Tag: privacy

bookmark_borderThe war on “ghost guns” is a war on privacy

Posted on by Marissa

New York City Mayor Eric Adams, New York City Corporation Counsel Sylvia Hinds-Radix, and New York Attorney General Letitia James recently announced federal lawsuits against companies that sell gun component parts. Their beef is that these retailers distributed parts that people can use to assemble untraceable firearms, also known as “ghost guns.” The fact that New York public officials decided to ban (via a law that took effect in February 2020) something that does not hurt anyone, and subsequently to file a lawsuit against companies that did not hurt anyone, is immoral. And in their public comments, these officials made numerous false and illogical statements that demonstrate their incorrect understanding of morality, justice, and rights.

In his public statement announcing the unjust lawsuit, Adams said: “Whether they are hidden in the trunks of cars or packed in a plain brown box, ghost guns are illegal in our city, and we will take every lawful action possible to stop gun retailers from profiting at the expense of the safety of our city… We will not stand by while illegal operators flout the law, endanger our communities, and kill our young people.”

But companies that make ghost gun parts do not “kill our young people.” The people who fatally shoot people are the ones who kill those people, not the companies that make the guns (or the parts used to make the guns). I’m also not sure why Adams chose to mention the age of the people that he falsely accuses companies of killing. Age is not a morally relevant characteristic. Would Adams consider it less problematic if the people being killed were old? 

Hinds-Radix said: “Sadly, people in our city, including children, have been shot or killed with ghost guns… The companies should be forced to assist the city in recovering illegal, untraceable ghost guns they delivered here.”

The same point about age not being a morally relevant characteristic also applies here. Why mention that some of the people killed were children? But more importantly, there is no reason why companies should be forced to assist the city in recovering ghost guns. Ghost guns do not hurt anyone; it is the people who shoot other people who hurt people. Companies who sell the parts used to make ghost guns are not doing anything wrong. Therefore, they shouldn’t be forced to do anything. It is the people who choose to shoot other people, not the companies that sell component parts, that should be punished. 

New York Sheriff Anthony Miranda announced his intention to “hold these retailers accountable for willfully endangering the health and well-being of New Yorkers.” 

But the retailers did not do anything wrong. People who shoot other people, not the retailers that sell component parts, are the ones who have done something wrong and therefore should be held accountable. It is unjust for companies to be held accountable for something that they did not do.

Attorney General James stated: “While families mourned loved ones lost to senseless gun violence, gun sellers avoided accountability for the illegal and dangerous weapons they sold. There should be no more immunity for gun distributors bringing harm and havoc to New York. My office’s lawsuit holds 10 gun sellers accountable for fueling the gun violence crisis and endangering New Yorkers. Illegal guns do not belong on our streets or in our communities and we will use every tool necessary to root them out.”

I’m not sure why James considers it a bad thing for gun sellers to avoid accountability, given that they have not done anything wrong. For the same reason, I’m not sure why she thinks that there should be “no more immunity for gun distributors.” If a party or entity hasn’t done anything wrong, then immunity is exactly what they should have, and avoiding accountability is exactly what should happen. 

In addition to the mistaken idea that gun distributors should be held accountable for other people’s actions, another thing that strikes me about these statements is their emphasis on safety and communalism, and their complete disregard for the rights of individuals. There is no mention of individual rights, liberty, or freedom in any of these statements. Instead, the politicians go on and on about “the safety of our city” and “the health and well-being of New Yorkers.” They bemoan the fact that gun distributors “endanger our communities” and the “harm and havoc” that they bring. Again and again, they mention the impact on “communities,” “families,” and “loved ones,” as opposed to considering people as individuals.

If our leaders actually thought of people as individuals, as opposed to mere members of families and communities, they would realize that ghost guns are actually beneficial, rather than harmful. Because they are untraceable, ghost guns enable people to maintain privacy with regards to gun ownership. This is unequivocally a benefit to individuals. But, as is all too often the case, individual rights such as the right to privacy go completely unrecognized and disregarded by people who care only about safety, health, and the common good.

