Chapter 4 Case Study

The increased surveillance power and capability of the U.S government definitely presents an ethical dilemma.
One hand it helps the government catch in advance organizations and individuals that plan to harm society and destruct lives within its boundaries. It also helps the government plan better for impending danger within its soil.

On the other hand the surveillance mechanism treats many innocent people as potential threats and directly intrudes into the privacy of many of its citizens.
It is very frustrating for a person to note that somebody is listening to his conversations within his own house/country and he does not have freedom of privacy.


The following five-step process helps analyze the issue of U.S government’s use of telecommunications data to fight terrorism.
a> Identify & describe clearly the facts:
In May, 2006 USA today reported that 3 of the 4 major United States landline telecommunications companies had cooperated with the US government in its fight against terrorism by sharing information of billions of phone calls made by Americans. This was clearly an intrusion into personal privacy of citizens who were oblivious of the fact that someone was listening to their phone conversations.

b> Define the conflict or dilemma and identify the higher-order values involved
The moral dilemma involved the need to protect citizens from terrorist’s acts versus the need to protect individual privacy

c> Identify stakeholders – The stakeholders in this issue would be the US government, Citizens, privacy advocates, judiciary
d> Identify the options that you can reasonably take
The 3 options available are
I> Use the existing surveillance power and capabilities to keep track of terrorist groups and their activities.
II> completely stop this program
III> Use the surveillance program on specific suspicious individuals based on a judicial approval

e> Identify the potential consequences of your opinions
Option 1 helps the government have better controls in its national security matters and helps identify threats to the nation before it rolls out as a disaster. On the flip this options intrudes personal privacy which as a citizen each one has a right to personal freedom of speech and association.
Option 2 satisfies the privacy advocates and the citizens but may create a security loop hole wherein terrorist activities may go unnoticed
Option 3 strikes a balance between both the key stake holders to this issue i.e. the US government and the privacy advocates / citizens who deem their personal privacy rights.
The responsibility of the phone companies is primarily to protect the privacy of their customers. At the least the phone companies should have released a disclaimer to their customers stating that is a possibility of the telephone lines used by its customers may be subject to monitoring by government agencies and that they do not guarantee privacy protection.
This type of informed consent could have better protected the company’s social and ethical standards.

Phone companies working with the government in this fashion stir a lot of political issues. Companies that need to abide by government enforcements and legal decisions often need to reevaluate their ethical conduct and standards.
Customers who trust the company that they deal with all of a sudden are exposed to the company’s unethical practices and are morally cheated.
Moreover governments become weak and unstable when such anti trust laws are broken by the very keepers of law and governance.