The Transformation of the US into Oceania

The Greatest Issue Facing 21st Century Ethical Leadership
Big Brother is Watching You. -- George Orwell, 1984
The chilling but fictitious epigraph above is becoming all too real for many people around the world today. Indeed, a growing number of authorities believe that threats to the fundamental right to privacy have become the greatest issue facing 21st century ethical leadership. Indeed, public and private sector organizations of all types routinely collect consumers’ personal information and use it in ways that are violative of the spirit if not the letter of the law, and the proliferation of the so-called Internet of Things has introduced yet more ways that individual privacy can be violated. The purpose of this paper is to provide a review and analysis of the relevant literature concerning this threat to ethical leadership, including recent and current trends in global leadership. In addition, a discussion concerning the various ways that threats to personal privacy manifest and what organizational and leadership theorists maintain should be done about them is followed by a summary of the research and the key findings that emerged in the paper’s conclusion.
Review and Discussion
Overview of threats to personal privacy
Together with freedom of speech and religion, many consumers prize their personal privacy above all else. Although the concept lacks definitional clarity, the term “privacy” is generally used to refer to “a person's ability to control access to personal information” (Cantor, 2006). More specifically, the right of privacy is defined by Black’s Law Dictionary (1990) as “The right to be let alone; the right of a person to be free from unwarranted publicity; and the right to live without unwarranted interference by the public in matters with which the public is not necessarily concerned” (p. 1195).
In theory, then, privacy therefore refers to the capacity to determine what personal information is available to others. In practice, however, few people besides some miserable hermits living in caves can be regarded as enjoying this ability completely. Nevertheless, the universal right to privacy is enshrined in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) 1948, Article 12 which clearly states that: “No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.” Likewise, in the United States, the right of people to protect their personal privacy has been confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court as a constitutional right in a number of historic decisions, including most especially Griswold vs. Connecticut (1965) and Roe vs. Wade (1973) (Cantor, 2006).
Despite these protections, though, there has been a clear-cut trend towards unwarranted intrusions into people’s personal lives that has been facilitated by countless innovations in technology that are intended to defeat these protections for commercial or other gain. This trend became even more accelerated following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 when U.S. policymakers made national security a higher priority than personal privacy. In this regard, Cantor (2006) emphasizes that, “Privacy remains a very fluid concept that changes and evolves as societal beliefs shift. [Following] that terrorist attack, individual privacy rights have been limited in the name of protecting the security of the country and reducing the risks of further attacks” (p. 50).
Not surprisingly, many of these privacy-limiting initiatives such as the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 and its subsequent renewal have been the source of heated debate since these laws allow the government to actively monitor U.S. citizens in various ways (Cantor, 2006). Moreover, the disclosure that the U.S. National Security Agency has wiretapped U.S. citizens outside of the normal channels that are required for these types of surveillance efforts have raised additional questions concerning the government’s actual limits on privacy intrusions and what should be done to reverse these disturbing trends (Cantor, 2006).
Although it is reasonable to suggest that many Americans are unconcerned about these privacy-intrusion activities simply because they have done nothing wrong and therefore should not be worried about their privacy. In reality, though, the U.S. government does not have to target specific individuals in order for their personal privacy to be violated in a wide range of ways. For example, the introduction of electronic health care records a few years ago caused many health care consumers to question who was allowed access to their personal medical information and for what purposes. In response, the U.S. government enacted the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in 1996 in an effort to provide some additional protections to personal medical information (Cantor, 2006). Despite some criticism from practitioners and policymakers alike, it is clear that HIPAA has affected the manner in which many American health care consumers think about their personal privacy today and how it affects their lives (Cantor, 2006).
The concerns over violations of personal privacy are well-founded, though, and health care is just one realm where technological innovations have introduced new and novel threats to personal privacy. For instance, one industry analyst emphasizes that, “With developments in technological security capability, employers can now monitor their employees’ activity on their computers and other company-provided electronic devices” (Ethical issues facing businesses, 2020, para. 3). In fact, fully two-thirds (66%) of American companies currently monitor their employees internet activity, and nearly one-half (45%) actively track keystrokes, content and the amount of time that is spent on computers, and nearly as many (43%) monitor email traffic and the files that are stored on employees’ computers. More disturbingly, American companies are not shy about these practices and most openly acknowledge that they are invading their employees’ privacy even if such practices are completely unrelated to specific job performance metrics (Ethical issues facing businesses, 2020).