By criminalizing ghost guns, our society is taking away people’s right to maintain privacy with regards to gun ownership. Perhaps coincidentally and perhaps not, shortly after filing the ghost gun lawsuit, Adams announced a similar crackdown on “ghost cars” – cars that can’t be traced. These actions illustrate a trend towards treating privacy not as a fundamental right that should be protected, but instead as something that should be made illegal. And unlike ghost guns and ghost cars, disregard for privacy rights is truly harmful.

bookmark_borderBig Brother on campus

Posted on by Marissa

As colleges and universities attempt to resume in-person learning this fall, they are adopting policies that should be disturbing to anyone who values privacy or individual liberty. Schools have been cracking down on students who gather in groups, with Syracuse University bashing students as “selfish” for attending a party, Ohio State University suspending 228 students for partying, the University of Alabama issuing 639 sanctions, and Northeastern University expelling 11 students and refusing to return their tuition, to give just a few examples.

More disturbingly, many colleges are requiring students and employees to undergo Covid-19 testing as a condition of being on campus. Colby College in Maine, for example, requires students and employees to be tested three times a week, which will eventually go down to twice a week, according to the Washington Post. The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign requires twice a week testing, and Miami University of Ohio also requires tests for students living on campus. At Harvard, students who live on campus must be tested three times per week, employees who have a high degree of contact with students must be tested twice per week, and students who live off campus as well as any employee who works on campus more then 4 hours per week must be tested once per week. The good news is that, according to Harvard’s coronavirus information page, most of the testing will be self-administered, which I believe consists of swabbing the inside of one’s nostrils, but not in the painful and invasive way that is typical when medical professionals administer the test. Regardless of how the testing is conducted, requiring a medical procedure as a condition of employment or attending school is wrong. People have the right to make their own medical decisions, and no one should be required to undergo a test to prove that they are free of a virus.

College students’ privacy rights are also under assault. Harvard’s data collection policies, for example, state that the university will track people’s movements for contact tracing purposes by logging their card swipes and their wifi locations. Worse, Albion College in Michigan is not only requiring students to undergo testing but also requiring them to download an app that Cheryl Chumley of the Washington Times correctly called “a surveillance nightmare.” This app tracks students’ locations in real time and automatically sends an alert to school administrators if they violate safety precautions. One forbidden activity is leaving campus without permission; any contact with the outside world is considered unacceptably risky. In Chumley’s words, these requirements amount to “tracking students, monitoring students’ behaviors, and punishing students, long-distance, without regard for due process or, more figuratively speaking, trial by jury.”

Some people might argue that these testing and tracing requirements do not violate anyone’s rights because no one has to attend or work at any particular institution. If you don’t want to get tested or have your location tracked, just don’t go to one of these schools, the argument goes. The problem with this argument is that if schools and employers are allowed to institute these types of requirements, there is nothing stopping all schools and employers from instituting them. And if all schools and employers require that people give up their privacy and medical freedom in order to take classes or work there, then for all practical purposes, people have no choice but to give up their privacy and medical freedom. In other words, if declining testing or contact tracing means giving up one’s job or one’s chance to attend a prestigious college, that is not true freedom. Thankfully, there are currently still numerous companies and schools that do not require virus testing as a condition of employment (Texas A&M and the University of Florida are two examples), but those that do are setting a disturbing precedent. The more institutions that institute these requirements, the less realistic it becomes to tell people that if they don’t want to be tested or tracked, they can simply choose not to go there. No one should have to choose between their education or job, and their rights to privacy and bodily integrity. Institutions should be prohibited from requiring virus testing or location tracking of their students and employees.

bookmark_borderAs restaurants open, warrantless searches should not be on the menu

Posted on by Marissa

As restrictions on people and businesses are gradually lifted, a disturbing new practice has emerged. Some cities and states are requiring restaurants and other businesses to collect information on customers to assist governments with contact tracing efforts.

In New Orleans, Mayor LaToya Cantrell is asking all businesses to keep track of everyone who enters their establishment. “Businesses will be expected to play a role and to have a plan in place to help track employees and clients in their space,” a city spokesperson said. Michael Hecht, the President of Greater New Orleans, Inc. voiced opposition to this idea, saying that business owners are concerned about “privacy of customer data and whether customers even want to give this data.”

In Kansas City, Missouri, restaurants must collect customers’ names, phone numbers, and check-in and check-out times.

