Write an Essay where you Provide support for a Particular Position on an Ethical Issue in ICT.
Drones and Privacy
Limits Should Be Put On the Use of Personal Drones for The Privacy Reasons.
Background information on the Personal drones on basis of people’s privacy
Drones have for sometimes been used for many reasons by the photographers. Some of these reasons are commercial, military actions or even for enjoyment. From the last century, different countries have laid rules and regulation on using drones (Maxwell, 2016, p.32).
Recently, photographers have started owning drowns as they are affordable to many people. For this reason, an alarm has been heard from different peoples giving their views on the personal drones. Photographers are now in a position to control them and take photos, take videos in their areas of choice. The extent to which the personal drones are used has therefore inconvenienced many people by having photos taken and videos recorded frothier back yard (Cavoukian, 2012, p.09).
Arguments for the Affirmative
The limits to using unnamed aerial vehicles should be addressed in the society. According to the social contract theory, the society lives the way they do because of the agreed principles that guides the members. The agreement among these people can be said to be the rules that people sets to live well with each other (Allen, 2014, p.461). The sense impacts the drones and privacy in that, when people have guides of rules and regulation in using personal drones, they will live morally appropriate by the choices they make and not necessarily because it is required of them. The sense in social contract or the political contract theory will affirm that people should decide for themselves in the society what to do and what they don’t want to do.
The limits to using personal drones are needed because they tamper with the basic human right to privacy. Every individual needs privacy. The people who at times use private drones are driven by individual interests rather than the social needs. The will take videos in the peoples back yard, print them in media and then the privacy of people will be jeopardised (Westin, 2003, p.431).
The personal drone photography has at many times caused social and civil crimes. One would not like it to have their privacy revealed to the public. Many people who have found out that there are some people taking photos and videos behind their back have complained in the court. The mess makes people to live in suspicion thinking that there are evil things associated with private drones’ photography which endangers their privacy. After all, they ask themselves the reasons which would make other people need to take photography of their backyard and their private home areas.
According to (Wang et al., 2016), these drones are like moving eyes and hidden controllers. Criminals have at most times used private drones to find out the happenings or the activities that people are in, or their locality and then proceed to make their attacks with full knowledge of the grounds they had taken videos of. Suspicion, fear and terror has therefore been made by people because who use the private drones irresponsibly to afflict people’s privacy and therefore, limits should be bargained upon as per the social contact theoretical ideas. The criminal activities caused by the unnamed aerial surveillance has for instance been limited in some countries like USA. More than 300 cases have been reported to the security department whereby, the unnamed drones have been recording peoples pin numbers in Automated machines in the banks like ATMs, where the police service in Northern Ireland revealed a drone at a cash point where it recorded people as they entered their account’s pins. Some have been spotted recording hidden information from people running personal websites on their windows and sometimes recording what people are doing in their bedrooms. This story is never interesting. There are not enough limitations to curb the unnamed drones’ surveillance in private places (Finn, Wright and Friedewald, 2013, p.3-32). Australia for example has experienced the dangers of unnamed aerial surveillance where crimes happen in the expense of people’s privacy.
Arguments for the Negative
The use of drones in the photography and surveillance is not always driven by ill motives. There are some people who engages themselves in the drones’ photography and video recording for pleasure and leisure. Limiting such people would kill their ambitions and their joy. For instance, the explorers who would like to take numerous pictures and videos in their area of locality, and the learners would like to have their study along a certain area will be limited through many procedures that may be laid to limit unnamed aerial vehicles in videos and photographs.
According to virtue ethics theory, (Shafer-Landau, 2014), people in society have a sense of knowing what is good and what is wrong to be done. The society holds the virtues which one should not usually be reminded of what to do but the ethics guides people to select either to do good or bad. These principles are not executable by a communal action. Ethics such as honesty and faithfulness will not be executed by the society to check one’s behaviour. However, one is ether labelled good or evil. For this reason, there should be no limits on using aerial vehicles in taking photos and videos in the place of interest. This is because, those people who use them should be in a position to determine that, recording a video of this part or the other one would result to jeopardy of people’s rights of privacy and therefore, there is no need to control or limit them (Buschman, 2016, p.419). Video recorders with the unnamed drones can be oriented to the ethics of the society on the issues pertaining security and privacy issues so that they can be more responsible in their endeavours.
Limiting the use of drones will be a step towards reducing creativity, innovation and technological advancement in the drones’ technology. The technological advancement in media and groups and related disciplines incorporate individuals who are passionate in taking videos of everything they came across. For this reason, there should be no such limitations as to the privacy of individuals. Being guided by the moral obligations on ethics and passion to videography and photography, the society should not restrict individuals from the exercise.