There are also other technological trends that have the potential to violate personal privacy in ways that have never been possible. For instance, the so-called “Internet of Things” has created a wired environment in which virtually everything that people do or say is actively monitored. In many ways, these trends have been viewed by consumers as a major benefit in their lives. In this regard, Haslag (2018) emphasizes that with the Internet of Things, “A person can be diagnosed by doctors while video-chatting from his or her own home, communicate with someone located on the other side of the world instantaneously, or monitor his or her home through enhanced security systems” (p. 1027). In addition, using home assistant devices such as Amazon Echo, consumers can even order their homes to turn down the thermostat and play their favorite music or movies (Haslag, 2018).
Although these technological trends appear relatively benign on the surface, the harsh reality facing consumers today is that everything they say and do – even in their own homes – is vulnerable to intrusions that are not apparent but which continuously collect and aggregate vast amounts of personal information about them. As Haslag concludes, “While these technologies offer many blessings, there are potential downsides that accompany their presence” (2018, p. 1028). The potential downsides to recent and current trends in technological intrusions into personal privacy by various commercial enterprises transcend the release of information such as personal preferences for clothing or sporting goods and include the potential for information-sharing with federal government agencies. For example, according to Haslag (2018), “Devices record and collect data based on their personal information. . . . This data is used for different purposes, but most is used for advertising and learning a user's preferences..However, this information can also be made available to the government--specifically for law enforcement's use” (p. 1028).
Likewise, the personal information that is collected in this fashion can also be used to determine people’s preferences for reading materials, what purchases they have made, what types of medical conditions that may have and which Web sites they visit (Haslag, 2018). This enormous amount of aggregated data provides the framework in which highly private and personal information can be evaluated in order to generate a eerily accurate profile of “an individual's finances, health, psychology, beliefs, politics, interests, and lifestyle [and] the government could know more about a person than even his or her closest family members and friends” (Haslag, 2018, p. 1029).
As noted above, these trends have been facilitated through the introduction of the Internet of Things which has created a potentially dystopian world that may resemble the Big Brother mentality of Orwell’s 1984 in the foreseeable future. Indeed, some industry analysts believe that Ingsoc is already here and is monitoring all of the information that is routinely collected by smart devices in people’s homes. While this unsettling eventuality may come to fruition at some point in time, not everyone has a “smart home” that is populated by interconnected devices that transmit personal information to third parties without consumers’ knowledge or consent, but the handwriting is on the wall for all to see. As Haslag (2018) points out:
This data, while appearing to be under a user's sole control, can be used by the third-party service provider [or] law enforcement agencies seek to access the data held by third-party service providers to collect private information about individuals when investigating crimes like drug trafficking, white-collar offenses, cyber misconduct, and even more serious crimes, like murder. (p. 1029)
Unfortunately, this trend is merely the tip of the privacy intrusion iceberg, and far more sinister outcomes are possible at present. Some indication of where these trends are headed can be discerned from some recent efforts by government authorities to use the personal information about people that is collected by passive devices in their homes in ways they never suspected were possible. A good example of this type of outcome occurred in November 2015 when law enforcement authorities attempted to obtain personal information from a homeowner’s Amazon Echo personal assistant devices because a death had taken place there. Even though the law enforcement authorities presented Amazon with a search warrant for this information, the company refused on privacy grounds (Haslag, 2018). Although Amazon eventually released this information to police, it only did so after the device’s owner (and the primary suspect in the case) authorized its release (Haslag, 2018).
The U.S. government has also attempted to persuade cellular telephone providers to divulge the keys that are needed to access personal information on cell phones owned by suspected terrorists and other wrongdoers, and it is clear that technologies are created a dual-edged sword that threatens consumers’ fundamental rights to control their personal information. What is even more disturbing, though, is that commercial applications for emerging technologies are being used for nefarious purposes, all in the name of protecting national security for the greater good.
Certainly, the citizens of 1984’s Oceania did not just wake up one day to find themselves under the omnipresent thumb of Big Brother, and this outcome was only achieved gradually over time, step by step. Similarly, individual privacy is being eroded step by step in ways that prevent consumers from seeing the ultimate big picture. For instance, according to Teslitz (2009), “The most serious threats to our freedom often advance in small steps” (p. 125). As a prime example of this type of incremental intrusion into personal privacy, Teslitz (2009) cites the proliferation of facial recognition systems in the nation’s airports, stores and even on busy sidewalks. While these facial recognition systems represent potentially valuable resources for military applications, Teslitz and like-minded critics argue that, “We are taking a step in the wrong direction if we allow this powerful technology to be turned against citizens who have done no wrong” (2009, p. 126).
