Ethics

Leah (2005) asks a thought-provoking question fit for our digital and Internet age Who gets to see the e-mail of the deceased This question has been posed after Justin Ellsworth died, and his parents sued Yahoo to give him his password and access his e-mail. Yahoo declined to do this, because of the terms of service agreement with Justin, but a court ruling forced Yahoo to give Justins e-mail access to his parents, and the former complied. Nowadays, because of the ubiquity of Internet use, it is unclear what constitutes as an abuse of individual data privacy, since scholarly opinions differ on what is ethically right or wrong, when it comes to matters of information privacy (Cockcroft, 2002, p.2). It is not even clear, whether e-mail can also be considered as personal property, or an intellectual property. These questions make it harder to ask about privacy rights, after death. This paper asks Should Justin Ellsworths parents have been given access to his email This paper argues that no, Justin Ellsworths parents should not have been given access to his e-mail, because this will violate the duty of Yahoo to protect the privacy of their users, even after death, and doing so is also not an obligation of the judge, Justin, and his parents, according to deontological ethics, and because giving access to his e-mail will also greatly reduce the happiness of many Yahoo mail users, whose own privacy will also be compromised, and that it is also not fair for the deceased to not have a say to his own property rights, according to the utilitarian ethics.

Deontological ethics asserts the adherence to duties and obligations, when people experience ethical dilemmas, and this ethical framework denies the rightness of providing access to Justins email (Rainbow, 2002). Deontological ethics says that an action is right if it is aligned to ones duties and obligations. This thinking helps to avoid making decisions, wherein people are considered as means to an end, and it also asserts the virtues of duties as important on their own. When Justin Ellsworth opened a Yahoo mail account, it is assumed that he understood the terms and conditions that this account entailed, which included a full protection of his privacy rights, even after his death. After his death, his parents wanted to know his thoughts and they sued Yahoo for the rights to access his e-mail (Freeman, 2006 Notess, 2009 Pratt  Conger, 2009). Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like Yahoo have the holy duty to protect the information of their users from other third parties, who are not included in the terms and conditions  The judge granted the court order to Ellsworths parents, but it is not this judges duty to determine what the dead wanted for his personal belongings, including his own information. At the same time, giving access to his e-mail demonstrates that his e-mail is being seen as a means to an end for Justins parents. The main goal of his parents is to know his thoughts and his privacy is being violated, for those ends. In addition, the access to a deceased persons e-mail should not be provided by anyone else, except the last will of the person that identifies to whom all his data will be relinquished. On the other hand, is it the obligation of the parents to know more about what their son did with his life, by accessing his e-mail without his express consent No, this paper argues that it is not the obligation or duty of the parents to do this, because they would be prying on their sons privacy. This is similar to opening the diary of their son, without the latters express permission. Furthermore, it is not the obligation of their son also to give his password to them and to provide them unwarranted access to his e-mail. Most likely, like many people, Justin also wanted his own privacy and he would not easily allow others to open his e-mail. Thus, giving access to Justins parents violates numerous duties according to the deontological ethics and it only makes it look like his e-mail is a mere means to the ends of his parents.

Utilitarian ethics deems that an action is morally right, if it gives the greatest happiness to the most people, and given this definition, giving access to Justins email to his parents also is not right, based on utilitarianism, because it only reduced the total happiness in society. It is not right because when the judge gave his ruling, he is providing a precedent case, which can also be used to access the e-mails of other people, even without their express consent. As a result, this access reduces the happiness of many users, whose privacy is now put into question. They will no longer be secure in knowing that after their death, or if anything happens to them that disables them to coherently decide about their data access, a court ruling can violate their privacy rights. This decision of giving e-mail access to Justins parents then greatly reduces the total level of happiness in society. Rule utilitarianism adds a sense of fairness to evaluating ethical actions and decisions. Given this additional dimension of utilitarianism, it is also not fair for the deceased to not have a fair say on whom or who does not access his account. It is also not fair for his parents to compromise the privacy rights of other people, just because they want to access his account. Furthermore, the only people who will benefit from this e-mail access are the parents, and they are a few stakeholders, compared to many other peoples happiness that they have compromised with their actions. Hence, the utilitarian perspective also asserts that Justins parents should not have been given access to his e-mail.

Internet privacy is a sacred duty for all ISPs and it should not be violated, even after the death, and especially when it is treated as means to an end. Though Justins parents must have well-meaning intentions in wanting to see his e-mail, their actions are still not right, based on the deontological analysis, because ISPs and other people have obligations to protect privacy rights. The utilitarian ethics also affirm that because of the court ruling, total happiness have been greatly decreased in an unfair manner to many people. Thus, it is not ethical to provide e-mail access to Justins parents.