Chris Noonan
Case Study Analysis Paper
4-10-13
Throughout history, humanity has been constantly inventing new technologies and
innovating current ones in order to progress forward as a species. Overtime, technology has
become so advanced, that many unimaginable frontiers have been discovered and even
conquered. One of these great advances has been the internet. The internet has revolutionized
the world by making it smaller through unimaginable connections, allowing for mass sharing of
data. Through this mass sharing of data, corporations, big and small, have been able to monitor
internet usage of potential customers through the footprints they leave on the internet, which
are called cookies. This process is known as dating mining, which is the practice of examining
large databases in order to generate new information, even private, from the internet. In this
case study analysis paper, I shall argue that it is not morally acceptable to utilize data mining.
Utilitarian moral states that the action must maximize the benefits and minimize the
injuries, thus, data mining intrudes on the majority of internet users’ privacy while only
benefiting the few the data mining companies target. Furthermore, there is more injury than
benefits as more people are harmed with the use of data mining than the people who actually
see benefit.
According to the utilitarianism one must decide if the action to use data mining can
provide the greatest sum total benefits than any other action used in its place. Data mining is
beneficial for a many reasons. One reason that data mining is beneficial is that it can provide
information to people without them looking for it. For example, a pharmaceutical company
using data mining can provide people suffering from an illness a way to a cure, or at least point
them in the right direction for proper medical assistance. Additionally, it will be beneficial
towards a business as it could generate future sales and propel them forward as a company.
Regardless if people look down upon data mining, it is still benefitting more people than it is
harming as the information cultivated is being used properly and not in ill will. Furthermore, the
action to use data mining maximizes social benefits and minimizes injuries.
According to the natural rights theory, an action is morally acceptable if it respects the
natural rights of human beings. One such right would be security of the person. For example,
data mining is retrieving people’s personal information, most of which are unaware of, and
then used to become subject to an advertisement or for something with worse intentions, such
as identity theft. Also, data mining breaches the right to property. Data mining hacks into
people’s personal property and retrieves very sensitive information for monetary reasons.
Additionally, the right to freedom of thought can be tampered with because data mining can be
used to coerce individuals into becoming involved in certain programs, services, or products.
However, one may argue that data mining does not breach natural human rights. With
the use of data mining, many natural rights will be untarnished and also sustained. For
example, one of the natural rights is the right to sufficient health care and the right to work.
Thus, if someone needs medication, data mining can help bring the person in contact with
medication. Furthermore, if someone is ill and could lose their job, data mining can prevent
that person from losing their job and maintain their health. As a result, other rights, such as the
right to life, will be untarnished yet sustained.
According to the Justice Theory moral standard states that an action is morally correct if
it involves treating similarly individuals who are similar in relevant aspects, and dissimilarly
individuals who are dissimilar in relevant aspects, in proportion to their dissimilarity. Regardless
that those companies treat everyone that they are data mining similarly, the action is still
immoral as it breaches more natural rights than it maintains, which would also make it immoral
in a utilitarian aspect as well. Also, despite the fact that everyone is being treated the same, the
people who are using the internet are not all the same. For example, younger, more tech-savvy
users will know and understand the footprint they are leaving behind on the internet. However,
older users will not understand that they are leaving a trail but are still susceptible to data
mining.
On the other hand, one may argue that companies using data mining are treating the
users similarly to their competitors. Thus, they are not going over and beyond their competitor
to be more intrusive but just the same as their competitors in order to succeed in retrieving
valuable marketing information.
According to the Care Theory, can action is morally correct if it takes into account the
closest concrete relationships of the person doing the action and those who are vulnerable and
dependent on his/her care. It would be a stretch to say that the marketers have concrete
relationships with the people they are data mining from as they have more likely than not have
met the users. However, it is plausible to state that the internet users do depend on the
marketers. To build on justice theory, there are some people out there that do not understand
what they are doing on the internet, thus, are dependent on marketers not to take advantage
of their negligence and to treat them with respect.
On the other hand, it is not a marketers’ responsible to care for every individual who
uses the internet as that is impossible. Furthermore, the Care Theory does not apply as there is
no concrete relationship between the data miners and internet users (unless they connected
personally by some slim chance). Thus, data mining is non-applicable in terms of the care
theory.
In order to be morally acceptable under Catholic Social Teaching, the actions must be
respectful and guided by certain facts. Data mining breaches the two facts that humans have
certain natural rights and must work to achieve a common good. Data mining breaches
humans’ natural rights (see Natural Rights Theory) and does not work to achieve a common
good as it harms more people than people who receive benefits from it. Thus, under Catholic
Social Teaching, data mining is immoral.