Final Ethics Assignment Post

My Case:

The case I choose is about the new Samsung Galaxy s8, and how the facial recognition can be bypassed using a selfie picture. There are other features that will provide more security, according to the article I read, such as the iris scanner, fingerprint scanner, pin and password. With the Galaxy s8, if you want a secure phone that no one can get into, using the facial recognition would not be your best option. This article goes further into the phone's specs, and compares the facial recognition to Microsoft version.

Link to article

My Thoughts:

It is good that the phone at least has some security options. However, I feel like the facial recognition should be more secure. Samsung should try to increase security to protect the owner from theft, hackers, and to protect information that is on the phone. This issue becomes about someone's property and their privacy.

I believe the lack of security of the phone's facial recognition does not protects a person's property. A phone is someone's property and no one should be able to get into it if it's outside of the owner's hands. It makes it easier to steal someone's property and wipe it to use or resell. If the property was acquired illegally then it should belong to who stole it, or got it illegally. The worth of getting this phone is now lowered due to this feature.

I like my phone to be secure personally because there is pictures of my family and information for work I get sent to my phone. I have private conversations and I really would not want anyone being able to break in or hack into my phone. If I feel that way, others will feel that way as well. A phone has information not only on the owner of the phone, but also of the people they interact with. The privacy of both is important to keep secure. This phone now has an opening to expose not only the owner of the phone but the other people in their network, which is invading the privacy of others unknowingly.

Adam Smith Quote:

“Such enhancements of the market price are evidently the effect of natural causes, which may hinder the effectual demand from ever being fully supplied, and which may continue, therefore, to operate for ever.“

From Wealth of Nations
page 103

Adam Smith Connection:

I believe Adam would agree with me because he would agree that the facial recognition being able to be bypassed makes the phone less valuable as a product. No body will want a phone that is not secure and able to be worth the money they are spending on it, knowing that phones are growing in cost. I do not want to spend over $600 for a phone that somebody could take and get into with a picture of me.

Helen Nissenbaum Quote:

“Capturing the notion that people are entitled to their secrets, this principle finds robust support in scholarship developed from a variety of disciplinary perspectives, is well entrenched in practical arenas of policy and law, and is frequently raised in privacy deliberations in public or popular arenas. Several prominent philosophical and other theoretical works on privacy hold the degree of sensitivity of information to be the key factor in determining whether a privacy violation has occurred or not. These works seek to refine the category of so-called “sensitive information” and explain why the sensitivity of information is critical in defending privacy against countervailing claims.”

From Privacy As Contextual Integrity

page 128

Helen Nissenbaum Connection:

Helen would agree with me that privacy of the network of people is something that should be kept. If she was to hear about this, I believe she would be concerned that the people who text that phone would be exposed as well because they are trusting private messages between a friend, or a business secrets that could be exposed. I believe Helen would value the privacy of those who do not have control over that phone containing their information.