In conclusion, there should be an establishment of the limitations on using personal drones for private reasons. The affirmative arguments to the statement are cantered on the welfare of the society unlike the negative arguments that centres on the interests of the individuals. For instance, to affirm that there should be limitations on using these drones, there is the aspects of basic human rights of privacy, there is the issue of crime rates in virtually all parts of the globe, there is creation of suspicion, terror and fear in the society due to the unnamed drones and all these can be socially eradicated by strict regulations as they involve the society (Thompson, 2012, p.93).
On the other hand, the arguments opposing the limitations to use of drones in taking videos and photos are centred on the individual interest. For instance, the issue of passion and career development are based on individualism. The aspect of technological innovation and development can be attested to oppose limitations to the drones’ technology in capturing videos and photos but it cannot be at any cost be adopted on the expense of human security to live and property.
Technology can be adopted in the cases where there is no violation of basic human right as privacy. When privacy for this matter is mentioned, the school of humanitarianism will call for security and take the technology in the better way than the one that jeopardises the rights of individuals (Weissbach and Tebbe, 2016, p. 37).
I can therefore recommend for the limits to using the drones to be drafted. These limits may include;
Individuals flying these drowns should be issued with licences through a training on the ethics on using the drones in photography and videography. This will ensure that all people who are using these materials are worth and can be credited by holding high standards of ethics in the society.
Another recommendation is that, all the aerial vehicles should be labelled and named. Through a provision or an act of the constitution or the user’s manual as provided by the technology ministries of the state, they should bear all the relevant details of identification
The endeavour will make sure that any drown seen moving in the space can be recognised by the virtue of the owner and the tasks the owner seeks to do with that drone. The people will be in a position to know who are taking videos in their back yard and make them accountable in the court of law if it is necessary.
Finally, there should be a regulation of those people who should be allowed to own the private drones. It can be done through need assessment, in that, those people who go to purchase the drones should be evaluated because drones have gone too low in price and many people can own one, including the irresponsible users (Barnao, Ward and Casey, 2016, p.766). People who seems to have clear motive on the use of drones can be advised not to buy them. The big population that will be legible for the offer to purchase the drones of their choice will be minimised. For instance, in Australia, United Kingdom and in United States the number of unnamed drones is big, approximately 43% of this number do not have clear motives on using their drones. At many times, they will be surveying the places for fun and ending in crimes. Under conditions and taxes either per annum or per month, the idlers will not spend their money to purchase the drones without clear and good objectives for service.
Allen, A.L., 2014. Taking liberties: Privacy, private choice, and social contract theory. U. Cin. L. Rev., 56, p.461.
Barnao, M., Ward, T. and Casey, S., 2016. Taking the good life to the institution: Forensic service users’ perceptions of the Good Lives Model. International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology, 60(7), pp.766-786.
Bowie, N.E., 2017. Business ethics: A Kantian perspective. Cambridge University Press.
Buschman, J., 2016. The Structural Irrelevance of Privacy: A Provocation. The Library Quarterly, 86(4), pp.419-433.
Cavoukian, A., 2012. Privacy and drones: Unmanned aerial vehicles (pp. 1-30). Ontario, Canada: Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, Canada.
Finn, R.L., Wright, D. and Friedewald, M., 2013. Seven types of privacy. In European data protection: coming of age (pp. 3-32). Springer Netherlands.
Maxwell, I.A., 2016. Technology and innovation: Drones, droids and robots. Chemistry in Australia, (Aug 2016), p.32.
Randell-Moon, H., 2016. The Catastrophe of Images.
Shafer-Landau, R., 2014. The fundamentals of ethics.
Thompson, R.M., 2012, September. Drones in domestic surveillance operations: Fourth amendment implications and legislative responses. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
Wang, Y., Xia, H., Yao, Y. and Huang, Y., 2016. Flying eyes and hidden controllers: A qualitative study of people’s privacy perceptions of civilian drones in the US. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, 2016(3), pp.172-190.
Weissbach, D., Weissbach, D., Tebbe, K. and Tebbe, K., 2016. Drones in sight: rapid growth through M&A’s in a soaring new industry. Strategic Direction, 32(6), pp.37-39.
Westin, A.F., 2003. Social and political dimensions of privacy. Journal of social issues, 59(2), pp.431-453.
Westphal, K.R., 2015. Hegel's Pragmatic Critique and Reconstruction of Kant's System of Principles in the 1807 Phenomenology of Spirit. Hegel Bulletin, 36(2), pp.159-183.
Zylinska, J., 2016. The creative power of nonhuman photography. Preface: What is Helsinki Photomedia?, p.132.