Computer Monitoring Software and the Ethical Questions Therein
-
As many conservative pundits have gleefully pointed out when minorities complain, that law does not guarantee a right to privacy. It only guarantees that police and other government authorities cannot break into your premises looking for evidence unless the get permission under specific circumstances. For example, it is not used as the basis for arresting someone who breaks into your house. If your interpretation were correct, then it would be. I really wish "privacy" was a constitutionally guaranteed right. But it is not.
My other signature is a Porche.
The constitution is a living document, and is also subject to legal interpretation by the courts in the context of the times. The idea of being secure in one's home, papers, effects, etc. as outlined in the fourth amendment could in fact be interpreted as a guarantee of privacy in many scenarios. The fact that this legal precedent has not yet been established doesn't mean it's not a constitutionally guaranteed right, only that a successful legal argument hasn't been presented in the courts. And while lawyers might contend that "the law is the law," interpretation will always be subject to the social environment of the times. We simply haven't reached the tipping point where this issue becomes hotly contested enough to push such a legislative effort to more specifically define these rights through legal rulings and precedent. I have little doubt, however, that as time and technology go on it will eventually become quite the social hot button. I have little faith in politicians of any stripe. I do, however, have great faith in the overall architecture of the government, designed as it is to not only anticipate human greed and the desire for power, but actually use it to keep things in balance. It was a work of pure genius.
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalUSA.com
-
The constitution is a living document, and is also subject to legal interpretation by the courts in the context of the times. The idea of being secure in one's home, papers, effects, etc. as outlined in the fourth amendment could in fact be interpreted as a guarantee of privacy in many scenarios. The fact that this legal precedent has not yet been established doesn't mean it's not a constitutionally guaranteed right, only that a successful legal argument hasn't been presented in the courts. And while lawyers might contend that "the law is the law," interpretation will always be subject to the social environment of the times. We simply haven't reached the tipping point where this issue becomes hotly contested enough to push such a legislative effort to more specifically define these rights through legal rulings and precedent. I have little doubt, however, that as time and technology go on it will eventually become quite the social hot button. I have little faith in politicians of any stripe. I do, however, have great faith in the overall architecture of the government, designed as it is to not only anticipate human greed and the desire for power, but actually use it to keep things in balance. It was a work of pure genius.
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalUSA.com
No argument about the possibility that it could be re-interpreted. However, the current makeup of the SCOTUS makes the likelihood extremely small. But if you could somehow remove the vicious joke that Bush had installed as Chief Justice...
My other signature is a Porche.
-
I don't have any children, and I don't need to spy on my wife because I can just get her drunk and then she tells me everything. That said, I can understand wanting to keep children safe. I think children growing up today can be exposed to a lot more dangers than when I was growing up, simply because technology brings those dangers into the home. You hear these terrible stories of paedophiles "grooming" children at home via the internet, suicide pacts and internet-organised gang violence amongst other horror stories - not to mention the sheer amount of material that's available on the Internet that I find unsuitable for myself, let alone children - even the supposedly "funny" stuff like goatse man, tub girl and that two-girls and a cup thing*. However, I don't think surveillance can replace supervision. Targeted surveillance, used by law enforcement officials, assists in building a case that will later be brought against criminals. It is not preventative in any way, and in fact it works best if criminals continue to do unlawful things whilst under surveillance! My other big worry is that we are becoming a society that is used to and even accepts 24/7 surveillance without question. And for the generations to come, perhaps they'll accept it as the norm? My personal belief is that people should be able to go about their lawful business un-molested and un-observed, as we have as a species since time immemorial. * Important Safety Tip: If you don't know what this is don't Google it, don't look for it and DO NOT WATCH IT!
print "http://www.codeproject.com".toURL().text Ain't that Groovy?
-
I don't have any children, and I don't need to spy on my wife because I can just get her drunk and then she tells me everything. That said, I can understand wanting to keep children safe. I think children growing up today can be exposed to a lot more dangers than when I was growing up, simply because technology brings those dangers into the home. You hear these terrible stories of paedophiles "grooming" children at home via the internet, suicide pacts and internet-organised gang violence amongst other horror stories - not to mention the sheer amount of material that's available on the Internet that I find unsuitable for myself, let alone children - even the supposedly "funny" stuff like goatse man, tub girl and that two-girls and a cup thing*. However, I don't think surveillance can replace supervision. Targeted surveillance, used by law enforcement officials, assists in building a case that will later be brought against criminals. It is not preventative in any way, and in fact it works best if criminals continue to do unlawful things whilst under surveillance! My other big worry is that we are becoming a society that is used to and even accepts 24/7 surveillance without question. And for the generations to come, perhaps they'll accept it as the norm? My personal belief is that people should be able to go about their lawful business un-molested and un-observed, as we have as a species since time immemorial. * Important Safety Tip: If you don't know what this is don't Google it, don't look for it and DO NOT WATCH IT!
print "http://www.codeproject.com".toURL().text Ain't that Groovy?
martin_hughes wrote:
You hear these terrible stories of paedophiles "grooming" children at home via the internet,
Yes, it sometimes does happen that paedophiles "groom" children. However, studies have shown that a high percentage of those children were actually deliberately looking for "thrills" on the internet. <cynicism>"Terrible stories" sell newspapers and news air-time.</cynicism>
-
martin_hughes wrote:
My other big worry is that we are becoming a society that is used to and even accepts 24/7 surveillance without question. And for the generations to come, perhaps they'll accept it as the norm? My personal belief is that people should be able to go about their lawful business un-molested and un-observed
Absolutely. I think this is really one of the core issues of our time.
