of problems. Identity theft is a prime example, but not the only one out there. While just trusting someone to do what they are supposed to with your information is hard enough, it’s even more difficult not to worry about what else they are doing with it.

     Marketing is a regular offender. When you call your local lawn care service you give them your information so that they can provide you a service. You give them your address so they can get there, and your phone number so that you can be notified or problems arise. The problem isn’t that they don’t use your information for those purposes, it’s that they use it for their own purposes as well. Often, their purposes take precedence over yours. This practice is called “Secondary Use”. TruGreen is a prime example. The odds of your technician calling you before he comes out, or getting a manager to return your call, are pretty slim. The sales staff, however, will call more than your family and friends do.

     Primary use is important but sometimes it is the secondary uses of our information that is the most consequential. The number one reason that TruGreen customers cancel their service is not dissatisfaction with the service or even the lack of it. It is because they are tired of all the phone calls and are under the mistaken impression that cancelling will stop the sales staff from calling.

A Little Perspective

     Most times, if we use common sense the difference between right and wrong is fairly easy to see. In these situations it is not the polar opposites that need definition, but rather the distance between them and the realm of the word “okay”. Whether you think people are born with the natural ability to distinguish right from wrong, or come by it as they grow up, it is commonly accepted that rational people posses it. If they don’t they should plead insanity. It is the land in between that creates the dilemma for most of us. Some things are neither right, nor wrong. For these times we should probably distinguish things in terms like the words of a young Spock. “While morally praiseworthy, it is not morally obligatory”.

     Just like some things are not right, but are okay, there is a difference in the terms “wrong” and “harm”. Professional football is a great example. If a cornerback picks off two of the opposing quarterbacks passes, during the super bowl, he certainly isn’t doing the man’s career any favors.  Ask Neil O’Donnell. However, while his actions directly harmed the quarterback, you cannot consider him as having done anything wrong. In fact, reality is quite the opposite. That cornerback is your Super Bowl MVP.

     I think that most ethical concerns derive more from the how than the actual what of our lives. Its not what we set out to do that usually puts us in a quandary. It is much more often what we are willing to do to accomplish our goals, that is the problem. It is when we cross the line and are willing to exceed the moral constraints and break the rules we live by and believe in to get what we are after that our pursuits become ethically wrong.

     Conversely, perspective matters a lot. While I may have strong moral beliefs one way, another may feel quite the opposite. That is why it is so hard to separate our own personal preferences from ethical absolutes. Ethical absolutes are hard to come by in this life, and are subject to slow and inevitable change. What may be considered an ethical this century may easily be considered personal preference in the next.

     People’s ethical beliefs are as different as their fingerprints. While they are generally a lot a like, no two are exactly the same. It is for this reason that laws must exist. There must be a common standard that draws lines in the sand for the betterment of the common good of the people overall.  

Split Decisions

        While conformity is good for the masses, sometimes it is tough on the spirit. Ever been driving down a lonely unmarked country road at night, and slid the car into the middle of the road, rather than hugging the right side? Why not? If there is no oncoming traffic and no line in the road, what’s the harm? No blood, no foul. Those that have share a more consequentialist view of right and wrong than someone who prescribes to a deontologist point of view.

     The difference in these two perspectives is in why they drive where they drive. A deontologist is most likely to stay on the right side of the road because that is what they are supposed to do and doing anything else would be wrong. This type of thinking makes good sense, considering that any oncoming cars would expect you to be on your side of the road and not meandering down the middle. Situations like these can be dangerous to both drivers.

     It is interesting to compare these two schools of thought in this situation. While both are equally concerned with right and wrong, they have different outlooks on exactly what that means. The consequentialist feels that they only commit a wrong if their driving decision affects a situation. The deontologist, however, feels like they have committed a wrong when they move their car out of the lane it should be in, even if they never see another car on the road as long as they live.

     Looking at it like this, I think it is probably much smarter to have a deontologist writing our traffic laws than a consequentialist.

The Law of Puppy Economics

     All men may be created equal, but all laws are not. Some laws are a matter of common sense, like laws against rape, robbery, and murder. These crimes are atrocities, and the common good is undeniably best served by enforcement of laws against them. I think we can all agree that when one person commits one of these acts against another person, they should be punished. I also think we can all generally agree that none of us would want any of these things to happen to us or any one we care about. 

     Other laws, however, delve into an area that is not so black and white. For instance, officials in San Francisco recently tabled a proposed law that would ban the sale of all pets, except fish, within the city. Personally, I am a dog lover and have been all my life. To me the idea of anyone else telling me that I could not purchase a puppy, seems to be just plain strange. 

     Now I understand that they have not proposed a ban on pet ownership. However, if you are free to go outside city or county limits and purchase a pet that they bring back with them doesn’t make a lot of sense. Is the common good really being served by a measure that just forces people to go somewhere else, but can still do the same thing that the law prevents? 

     I doubt that a law like that would have any real positive effect towards solving whatever problem they think they’ll be solving. People will still buy pets. People like puppies, and well they should. Puppies may be work and responsibility, but they almost always provide their owners with a source of joy. To me, laws like that will really only govern who can purchase a pet, not as much where the pet is purchased. If you have the means to travel outside the city and purchase a pet, you’re in like Flynn. However, if you cannot, I hope you like goldfish.

Just shoot me.

     There are many ways for a man to get himself into trouble in a relationship, but nothing will do him in faster than the question: How do I look? To imply that answering this question is anywhere close to as simple as it sounds would be dangerously oversimplifying the issue and issuing an open invitation to disaster. For the family man, however, answering this simple question can be one of the most consequential decisions he makes in a day.

     Lying doesn’t work too well if the other party knows you are doing it so the question “Do you want the truth” might as well be a suicide note. Most of us want the truth when we ask a question, and there are only a few who don’t feel good when complimented. That reality however doesn’t save us from being asked questions whose answer, on occasion, cannot be both true and complimentary.  In this respect, some days are better than others.

     Let’s say, just for arguments sake, it’s a bad day. You’ve woken up late and you have a lot to get done. Distracted, you jump up, rush to the bathroom and fling open the door. You are unprepared and defenseless when the trap springs. Already dressed she looks at you and drops the question on you like a ton of bricks. “Does this dress make me look fat?”

     Most men in this situation adopt an “Act Utilitarian” philosophy in this situation. Simply put: A blind man can answer this one.  “No baby, you look great.” You don’t even need to look up, you just spit it out like “Thanks” and “Welcome”. Whether or not that is true is irrelevant. You do it because it makes her feel good and expedites the situation. The consequences of any other answer could be disastrous. 

     However, there does exist the brave few that adopt a more “Rule Utilitarian” philosophy. These believe that the question, because it was asked, deserves an honest answer. The question for them is not the consequences of the answer, but more the difference between truth and lies. They are willing to accept the consequences of saying: “Yep.  You don’t want to wear that. Find something else.”  They take solace that they have told the truth and possibly even saved another from potential embarrassment. They also may show up late and sporting a black eye.

     My advice? Become a survivor.  A survivor thinks fast, and moves quick on his feet. I dodge those bullet like Neo in the Matrix and move on. “I always like the red one. Can you hand me a towel? I’m running late and am going to shower in the other bathroom so I don’t get in your way.” No answer, no lie, no hurt feelings and no black eye. You just grab the towel and just shut the door, and the case, on this ethical minefield.