Elsewhere in Kansas, Linn County implemented a similar requirement for a variety of businesses including restaurants, health clinics, dentists, pharmacies, banks, stores, and day care centers. A newspaper publisher and a restaurant owner have filed a federal lawsuit arguing that the requirement authorizes warrantless searches. “Constitutional rights do not get suspended during a pandemic,” said Samuel MacRoberts of the Kansas Justice Institute. “There is a clear process by which governments can obtain business and personal records. Unfortunately, Linn County has ignored that process and put the basic rights of its citizens in serious jeopardy.”

Austin, Texas is also requiring restaurants to keep a log of diners. The president of the Texas Restaurant Association, Emily Williams Knight, called the requirement “simply not right” and voiced concerns about the burden on small businesses and the privacy implications for customers.  

Rhode Island has enacted a similar policy. “Establishments shall maintain an employee work log and retain the names and contact information of individuals placing reservations for a period of at least 30 days and make this information available to RIDOH upon request for the purposes of contact tracing,” the phase 1 re-opening guidelines state.

In Washington, Governor Jay Inslee initially planned to require restaurants to track each customer’s name, email address, phone number, and what time they came in to eat. Fortunately, however, he changed his mind and made the data collection voluntary.

Hopefully these data collection requirements will not become the norm. People have a right to privacy. People have a right to live their lives without their activities being tracked and monitored. And people have a right to go about their business – including going to stores, restaurants, and bars – without anyone knowing their identity, if they so choose. Requiring people to provide their identities whenever they visit a restaurant or other business is a disturbing step towards a totalitarian society.

bookmark_borderMGM should not be punished for Las Vegas shooting

Posted on by Marissa

Recently, MGM Resorts agreed to pay $800,000 to victims of the Las Vegas shooting. Survivors and victims’ family members had sued the company, which owns the Mandalay Bay Resort, the hotel from which gunman Stephen Paddock fired on attendees at a country music festival from his suite on the 32nd floor. According to the Washington Post, various lawsuits in the aftermath of the 2017 shooting accused MGM of negligence for “failing to monitor the gunman as he delivered guns and ammunition to his room.”

The settlement “sends a strong message to the hospitality industry that all steps necessary to prevent mass shootings must be taken,” said Muhammad S. Aziz, a lawyer representing over 1,300 victims and survivors.

Although it is completely understandable to want to do everything possible to prevent such tragedies, and to compensate their victims, the lawsuits against MGM are morally wrong and the company should not have to pay anything.

It is simply not true that all steps necessary to prevent mass shootings must be taken. It is the moral duty of every person to respect the rights of others and to refrain from harming innocent people. But no person, company, or organization has a duty to actively prevent crime. To argue that MGM had a duty to monitor Paddock and the items he was bringing to his room is to argue that hotel guests have no privacy rights. This is morally wrong. What a hotel guest does in his/her room, and which items he/she brings there, are none of the hotel’s business. It is not clear how far hotels would have to go in violating guests’ privacy rights in order to avoid lawsuits. Would they need to search all bags brought into the hotel? Would they need to require guests to go through metal detectors, or though full-body scanners, or to be strip-searched? Would they need to install cameras in all rooms to monitor everything guests do? To take the logic behind the lawsuits further, one might argue that hotels have a duty to require psychological evaluations before anyone is allowed to make a reservation. And why stop at hotels? Mass shootings have taken place at schools, movie theaters, churches, and all different types of places. Would these places need to require strip searches and psychological evaluations for everyone who enters as well?

Clearly, a world in which “all steps necessary to prevent mass shootings must be taken” is a world that no one in their right mind would want to live in. It is a world with no privacy and no freedom. Businesses and organizations should not be allowed, let alone required, to adopt policies and procedures that take away people’s privacy and freedom of movement.

“This settlement will provide fair compensation for thousands of victims and their families,” said Robert Eglet, another attorney involved in the lawsuit, according to the Washington Post.

But there is nothing fair about punishing an innocent company that did nothing wrong. Stephen Paddock is to blame for the shooting, and no one else. Because Paddock died by suicide after the shooting, it is impossible for victims to obtain financial compensation from him. And as understandable as it is to seek compensation elsewhere, one cannot simply find another person or entity to sue without regard for whether that person or entity is actually to blame for the shooting.

The lawsuits against MGM, and the resulting settlement, send the message that privacy, fairness, and individual responsibility do not matter. This is just wrong. Fundamental moral principles should not be sacrificed in the name of preventing tragedies.