[Class Title]
Introduction
The term ‘Social media’ refer to internet services that “allow users to participate in online exchanges, contribute user-created content, or join online communities” (Dewing 1). Social media has become the driving force behind the popular use of the internet today. Unarguably, social media has become an important communication tool among online users and has an enormous potential in personal and business related applications. There are, for instance, different types of social media applications that are commonly used today. The blogs, the wikis, the social networking sites, virtual world content and media-sharing sites are just among the many types of social media applications that are used by most people today. Just like traditional communication services such as call and messaging services, social media can also perform such functions. What is unique with social media, though, as compared to other communication platforms is that it allows its users to “meet strangers” as well as “enable users to articulate and make visible their social networks” (Boyd, & Ellison 211). As observed by scholars, this ability of the social media to make a connection between complete strangers possible may not be the initial or primary goal of why social media was developed, but it significantly gave its users the ability to extend their social network (Boyd, & Ellison 211). While the extended usage of social media has its benefits, it undeniably poses a threat to the privacy of an individual. One of the most common privacy issues related to social media is it gives users the ability to pry on other people’s lives without their consent or in some cases, consent is not voluntary, but imposed as part of an individual’s employment. Is it, thereby, ethical for an employer to monitor their employee’s social media activity? Moreover, are there legal frameworks that protect employees from the invasion of privacy from their employers?
Utilization of Social Media
The social media’s technical feature provides a new and interesting way to interact and communicate with each other, which attracted many young people during its earliest stages. Among the first social media users are students who find the relatively new communication platform as an interesting way of expressing themselves. Sixdegrees.com, one of the first social media sites to come out in the 1990s, for instance, did not only provide email correspondence, but also allowed its users to create online profiles, create friend listings and allowed users to search the profiles created by friends (Boyd, & Ellison 214). Consequently, social media sites began to attract young adults as it became an increasingly popular communication tool for dating. Match.com, Friendster and the likes have attracted millions of young users because they allow users to personal dating profiles (Boyd, & Ellison 215). Social media were also utilized in business and work oriented tasks. LinkedIn, for instance, became a popular social media site for people who wish to increase their business networks and connections. For the same reason, social media also attracted entrepreneurs, investors as well as professionals who are working as freelancers. The advent of Facebook further increased the users of social media. With user-friendly functionalities, Facebook became a popular social media tool both for the young and the old. Moreover, the widespread accessibility and affordability of the internet today has also made social media accessible to almost everyone. Today, social media caters to almost all individuals regardless of age, gender or race as well as caters to all types of organizations.
Social Media Ethical Rights Analysis
Privacy is one of social media’s primary concerns. In today’s generation wherein almost all personal activities are being posted online, the amount of personal information that can be retrieved through social media is quite alarming. Information regarding a person’s family, finances, acquaintances, affiliations and many other important personal data can be retrieved through social media. For the same reason, some people prefer to make their social media profile private, however, their privacy are still at risk of being invaded because they may be compelled by their employment to divulge private information about themselves. Although there are others who may argue that if you got nothing to hide, then you have nothing to fear, such reasoning is not entirely true in a real life scenario. As a fact, most people value their privacy notwithstanding whether they have something or nothing to hide. Apparently, most people want to have control of their personal information in a sense that they decide on what personal information they are willing to divulge and to whom. Americans, in particular, are very demanding when it comes to privacy. As observed by the PEW research institute, more than 90 percent of Americans believe that it is important to have greater control over one’s personal information (Madden, & Rainie).
The ethics of privacy and social media can be analyzed using two of the major ethical theories: utilitarianism and deontology. Under the utilitarian view, a behavior can be considered as ethical if it pleases the largest number of people (Veenhoven, 102). Since prying on an individual’s personal information through social media makes a lot of people unhappy, such act is, thereby, unethical. The ethical theory of deontology, on the other hand, posits that there are certain rights that could not be taken away with or without legal basis (Hull 6). Individual rights such as the right to life and free will, for instance, could not be compromised for the sake of the happiness of the majority. Deontology posits that it is the duty or obligation of an individual to uphold this inalienable right no matter what the consequences will be (Hull 6). When seen under this view, the act of monitoring an employee’s personal life through social media without their voluntary consent is unethical because it violates their free will. The unsolicited monitoring of an employee’s personal life through social media, thereby fails under the major theoretical concepts of utilitarianism and deontology.
