In the modern world
of social media, it is easy to track people without them finding out. We often do
this with relative ease and without any compunction. The problem of people tracking
people is so prevalent that consumer agencies warn people of phishing scams to
elicit private information or maliciously placing spyware on their computers.
Much like computer hackers
and phishers, those who have magickal abilities, such as remote viewing or ESP,
can follow a person with ease. Most people, with this ability, will use it in
the guise of being helpful. Usually, they become the psychic version of “Life
Alert tm,” watching over another person and notifying others of emergencies or
accidents. These magickal people take it upon themselves to oversee the safety
and well-being of another person. However, these well-meaning people often do
not have permission to do this, and are thereby committing a breach of privacy.
People who collect
and use personal data in their jobs, such as bank loan officers, grapple with
the ethics of what should they collect, why, and how they use this information.
People with remote viewing abilities need to know how data collectors resolve these
dilemmas. Magickal people should be aware of how the right of access to
information collides with the right to personal privacy.
An example of one of
these dilemmas is the local supermarket that offers in exchange for your
personal information, membership in their shoppers’ club. Members receive
cheaper prices for their groceries. Should I give this supermarket my personal
information for the ability to buy lower cost groceries? What will the store do
with this information? Since their main objective is to make a profit, I see no
reason to trust the supermarket to keep my personal information private. They
could sell it to other marketers intent on selling me things. Therefore in this
case, I choose not to give the grocery my information.
Writing for the Ecclasian
Fellowship (a Neo-Pagan organization), Mark Chametzky discusses how the Wiccan
Rede applies to data collection obtained by divination (which can apply to
remote viewing). Chametzky states, “Don’t seek out information for which you do
not have permission to obtain.” In other words, “Don’t ask. Don’t tell. Don’t
investigate.” He emphasizes that invading another person’s privacy is a form of
psychic dictatorship. At the expense of another person’s sovereignty, the
remote viewer’s concerns are paramount. She becomes the final authority on what
is important for the person whom she is spying on.
In U.S. law, there is
a concept known as the “Expressed Will to Privacy.” If a person desires to keep
a matter private, it stays private. Once a person gives their telephone number
to a company, the data ceases to be private. Therefore, consumer protection
agencies warn people about being tricked into giving out personal information
to unethical companies.
In his paper,
“Technology as a Threat to Privacy,” J.J. Britz of the University of Pretoria
(South Africa), writes, “Privacy is an important right because it is a
necessary condition for other rights such as freedom and personal autonomy.
There is a relationship between privacy, freedom and human dignity. Respecting
a person’s privacy is to acknowledge such a person’s right to freedom and to
recognize that individual as an autonomous human being.”
Clifford Christians
(Director, Institute of Communications Research, University of Illinois) gives
the basis for Britz’s assertions. The 1948 Human Rights Declaration of the
United Nations lays out the right to privacy. This U.N. document codifies the
rights and dignity of every human being. Therefore any exception, to a privacy policy,
that impinges on a person’s autonomy is suspect.
Many privacy
violations revolve around the concept of “for your own good” or “on your
behalf.” Goldberg, Hill, and Shostack in the “Boston University Law Review” points out that moral hazard come up
between the data collector and the person, whom he fears will not consent to provide
him the information that he wants. Desiring this particular data, the collector
decides to act on his own. His reasoning is based on his perception of “in the
best needs of the person.” Instead of
getting permission, the data collector becomes the overseer of the other person.
The authors charge that most reasons for collection without permission are
trivial.
No comments:
Post a Comment