How Did Justin Ellsworth Decide The Right To Privacy?
Trident University International
ETH 301 – Business Ethics
Summer 2013
Module 2 – Case Assignment Informational Privacy
August 5, 2013
Justin Ellsworth was a Marine that gave the ultimate sacrifice for his country. Many service men and woman would agree that the fight continues even after death. For the deceased the fight may be over and they could finally rest in peace, but what is left behind when a death is so sudden and not expected. Justin Ellsworth left many wondering what might have been his last words, his last eventful moments perhaps a significant other left behind. His parents wondering this requested for Yahoo to release Justin’s privacy to them. As a company that is protected by laws Yahoo decided not to release Justin’s email credentials to his parents. Only after going …show more content…
through court did Yahoo receive a court order to release Justin’s email information to his parents.
The Right to privacy by definition “is the human right and an element of various legal traditions which may restrain both government and private party action that threatens the privacy of individuals.” The right to privacy protects us from others invading our space. Americans especially are fond of their privacy, and are proud of the power of allowing others into their space when one feels ready. Human beings are naturally defensive when their privacy is being violated, and will quickly close all doors when this happens. In trying to elaborate on the definition of rights to privacy I’ve found that even though we have these rights not everyone abides by it. When does it become ok to violate these rights? I believe no one has the right to violate an individual’s privacy. How could the system work properly if people find loop holes within the system to get what they want? In businesses they have contracts to set forth certain rules and regulations to be followed within the business. This creates a moral work environment for free people to work in. The problem is that there are many immoral decisions being made within some business, and it damages the integrity of a business.
After reading the article I agree 100% with Yahoo not allowing Justin’s parents to his email. It is not a question of what is right and what is wrong. Yahoo has a duty to protect the rights to privacy of all its users, so why would they allow any outside parties to violate their privacy. As a Yahoo user myself I would be appalled if in my death Yahoo discloses all my emails to my family members. If there is anything that I want my family to know they will find out through me and me alone being it by email, regular mail or phone calls. Having the parents violate their son’s privacy by bi-passing Yahoo’s moral obligation to their users through a court order is absolutely wrong. In this all I can say is that Justin’s parents are being selfish, and not concerned for the consequences of their actions. Justin paid the ultimate price so we can continue to defend our free nation, but their declaration to Yahoo violates the integrity of our free nation.
Our constitution has many loop holes when it comes to arguing or defending a violation of our Bill of Rights.
The courts apply tests to see if certain laws are passed and they also apply tests when dealing with rights to privacy. How can the courts decide what is right and what is wrong in dealing with this case? Even though it might have been a tough decision to make the question is was it the right one? I believe in this case the courts were wrong, and should have stood strongly with the rights to privacy that was protecting Justin’s email. They didn’t take into account the future ramifications that this may cause to other email users. Yahoo’s reputation although saved from having the court order decide what they should do is still shaken. Their integrity is now questionable, and to avoid any future issues of this matter Yahoo needs to address this in their disclaimer. The courts had a duty to choose what would have been the right thing to do in this situation, but they decided to violate Justin’s rights to privacy. Justin fought for his country to defend these rights, and I believe he would not agree with the decision that was
made.
In conclusion violating our rights to privacy has a moral effect in our free nation. How can we trust in our government when they allow these rights to be violated? In order to take things into our own hands to stop future violation of these rights from being violated certain things should be put in place. If Justin had a will stating what should be done with his email that would have made things easier on Yahoo to act properly without any questions or concerns. Only issue is that most people don’t concern themselves with things that are not bought nor have a price on it. They let their email providers handle their account when they are deceased, and that’s what Justin’s parents should have done from the beginning.
References:
Who gets to see the e-mail of the deceased? http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0502/p12s02-usju.html Rights to Privacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy
ETH 301 – Business Ethics
Summer 2013
Module 2 – Case Assignment Informational Privacy
August 5, 2013
Justin Ellsworth was a Marine that gave the ultimate sacrifice for his country. Many service men and woman would agree that the fight continues even after death. For the deceased the fight may be over and they could finally rest in peace, but what is left behind when a death is so sudden and not expected. Justin Ellsworth left many wondering what might have been his last words, his last eventful moments perhaps a significant other left behind. His parents wondering this requested for Yahoo to release Justin’s privacy to them. As a company that is protected by laws Yahoo decided not to release Justin’s email credentials to his parents. Only after going …show more content…
through court did Yahoo receive a court order to release Justin’s email information to his parents.
The Right to privacy by definition “is the human right and an element of various legal traditions which may restrain both government and private party action that threatens the privacy of individuals.” The right to privacy protects us from others invading our space. Americans especially are fond of their privacy, and are proud of the power of allowing others into their space when one feels ready. Human beings are naturally defensive when their privacy is being violated, and will quickly close all doors when this happens. In trying to elaborate on the definition of rights to privacy I’ve found that even though we have these rights not everyone abides by it. When does it become ok to violate these rights? I believe no one has the right to violate an individual’s privacy. How could the system work properly if people find loop holes within the system to get what they want? In businesses they have contracts to set forth certain rules and regulations to be followed within the business. This creates a moral work environment for free people to work in. The problem is that there are many immoral decisions being made within some business, and it damages the integrity of a business.
After reading the article I agree 100% with Yahoo not allowing Justin’s parents to his email. It is not a question of what is right and what is wrong. Yahoo has a duty to protect the rights to privacy of all its users, so why would they allow any outside parties to violate their privacy. As a Yahoo user myself I would be appalled if in my death Yahoo discloses all my emails to my family members. If there is anything that I want my family to know they will find out through me and me alone being it by email, regular mail or phone calls. Having the parents violate their son’s privacy by bi-passing Yahoo’s moral obligation to their users through a court order is absolutely wrong. In this all I can say is that Justin’s parents are being selfish, and not concerned for the consequences of their actions. Justin paid the ultimate price so we can continue to defend our free nation, but their declaration to Yahoo violates the integrity of our free nation.
Our constitution has many loop holes when it comes to arguing or defending a violation of our Bill of Rights.
The courts apply tests to see if certain laws are passed and they also apply tests when dealing with rights to privacy. How can the courts decide what is right and what is wrong in dealing with this case? Even though it might have been a tough decision to make the question is was it the right one? I believe in this case the courts were wrong, and should have stood strongly with the rights to privacy that was protecting Justin’s email. They didn’t take into account the future ramifications that this may cause to other email users. Yahoo’s reputation although saved from having the court order decide what they should do is still shaken. Their integrity is now questionable, and to avoid any future issues of this matter Yahoo needs to address this in their disclaimer. The courts had a duty to choose what would have been the right thing to do in this situation, but they decided to violate Justin’s rights to privacy. Justin fought for his country to defend these rights, and I believe he would not agree with the decision that was
made.
In conclusion violating our rights to privacy has a moral effect in our free nation. How can we trust in our government when they allow these rights to be violated? In order to take things into our own hands to stop future violation of these rights from being violated certain things should be put in place. If Justin had a will stating what should be done with his email that would have made things easier on Yahoo to act properly without any questions or concerns. Only issue is that most people don’t concern themselves with things that are not bought nor have a price on it. They let their email providers handle their account when they are deceased, and that’s what Justin’s parents should have done from the beginning.
References:
Who gets to see the e-mail of the deceased? http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0502/p12s02-usju.html Rights to Privacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_privacy