In the digital age, there is a premium on user privacy as personal information is available in widely available. Some of this personal information is offered by the user on social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, while advertising cookies collect some information without the user’s knowledge. The basic information users post in the “About” section of Facebook provides great insight into their buying habits and preferences. Companies have realized the advertising revenue they can generate with the targeting information available.
It brings up the question: what are the privacy boundaries that companies should follow? If the user provides the information on Facebook, can it be used in other applications? What about collecting information without the user’s knowledge?
Google’s DoubleClick application was found to be collecting advertising cookies unbeknownst to users on certain websites. The search engine was found to be navigating the privacy controls on the Safari browser and tracking users when they thought their online behavior was private. Google claimed their actions were justified as they were utilizing a service that Safari provided. They claimed the accusations by the Wall Street Journal of breaching users’ privacy “mischaracterizes what and why.”[1] Even so, Google removed the tracking code after they were contacted by the Wall Street Journal.[2]
Are users warned that their behavior will be tracked and they don’t pay attention? Are they well enough informed about websites’ privacy policies? If not, how can they be more informed?
Websites have privacy statements available to users, usually located at the bottom of each page. Sometimes, before using an application on a website, you must agree to the terms and conditions, which includes your privacy rights. The long privacy statements are often boring and filled with legal jargon and don’t seem to be applicable. Even though users agree to privacy statements to use websites, it doesn’t mean they have read them. As the privacy statements relieve websites of legal implications, is it ethical to track users’ behavior on the Internet?
Media Ethics: Issues and Cases discusses Louis W. Hodges’ philosophy for the need for privacy, in contrast to the right to privacy. Hodges claims that privacy is necessary for individuals to develop a sense of self and also to protect individuals from the power of the state.
Although Hodges argument was formed before the dawn of the digital age, the premises are still applicable. Individuals should be able to retain some sense of privacy in their lives even while using technology. For most applications and websites, if you do not accept their terms and conditions upon request, you will not be granted access. Users are granted privacy only because they are not engaging with the website. The ethical dilemma of privacy is over-shadowed by huge financial opportunity available to companies who sell advertisements.
As new technologies are developed, privacy concerns will also become more widespread. Users will start to distrust companies that breach their privacy agreements and possibly use other services instead. Companies should learn from Google’s mistake and reach a balance between protecting users’ privacy and earning revenue from advertisers.
Professional Problems & Ethics 
Debate over the issue of online privacy has grown as more people begin using the Internet for daily activities and more sites develop technologies that allow them to track user’s behavior. I think it is very interesting that you applied Hodges’ ethical framework to this issue. Hodges argument that people not only have a right to privacy, but also a need for privacy, makes me believe that it is not okay for websites to track user’s behavior, especially without their knowledge. Additionally, Hodges also talks about the circles of intimacy in his framework about privacy. Hodges claims that there are different levels of information shared with certain types of people, and that these groups of people are different circles of intimacy level. For example, for most people the most intimate level would be the smallest circle and would include family and very close friends. The next, slightly larger circle would include good friends. As the circles continue to grow bigger and include more people, the level of intimacy also diminishes. Hodges says that people should be able to control what kind of information is shared within each circle. With that being said, I think that people should be able to control their privacy online. Like on Facebook, people should be able to block what some groups can see about them online. Websites should have clear privacy policies that allow users to select what level of privacy they want for their information. As far as tracking user’s behavior, I think that even if people are aware that this is happening, it is still unethical. For a third party that is completely outside a person’s circles of intimacy to know exactly what people are looking at online, violates an individual’s need for privacy. According to Hodges framework, Google’s tacking activities are unethical.
-Kathryn