In June, 2013, Edward Snowden leaked top secret documents to the Washington Post and The Guardian which showed that the National Security Agency was conducting massive surveillance operations and was collecting information about U.S. citizens’ communications, emails, texts, and telephone records. This collection of data was authorized originally by President Bush pursuant to provisions of the Patriot Act.

Snowden’s disclosure fired off a national debate over the proper scope of the government’s surveillance powers, information privacy, and national security. Snowden himself has alternately been called a hero, a whistleblower, and a traitor.

On May 7, 2015, a federal court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, ruled that the National Security Agency’s collection of millions of Americans’ phone records violated the Patriot Act because the provision known as Section 215 could not reasonably be interpreted to mean that the collection of U.S. phone records was authorized in such a broad manner. The Court’s opinion reasoned that the Patriot Act gave the government the power to collect information relevant to counterterrorism investigations and not to collect bulk data on U.S. citizens’ phone records without a reasonable connection to a counterterrorism investigation.

On June 1, 2015, three sections of the Patriot Act are due to expire if not reauthorized by Congress. These are the provisions of the Act which have been used to allow the U.S. government to conduct roving wiretaps of suspected terrorists from phone to phone, to collect business records for counterterrorism investigations, and to tap so-called “lone wolf” suspects who are not a member of any known terrorist organization.

Was it ethical for Edward Snowden to reveal classified information?

Under what circumstances, if any, would it be ethical for the U.S. government to collect information about the private communications of its citizens?

#spcethics

Anonymous social networks have been increasing in popularity, particularly around college campuses. One such network, Yik Yak, allows users to post anonymous messages publicly to other users who are within a 1.5-mile radius. After its launch, the app quickly became a huge hit on high school and college campuses. According to a NYTimes article, Yik Yak is downloaded in the Apple App store more than any other anonymous social app.

Along with the app’s quick rise to popularity, there have been growing concerns regarding its use. The aspect of anonymity has enabled users to speak their minds freely, sometimes in a potentially harmful way. There are increasing concerns that Yik Yak is being used for cyber bullying, harassment, and hate speech. Due to such issues, the founders of Yik Yak made the decision to stop access to the app on high school campuses last year. More recently, according to an article in the Huffington Post, a federal complaint was filed on May 7, 2015 against the University of Mary Washington in Virginia. The complaint alleges that the University allowed a sexually hostile environment to continue by its failure in part to respond to complaints that Yik Yak was being used to post harassing comments and threats of violence against female students.

Supporters of anonymous social networks such as Yik Yak point to the importance and the value of freedom of speech. The creators of Yik Yak have stated that their intent was to level the playing field and to provide a platform for people who did not necessarily have a large number of followers. With Yik Yak, a person who posts can have their posts  read by a large audience, even if they do not have many followers. Some of the supporters of anonymous social networks have expressed the opinion that students are cognizant about how their comments online may affect their personal brand, and that this may discourage them from speaking up about certain topics.  They argue that forums such as Yik Yak may serve a positive purpose – that of providing a place for students to make controversial observations and to engage in controversial discussions.

Should anonymous social networks like Yik Yak be restricted from geographic areas around college campuses because of the potential for harm, or should they remain available in order to protect the right to freedom of speech?

#spcethics

Gender quotas in corporate boardrooms – an increasing trend

On March 6, 2015, Germany passed a law  that will require companies to give 30 percent of the seats on their corporate boards to women starting next year. In recent years, there has been a trend in European legislatures to pass laws requiring greater representation of women in corporate boardrooms.

According to an article in the New York Times, this trend began with Norway passing the first legislation which required such quotas for board positions, and Spain, France, and Iceland followed with similar legislation. Each of these countries now require 40 percent of their corporate board positions to be held by women. A number of other European countries have this quota set at 30 percent.

The New York Times reports that in the United States, which has no legislation requiring such a quota, women hold approximately 17 percent of the seats on corporate boards.

This current trend in Europe brings to mind the ethical questions: What should a government’s role be with respect to such issues? What do you think of such legislation?

The Applied Ethics Institute
2015 Keith Goree Lecture Series
“The Moral Obligation to Our Veterans”

The Applied Ethics Institute and the 2015 Keith Goree Lecture Series present Guest Lecturer Stacey-Rae Simcox, Esq. speaking on “The Moral Obligation to Our Veterans”.

Simcox is an associate professor of legal skills and director of Stetson University College of Law’s Veterans Advocacy Clinic.

Wednesday, April 1, 2015, 7 p.m
St. Petersburg/Gibbs Campus, Music Center