Christopher Duncan Author of The Career Programmer and Unite the Tribes www.PracticalUSA.com
Education is the thing. However, have you ever noticed how short an attention span children have these days? As soon as you mention something that they don't want to hear then they shut off. Our eldest learnt by his own mistakes and didn't really slow down until the Fraud Squad came to our house. I think the more we go on about something the more our children will ignore us.
"Don't do that!"
-
martin_hughes wrote:
You hear these terrible stories of paedophiles "grooming" children at home via the internet,
Yes, it sometimes does happen that paedophiles "groom" children. However, studies have shown that a high percentage of those children were actually deliberately looking for "thrills" on the internet. <cynicism>"Terrible stories" sell newspapers and news air-time.</cynicism>
JDL-EPM wrote:
martin_hughes wrote: You hear these terrible stories of paedophiles "grooming" children at home via the internet, Yes, it sometimes does happen that paedophiles "groom" children. However, studies have shown that a high percentage of those children were actually deliberately looking for "thrills" on the internet.
So by that logic is it ok to shoot a kid that wants to know what a gunshot feels like? Wrong is wrong whether they ask for it or not. Nothing personal, but you surely see my point.
JDL-EPM wrote:
"Terrible stories" sell newspapers and news air-time.
Sad, but very true.
-
JDL-EPM wrote:
martin_hughes wrote: You hear these terrible stories of paedophiles "grooming" children at home via the internet, Yes, it sometimes does happen that paedophiles "groom" children. However, studies have shown that a high percentage of those children were actually deliberately looking for "thrills" on the internet.
So by that logic is it ok to shoot a kid that wants to know what a gunshot feels like? Wrong is wrong whether they ask for it or not. Nothing personal, but you surely see my point.
JDL-EPM wrote:
"Terrible stories" sell newspapers and news air-time.
Sad, but very true.
sketch2002 wrote:
Wrong is wrong whether they ask for it or not.
I agree that "wrong is wrong" and I did not, in any way, shape or form mean to suggest that we should condone the actions of young, inexperienced people when they lead to ill-judged results. You and I know the difference between right and wrong; the young don't necessarily understand the full implications of their actions. We can only do our best to ensure that the young have as much information as possible to give them the ability to make good decisions with regards to their lives. As a child (8 to 10 years old) I used to walk home from school, reading a book, down the middle of the railroad tracks. Once I had the danger explained to me, I chose a "safer" route. I still continued to read as I walked home from school though. It enabled me to read a book per day and still get my farm chores done...
-
sketch2002 wrote:
Wrong is wrong whether they ask for it or not.
I agree that "wrong is wrong" and I did not, in any way, shape or form mean to suggest that we should condone the actions of young, inexperienced people when they lead to ill-judged results. You and I know the difference between right and wrong; the young don't necessarily understand the full implications of their actions. We can only do our best to ensure that the young have as much information as possible to give them the ability to make good decisions with regards to their lives. As a child (8 to 10 years old) I used to walk home from school, reading a book, down the middle of the railroad tracks. Once I had the danger explained to me, I chose a "safer" route. I still continued to read as I walked home from school though. It enabled me to read a book per day and still get my farm chores done...
JDL-EPM wrote:
I did not, in any way, shape or form mean to suggest that we should condone the actions of young, inexperienced people when they lead to ill-judged results.
I didn't think you did, but the post could have been interpreted that way.
-
sketch2002 wrote:
Wrong is wrong whether they ask for it or not.
I agree that "wrong is wrong" and I did not, in any way, shape or form mean to suggest that we should condone the actions of young, inexperienced people when they lead to ill-judged results. You and I know the difference between right and wrong; the young don't necessarily understand the full implications of their actions. We can only do our best to ensure that the young have as much information as possible to give them the ability to make good decisions with regards to their lives. As a child (8 to 10 years old) I used to walk home from school, reading a book, down the middle of the railroad tracks. Once I had the danger explained to me, I chose a "safer" route. I still continued to read as I walked home from school though. It enabled me to read a book per day and still get my farm chores done...
JDL-EPM wrote:
As a child (8 to 10 years old) I used to walk home from school, reading a book
You, too, huh? Nobody explained anything to me, but after a few of my neighbors had left their front gates open (around face height on a 10 y.o.) I figured it out. :confused: As my dad used to say, not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Someone's gotta be the last to know, but why is it always me?
-
Hey all, I've been reading articles lately regarding software used for checking to see what a computer is being used for--things like logging where internet traffic is headed, logging chat sessions, keystrokes, etc. And before I open this can of worms, this is in regards to personal home computers, not computers out in the wild. I'm definitely not trying to start up an argument here--I'd just like to hear what your thoughts are on this type of thing and why you believe the way you do about it. Here at CP we've got a wide amount of disciplines, cultural and ideological views, so I want to tap it. Do you think this kind of software has its place and can be helpful somehow? Do you think it's an invasion of privacy even if it's within your own home? Do you think this is totally outrageous and peoples' privacy should be hands-off? Torpedo away! Michael Fritzius
parents shouldn't read their kids diarys or search their rooms. if teenage kids don't trust parents enuf to talk to them, its too late. parents are not going to fix anything by spying. i think in the workplace, or in libraries and schools, things might be different, depending on the context. i think its reasonable to monitor a public workstation, but not a private one. even then, it is not reasonable to inspect private data. ordinary people absolutely must exclude the prying eyes of government busybodies and other vigilantists from their personal business. if people don't start doing this soon, it will be too late to re-establish meaningful standards of privacy.