Personal Email Privacy Decisions

In my opinion I think that the parents should have been given access to his email. The

reason I feel this way is because there are things that us as humans do that we keep private.

The parents have the right to know what their son was doing in his private life so that they

could better understand their son and find out things that maybe he did not feel they needed

to know about his life. They way that Yahoo handled the situation was correct in that, they

followed exactly what they say in their privacy statement when creating an account. They

cannot just give out information it must be requested via legal means. For future cases of

this nature I think that there should be something that grants access to personal email
to family

members so that there will be no more grief than the families are already going through having

to deal with lawyers and courts. I am certain Justin’s parents meant well when they challenged

Yahoo’s! privacy agreement and obtained a court order to disclose Justin’s emails after his

unfortunate death defending the freedoms we enjoy. However, in the quest of his parents to

obtain Justin’s last thoughts, could they have unveiled a personal life that would of changed their

opinion of him? This and other utilitarian and deontological moral ethics should be considered

when confronted with the decision to invade someone’s privacy. In the utilitarian concept of

ethics, an action is good if it creates more happiness than unhappiness for the greater good. If

Yahoo! had given Ellsworth’s parents Justin’s account password, that action would have been

good only for them and created a happy atmosphere for them only. This action is contrary to the

utilitarian theory since it didn’t create happiness for the greater public. In addition, did his parents

consider the consequences of reading Justin’s private emails? In the quest of understanding

Justin’s last thoughts, they might have discovered information that could have changed their

opinion of him instead of preserving the way they last remembered him. Lastly, the judge did

not consider the consequences of his actions by granting the order. When the judge granted

Justin’s parents the right to obtain Justin’s email, he provided happiness for his parents, instead

of making a moral decision of happiness for the greatest amount of people. Under the

Deontological ethical theory, Ellsworth’s parents should not have been allowed to receive

Justin’s emails because of the privacy agreements.
Yahoo! would be violating your civil, human

and/or contractual rights by releasing emails to the general public. Once these agreements are

violated, other people from the general public could request access to email accounts for various

reasons. For this and many other issues, these agreements are in place. Where would the overall

happiness and fairness be at this point? The moral rightness of giving his parents the password

for the benefit of goodness and the difference of right and wrong doesn’t coincide with Yahoo’s!

email privacy agreements. By giving out one’s password and the possibility of exposing Justin’s

personal emails would create a breakdown in the privacy of all of Yahoo! users. This could

create problems with attracting new customers and keeping existing ones.

In conclusion, if Justin wanted to share his private emails with his parents, he could have

“Courtesy copied” his emails to them. I believe the judge was wrong to grant Justin

Ellsworth's parents a court order to access his emails. As we understand, “Privacy is the interest

that individuals have in sustaining a ‘personal space’, free from interference by other people and
organizations.”

. Our email accounts emulate a place where we can go to have our personal space, keep private

documents, and keep our innermost feelings typed in our privacy. When Justin signed-up with

Yahoo! he had a reasonable expectation to his privacy. I am sure Justin’s parent meant well

when they challenged Yahoo’s! privacy agreement and obtained a court order to disclose Justin’s

last emails prior to his death. However, in the quest of obtaining Justin’s last thoughts, they

could have unveiled a personal life that could have changed their opinion of him.