Technology and privacy duties and laws

Technology and Privacy

Advancements in technology generally raise ethical concerns, simply because technology has the capacity to usher in social change. Often, the evolution of material culture - such as technological devices - far outpaces any changes in laws or in ethical beliefs. In the past, for example, the development of mechanized farming tools raised concerns that humans would become lazy and slothful.

Currently, an ethical debate is swarming around the issue of technological devices and privacy. This paper will focus on the use of technology - most specifically, recording devices - in supermarkets. This paper will examine the issue from a deontological point-of-view, with a special focus on rights and duties. It will look at how ideas regarding retailers' duties and customers' rights, especially to privacy, are being modified in light of the new technology.

In the conclusion, this paper asserts that if certain parameters are strictly observed, then the use of recording devices and similar technology in supermarkets may be employed ethically, without violating a customer's right to privacy.

Like many western nations, the United States depends heavily on the deontological system to maintain a system of ethics. This can be seen in the formal laws that are enshrined to define and punish actions that are deemed unethical. Many of these laws are applicable to the rights of customers and the duties of retailers such as supermarkets.

Supermarkets and similar retailers have a multitude of duties to their customers. They have the duty to provide goods and services at reasonable prices.

In the United States, there are laws against monopolies and against grossly inflating the prices of a product, especially in times of emergencies or extreme need. For example, in times of natural disasters, retailers who charge $10 for a small bottle of water will be prosecuted for price gouging.

In the United States, retailers also have the duty to provide their shoppers with a safe environment for shopping and browsing. In a place that sells food, "safety" encompasses many aspects. For example, the building and the shopping area itself must be reasonably free from dangers, such as falling beams or loose floor tiles. The idea is to keep customers safe from physical harm.

Second, as food sellers, supermarkets must take precautions to ensure that their products are safe for use and for consumption. This would include making sure that the food is stored at proper temperatures, to prevent spoilage and the growth of bacteria.

Similarly, the supermarket is tasked with keeping tabs on a product's shelf life, and discarding items that are past their due date. Furthermore, if the Food and Drug Authority (FDA) issues recall orders, these items should be quickly pulled off the shelves.

The supermarket also has the duty to uphold the country's anti-discrimination laws and the ethical principles of egalitarianism. This includes complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), by providing reasonable accommodations for shoppers with disabilities.

This also means that supermarkets cannot turn away customers due to reasons such as a customer's race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.

Such actions would be discriminatory. In other words, as a quasi-public area, supermarkets are duty-bound to provide a safe shopping environment for a wide cross-section of the public, not just a select group.

Finally, one of the most pressing duties of a supermarket is to uphold the ethical principle of honesty. One of these manifestations is to tell the truth about a product, to the best of a retailer's ability. For example, a supermarket cannot send out a flyer advertising a special price and then charge the customers a higher price at the cashier line. A supermarket also cannot promote unproven assertions about a product, such as "Brand X bread is guaranteed to help you lose 10 pounds!"

However, supermarkets do have the right to make a profit. They are duty-bound to provide their stockholders with reasonable returns on their investments. They are bound by law to provide their employees with fair wages and benefits. It could also be argued that supermarkets are duty-bound to continuously improve the shopping experience for their customers.

One way for supermarket retailers to meet all these duties is with the use of technology, such as recording devices that track the way customers make purchases. Camera-based observational research, for example, can show how the placement of a product or of a brand can influence a customer's choice of product. Based on this information, supermarkets can highlight certain areas of their floor space over others. The supermarkets can thus charge higher prices for the more premium spaces, giving suppliers a choice of where to park their products.

This practice is a win situation for supermarkets, allowing them to meet their duties to their stockholders and their employees. In fact, any increased earnings from the premium display places can be passed on to customers in the form of savings as well. Thus, it can be argued that the use of premium display areas can allow a supermarket to cater more efficiently to the needs of its customers, as well as its employees.

It is important to note that the use of premium space does not deny customers one of their most important rights in a supermarket - the right to make an informed choice. This paper has argued that given the laws against monopolies, for example, supermarkets should provide customers with a choice of products. Supermarkets also cannot highlight a brand by being dishonest about its abilities (i.e., "This bread cures baldness!"). A savvy customer or one who prefers another brand is certainly free to look at the shelves.

Thus, the display cases in no way violate a customer's right to make a free and informed choice.

Neither does the use of music and lights violate a customer's right to make an informed choice.

As long as customers have access to different products, are in a safe environment, and are not being unduly influenced by untrue claims, the use of music and piped-in scents do not interfere with their rights to shop in a safe environment.

It would be a different story if special lights were used to conceal evidence of bad meat or to make it difficult for customers to choose between fresh and not-so-fresh heads of lettuce. However, if supermarkets meet the duties that have been specified above, then the use of extra measures such as pleasant music does not violate a customer's rights.

The greatest concern over the use of recording devices and the tracking of customers' purchases relates to privacy. Privacy activists have noted that watching shoppers as they shop is tantamount to violating a person's right to privacy. This right can still be violated, even with the signs posted that people entering the store's premises may be videotaped for marketing purposes.

One concern is that shoppers may not notice the sign. This can be solved by prominently positioning a sign, such as on the supermarket sliding door. Also, periodic announcements can be made via the pipe-in music, reminding customers that they are being filmed for marketing purposes. Those who do not consent are thus free to shop elsewhere.