Ethics

The issue of whether Lance Cpl. Justin M. Ellsworth emails should be released to his parents continues to be debated among many IT personnel in the Armed Forces. I have on certain issues, argued my point in a few of these debates. However, these debates were not mine. Therefore, I will express only my arguments that are in support of Yahoo throughout this paper.

The family of a Marine killed in Iraq is pleading with Internet giant Yahoo! for access to his e-mail account, which the company says is off-limits under its privacy policy (CBS News, 2005). Yahoo!’s privacy policy, under the Information Sharing and Disclosure section, begins with the following statement: “Yahoo! does not rent, sell, or share personal information about you with other people or nonaffiliated companies except to provide products or services you've requested, when we have your permission.”

Are Justin’s grief-stricken parents more important than the privacy of others? Access to the account permits viewing of what was received from other people. Thus, the confidentiality of individuals and what they have may have written to Justin might be violated. In addition, there may be messages in Justin’s email that he did not want anyone, except for the parties involved, to see even after he is gone.

It is actually healthy for an adult not to reveal everything about themselves to their parents; it means they have an adult life and are no longer in need of parent approval. Not everything Justin wrote or received needed to be about or for his parents. He might have had confidential dialogue with friends, or admirer(s) whom he may have shared parts of his private life. What he sent to his parents was for his parents. What he did not send to them, even if it is in his 'Send' box, �Draft' folder, and in any archived folder, is not for them. Information the family finds in Justin’s account could possibly be hurtful or embarrassing to someone whom he exchange emails .

I am sure that Yahoo understands that when you pass away that all of your assets which are not otherwise divided by a will is normally passed on to your next of kin. These assets may include letters, mail, and safe deposit box contents. Although these items are afforded a degree of privacy while you are alive, they become the property of an immediate family member when you are gone. Yahoo surely considered this.

However, Yahoo had to consider the implications of releasing Justin’s emails. To release those messages in such circumstances, Yahoo said, would violate the privacy rights of the deceased and those with whom they have corresponded. Here is the applicable section from Section 27 of the Yahoo TOS: “No Right of Survivorship and Non-Transferability. You agree that your Yahoo! account is non-transferable and any rights to your Yahoo! I.D. or contents within your account terminate upon your death. Upon receipt of a copy of a death certificate, your account may be terminated and all contents therein permanently deleted.”

Their terms of service prohibit the company from disclosing private e-mail communications. One of their main duties is to remain loyal to their subscribers. Although they may be sympathetic, they cannot sacrifice their duties to their contract with Justin without damaging their reputation of privacy to their current and future subscribers. Thus, current and future subscribers are assured of Yahoo’s commitment to their privacy in similar situations.

If Yahoo had said yes without court authorization, they would be immediately flooded with requests for more exceptions to the rule. They would have to decide if the people under discussion were actually deceased which would necessitate some type of confirmation. While privacy is undoubtedly a concern, particularly for the senders and recipients of email correspondences with Justin, granting an exception could generate lawsuits against Yahoo.

Justin’s emails should be secure, and free of any possibility of danger of someone reading his e-mail that is not authorized to do so. That danger can be extended to whom the email is intended. Justin had a right to know that his e-mails will remain private. Yahoo had a duty to ensure that privacy will be maintained before creating an account. Justin subscribed to Yahoo for such a service, a service that honored his right to privacy.

So, why would we believe there is a right to privacy? My observation is the right comes from our idea of the control of our own being; that we have power over ourselves. Therefore, it is essential for us to maintain control. Creating boundaries between people becomes essential in maintaining privacy. Preventing or limiting access to sources that are confidential to our being fortifies those boundaries.

Justin’s