Constitutional and Privacy Rights on Social Media
The constitution surely upholds an individual’s right to express himself, but it is not explicit in its position with regards to keeping personal information. Ironically, the United States constitution is not as particular with individual privacy. There are, at least, five constitutional provisions that most people often relate to the right to privacy; the 1st Amendment, the 3rd Amendment, the 4th Amendment, the 9th Amendment and the 14th Amendment. The 1st Amendment, for instance, prohibits congress to pass any laws that would infringe the right of an individual to exercise their freedom of religion, freedom of speech and their right to a peaceful assembly . The 3rd Amendment, on the other hand, provides that no member of the United States’ armed forces can be lodged in anyone’s home without the voluntary consent of the home owner . The 4th amendment, on the other hand, provides that individuals have the right to “be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” which is the closest law that relates to privacy. Even so, such law is still vague to be considered as a benchmark for the individual’s right to privacy. The 9th Amendment provides an even vaguer statement on privacy because it only states that there are certain rights that could not be denied from the people without specifically specifying the right to privacy as one of them. Lastly, one of the major constitutional provisions that relates to privacy is the 14th Amendment, which states that no laws should be passed that will “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”. Some might think that the right to liberty is tantamount to the right to privacy. Scholars, however, believe that privacy is not explicitly defined in the 14th Amendment.
The technology that exists today is not yet existent during the time when the Amendments to the constitution were drafted. Thereby, it is only logical to think that the constitutional Amendments may not be suited to address the privacy issues that have arisen out of these technologies, specifically in the area of information technology and social media. The Privacy Act of 1974 is one of the latest legal attempts to fill the huge gap regarding an individual’s right to privacy. Specifically, the Act was designed to provide “safeguards against an invasion of personal privacy through the misuse of records by Federal Agencies”. The protection of privacy under this act, however, can still be considered as minor and still insignificant to address the growing concern about privacy, especially on social media. Another attempt to fill the gap on the right to privacy specifically noted for its relevance to privacy in social media is the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (ECPA). The first part of this act, which is also known as Title III, “outlaws the unauthorized interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications” (Doyle 1). A person or organization, however, can only be convicted under this law if it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that he intentionally eavesdrop or intercept a personal electronic communication. Such a scenario, however, is difficult to prove primarily because social media information can be accessed by almost anyone that has internet access.
Conclusion
In this digital age, the invasion of one’s privacy has become an almost inevitable outcome. Since almost anything is already hooked up to the internet, the security of one’s personal information is also at higher risk of being infringed. Employers who monitor their employee’s personal life through social media, for instance, have become a common practice. Most employees are often forced to provide employers with access to their personal information through social media for the sake of their employment despite the fact that they are opposed to it. When analyzed under the theory of utilization and deontology, such practice can be considered as unethical because most people are opposed to it as well as it violates a person’s free will or freedom of choice. Unfortunately, the violation of an individual’s privacy is not explicitly stated in the constitution. For the same reason, without an effective legal framework to safeguard an individual’s privacy, it is sometimes easy for individuals and organizations to exploit such legal vulnerabilities regarding privacy for their personal interests.
Works Cited
Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. Social network sites: Definitions,History and Scholarship. 2008. March 2016 <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x/pdf>.
Cornell University Law School. Personal Autonomy. n.d. March 2016 <https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/personal_autonomy>.
Dewing, M. Social Media: An Introduction. 2010. March 2016 <http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2010-03-e.pdf>.
Doyle, C. Privacy: An Overview of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act . 2012. March 2016 <https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41733.pdf>.
Exploring Constitutional Conflicts. "The Right of Privacy The Issue: Does the Constitution protect the right of privacy? If so, what aspects of privacy receive protection?" n.d. http://law2.umkc.edu/. March 2016 <http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html>.
Hull, R. The Varieties of Ethical Theories. 1979. March 2016 <http://www.richard-t-hull.com/publications/varieties.pdf>.
Madden, M., & Rainie, L. Americans’ Attitudes About Privacy, Security and Surveillance. 2015. March 2016 <http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/05/20/americans-attitudes-about-privacy-security-and-surveillance/>.
Solove, D. The Chronicle of Higher Education: Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide'. 2011. March 2016 <http://www.cfr.org/cybersecurity/chronicle-higher-education-why-privacy-matters-even-if-you-have-nothing-hide/p31330>.
U.S. Department of State. The Privacy Act. n.d. March 2016 <https://foia.state.gov/Learn/PrivacyAct.aspx>.
Veenhoven, R. "Is Happiness a Trait?" Social Indicators Research (1994): 101 - 160.