In response to the deployment of facial recognition systems across the country, growing numbers of the public and private sectors have joined to urge caution in their use, likening these systems to veritable “digital lineups” that can be used by government authorities to monitor innocent citizens’ movements and activities and this aggregated data can then be used for political purposes. Given the recent impeachment of the chief executive of the U.S. for this type of activity, it is reasonable to posit that the stage has been firmly set for other governmental organizations to follow suit. As Teslitz (2009) points out, facial recognition systems only represent the “tip of the iceberg in the growing potential use of surveillance technologies, including ‘ray-gun distance frisks,’ mandatory, nationwide DNA databases covering all U.S. residents, long-distance, hard-to-detect cyber-searches, retinal scanning, and radioactive ‘tag’ alerts” (p. 127).
While this grim outcome may seem unlikely, serious intrusions into personal privacy occur incrementally as noted above, and each of the foregoing technologies is already widely available or is under active development with a view towards widespread deployment in the near future (Teslitz, 2009). Against this backdrop, identifying opportunities to mitigate the growing threats to personal privacy has assumed new importance and relevance for organizational leaders in every industry and these issues are discussed further below.
Organizational and leadership theory applied to privacy threats
A growing body of scholarship confirms that organizational culture is shaped by top leaders (Sharma, 2017). Therefore, the extent to which organizational culture places a priority on protecting the individual privacy of employees and consumers will likely be the extent to which organizational leaders create this environment. This is not to say, of course, that business leaders should turn a blind eye to violations of corporate policy or efforts by consumers or other companies to defraud them, but it is to say that the mitigation of threats to privacy begins at the top. Nevertheless, even the most ethically minded leader is faced with some profound dilemmas when it comes to privacy.
As also noted above, increasing numbers of businesses of all sizes and types are routinely collecting personal information about their employees and consumers, so the failure to follow suit may place a company at a competitive disadvantage. Likewise, most companies do not enjoy the deep pockets that Amazon has to fight government efforts to violate consumer privacy, but there are some steps that virtually all business leaders can take to help ensure that protocols are in place to protect employee and consumer personal information to the maximum extent possible in today’s uncertain world. For example, Karn (2019) emphasizes the need for organization-wide state-of-the-art security protocols that prevent social engineering and other so-called “phishing” attacks from compromising personal data.
This need has been quantitatively compounded by the enormous amounts of personal information that are being routinely aggregated by third party providers, and even minor breaches can easily result in tens of millions of consumers being adversely affected (Karn, 2019). For instance, Karn (2019) notes that, “Today, with massive digitization of medical information, mobile data usage and massive system integration, everyday human errors can cause breaches that expose millions of people to potential harm” (para. 5). Of course, while it is impossible to entirely prevent human errors, it is possible to ensure that business practices are in place that can help mitigate these errors and preclude their recurrence. In addition, it is also possible for business leaders at every level to ensure that their enterprises are completely transparent about what types of personal information they collect from their employees and consumers. In other words, personal privacy protections begin at the top and business leaders have the responsibility to protect personal data in every situation.
Conclusion
The research showed that although “Big Brother Is Watching,” most people are woefully unaware of just how much personal information is being collected about them every day as well as the manner in which this information is being used by both the public and private sectors which in many cases is violative of their basic rights to control any information about them. Continuing innovations in technology have compounded the problem for business leaders that are faced with the need to remain competitive in an increasingly globalized marketplace where other companies are exploiting the masses of personal data for their own benefit. Unless business leaders step forward today to advocate for greater personal privacy protections, it is reasonable to conclude that the United States of the foreseeable future will even more closely resemble the dystopian world depicted in Orwell’s 1984.
References
Black’s law dictionary. (1990). St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Cantor, M. D. (2006, Summer). No information about me without me: Technology, privacy, and home monitoring. Generations, 30(2), 49-55.
Ethical issues facing businesses. (2020). Florida Tech. Retrieved from https://www.floridatech online.com/blog/business/the-5-biggest-ethical-issues-facing-businesses/.
Haslag, C. (2018, Fall). Technology or privacy: Should you really have to choose only one? Missouri Law Review, 83(4), 1027-1033.
Karn, R. (2019). The biggest threat to data security? Humans, of course. The Privacy Advisor. Retrieved from https://iapp.org/news/a/the-biggest-threat-to-data-security-humans-of-course/.
Sharma, P. (2017, June). Organizational culture as a predictor of job satisfaction: The role of age and gender. Journal of Contemporary Management Issues, 22(1), 35-40.
Taslitz, A. E. (2009, Spring). The Fourth Amendment in the twenty-first century: Technology, privacy, and human emotions. Law and Contemporary Problems, 65(2), 125-131.