CSE303, Spring 2005, Example “Issues” PaperNote: The following “paper” is just one example of a reasonable submission for CSE303. Asrequired, it provides background, takes a position, and defends that position. The purpose ofthis example is not to teach a particular opinion. As our class discussions have emphasized,the societal implications of computing are difficult and students should reach their ownconclusions. It is simply impossible to give an example without expressing some (debatable)opinions.Advice:• Do not mimic the example in style, tone, or topic. Your instructor writes in a certainway and about things that matter to him. Make your paper your own.• Be specific. The sample is really broader than ideal, though that is okay too. Just picksomething you want to write about, explain it, develop an opinion, and be done.• Do not worry too much about the grade. Hopefully everyone will receive 90%–100%.The only way to get a low grade is to do a shoddy job. Do not worry if your paperdoes not “sound as good” as the sample.• Write well. It matters. Everyone can use the practice.• Remember the point of the assignment: To make you think about a societal implicationyou care about and write a brief, coherent discussion of it.1Recent Digital Technology Endangers Personal PrivacyDan GrossmanMay 2005We may have already reached an age of “constant surveillance” in the developed world, inwhich it is reasonable to assume that one’s every action is recorded and available to anyonesufficiently interested in acquiring it. The enabling technologies (including ubiquitious com-municating devices, tiny cameras, massive storage systems, and improved search techniques)have widely cherished uses, so we cannot and should not hope they disappear. Rather, ifwe value personal privacy (an ethical question well beyond this short essay), then we shoulddevelop data-management policies and legal requirements that allow individuals to controlwhere their personal data is stored.Modern technology lets us record a staggering amount of information about individuals’actions. Surveillance cameras in many buildings, tiny portable cameras in many pockets,and government satellites overhead enable image or video recording almost anywhere. Ournetworked computers, cable-tele vision subscriptions, and credit cards allow service providersto learn our work and entertainment habits. Our communication devices make it easy tolocate us whenever they are on and near us. In short, technology has made it unreasonableto assume our actions are visible only to those physically present at the time.Continuing advances in digital storage capacity mean we can store all this information.The average home computer already has enough disk storage to store (with reasonable qual-ity) the sound a person hears for he r entire life. Corporate databases can include every itemever sold from a store or a trace of every visit to a website. There is simply no need todelete old data to make room for the new: For the reasonable future, we can expect to storeeverything more cheaply and in less physical s pace.All this information is useless unless someone can find what they are looking for. Successin search technology, from the billions of successful web searches each day to cutting-edgedata-mining techniques, suggests that we can often succeed in automating retrieval fromour massive worldwide data collection. Searching images and video is more difficult thansearching text, but nothing indicates the technical problems are insurmountable.Together, ubiquitious digital recording and location-tracking, increased storage capacity,and sophisticated search create the ability to find any information about anything at anytime.This vision is appealing for many valuable uses such as replaying meetings (or sentimentalevents), providing a worldwide information repository, and even advancing science and ourunderstanding of human nature. But it also raises new ethical questions regarding who hasthe right to this data and what it can be used for.Until humanity comes to understand the implications of technology relevant to personalprivacy and reaches a consensus on its appropriate use, we should adopt a cautious strategyin which we affirm that each individual has the right to control information about herself.Corporations and governments should have to disclose the sort of information they storeand individuals should have the right to have their information removed. Although thisgoal should guide our policies, several issues make it overly simplistic for a comprehensivesolution.First, aggregate information (such as averages and other statistics) are extremely use-2ful and, at least potentially, disclose acceptably little information about individuals. It isunclear “how much aggregation is enough” and whether the “opt-out” strategy advocatedabove should affect aggregated results. If it does, opting out can introduce statistical bias.Databases of census information, disease outbreaks, even tax records serve a public goodbecause they provide summary information that can guide public policy. Collecting thisdata accurately while ensuring privacy is a difficult balance.Second, it is unclear how much privacy an individual should be allowed to forfeit volun-tarily. Policies allowing one to maintain privacy are ineffective if every computer, softwarepackage, and financial account comes with a contract requiring the consumer to surrendertheir rights. Yet it is equally unreasonable to forbid any personal data collection. Trackingindividuals’ actions might lead to better service (e.g., phone-tower placement or identity-theft detection). With consenting participants, such activities are ethical and valuable.Third, despite our ability to collect, store, and search massive amounts of information,we are likely not organized enough to enforce accurately any privacy policy. A fine-grainedpolicy with each individual empowered to control data regarding her life would prove in-tractably complicated. Even an expert trained in technology and privacy issues would findit cumbersome to control such information. Without drastic simplification, the problem ofcontrolling the deluge of personal information is just too difficult.On the surface, the privacy issues that modern technology raises seem simple: As itbecomes transcendingly easy to maintain personal information, personal privacy requiresthat individuals gain the ability to control the information
View Full Document
Unlocking...