Ethics of Spying
I saw philosopher and legal scholar Anita Allen give a talk at the UW today entitled “The Ethics of Spying on Others.” In it, she explored four scenarios that illuminated criteria which could conceivably justify covertly collecting information on people without their knowledge.
These were 1) in the arena of international relations, where a country’s real security is at risk, 2) in the corporate world, when an organization’s vital interests are at stake, 3) in personal relationships between adults, where one of the party’s deep personal interests might be seriously compromised, and 4) in parental and other caregiving relationships where the caregiver has good reason to believe the person under his or her care could be harming him or herself.
I was particularly interested in the last one (which actually came first during Dr. Allen’s talk) because it made me wonder about instances where it might be okay to spy on Mimi in the name of preventing her from harm.
As a parent, it seems obvious that I’d be justified in looking through her room if I thought she was hiding something that was hurting her—methamphetamine, Ayn Rand novels, Carrot Top CDs—but as a kid, I would have been livid had my own parents snooped in my desk drawer or read my journal looking for signs that I was injuring myself.
Dr. Allen didn’t really get into cases where there might be disagreement over what constitutes harm. Say, for instance, that I suspect my daughter of falling under the influence of kids who hand out Lyndon LaRouche pamphlets. I believe that she would be doing herself a great injustice to become involved with the Libertarian Party and so I dig under her mattress looking for campaign material.
Would I be justified? Not if it’s not certain harm is being done.
Allen did say, though, that it’s not spying if the spied-upon knows s/he is being observed.
So, if you’re reading this Mimi, considered yourself informed.
These were 1) in the arena of international relations, where a country’s real security is at risk, 2) in the corporate world, when an organization’s vital interests are at stake, 3) in personal relationships between adults, where one of the party’s deep personal interests might be seriously compromised, and 4) in parental and other caregiving relationships where the caregiver has good reason to believe the person under his or her care could be harming him or herself.
I was particularly interested in the last one (which actually came first during Dr. Allen’s talk) because it made me wonder about instances where it might be okay to spy on Mimi in the name of preventing her from harm.
As a parent, it seems obvious that I’d be justified in looking through her room if I thought she was hiding something that was hurting her—methamphetamine, Ayn Rand novels, Carrot Top CDs—but as a kid, I would have been livid had my own parents snooped in my desk drawer or read my journal looking for signs that I was injuring myself.
Dr. Allen didn’t really get into cases where there might be disagreement over what constitutes harm. Say, for instance, that I suspect my daughter of falling under the influence of kids who hand out Lyndon LaRouche pamphlets. I believe that she would be doing herself a great injustice to become involved with the Libertarian Party and so I dig under her mattress looking for campaign material.
Would I be justified? Not if it’s not certain harm is being done.
Allen did say, though, that it’s not spying if the spied-upon knows s/he is being observed.
So, if you’re reading this Mimi, considered yourself informed.
posted by Professor Dave at 6:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home