The scientific-technological progress and the pace with which it has been changing society have affected all spheres of human life – including the law. Among other things, technology has contributed to the new forms of crimes arising – and, consequently, to law enforcement seeking ways to combat these crimes. According to Peny (2012), ethical practice is founded on the Constitution’s Fourth Amendment complemented by the United States court decisions affecting the technology used by law enforcement employees. Supposedly, by using these requirements, officers are to perform their day-to-day duties utilizing technology in legal and ethical ways. However, sometimes officers’ discretion in laws’ application leads to the line between ethical and legal being blurred. That is why it is important to have an ethical code related to technologies, which is to be referred to in cases of uncertainty when choosing how to act.
As has been already mentioned, rapidly developing technology, particularly computer technology, has resulted in new forms of property crime. A lot of these crimes involve thieving intellectual property stored in digital form – that is, private information maintained on computers and other electronic devices, as well as on optical, electromagnetic, and other data carriers. Other traditional crime forms – such as fraud, espionage, extortion, theft, pornography, and drug dealing – can all be perpetrated with the use of a computer and the Internet.
In general, laws related to computer crimes make attempts to apply the trespass concept of the common law to the digital environment. Therefore, computer crimes tend to be considered an unauthorized entry into an individual’s property. According to Schmalleger and Hall (2016), in the absence of criminal intent – mischief or curiosity excluded – offense is defined as minor and labeled computer hacking. However, where there is criminal intent, most jurisdictions’ laws permit prosecution for unauthorized access along with other offenses – generally theft or fraud, actual or attempted ones (Schmalleger and Hall, 2016). In addition, most computer-related laws include provisions penalizing the prohibition of a person’s legal access to computer services or data stored there by another person.
It is only consequential that such technological developments the judicial and legislative branches cannot keep in step at times. Occasionally, officers have only their ethical convictions and received training in ethical decision-making. Not every instance of law enforcement using technology can be justified ethically; however, society often wishes for the best outcome, even if in particular cases it includes breaking the rules. For one, according to Peny (2012), searching an individual’s cell phone or computer without obtaining a warrant first is an excessive action performed by officers. Supreme Court views these devices as containers that might be subjected to protection following the Fourth Amendment. It protects the citizens from unwarranted searches and arrests – still, one is to remember that it is only applied to private information; public information is not protected.
Another example is technologies such as body scanning – introduced in spaces like airports after 9/11 – which tends to cause public resentment. The foundation of that is such practices, arguably, being the Forth Amendment’s violation, and this argument is well founded. Peny (2012) paraphrases Benjamin Franklin: those who renounce their freedom for greater security do not deserve either; if all were completely free, they would also be free from security. Debates about all of this can go on forever; the point is that there has to be a code related to technology use that one can refer to handle people’s complaints with as little difficulty as possible.
Since there is no such ethical code, one might attempt to think about what the principles implemented in it should be. According to Tzafestas (2018), all activities related to personal data use have to conform to the existing legislation on data protection. Therefore, a set of common ethical standards should include always respecting individuals’ rights to private life, autonomy, and dignity. Perhaps, exceptions for that might be made for specific cases – these cases being instances of serving the common good, which is to be clearly defined as well. Maximum transparency is to be implemented in technology-related procedures, for no manipulations to be possible. Moreover, the negative consequences caused by the processing of data gathered when it comes to personal privacy are to be lightened. All of this is extremely important because there are no clear general definitions of the proper use of technology yet. Therefore, it is extremely easy for a law enforcement officer to violate people’s privacy while trying to render justice. An officer’s duty is, however, to serve citizens first and foremost – and they have to make sure that it happens under no circumstances.
To sum up, respect for people’s basic rights in technological ethical codes is to be put above everything else. Granted, one might claim that if there are no common sets of rules determining what actions are to be taken in a specific situation, an official can act as they choose to in their position. While that remains true, in cases related to the use of technology, a law enforcement employee is to remember that oftentimes the violation of a person’s privacy is a choice that one decides to make. Therefore, following the general guidelines of serving people, one should always decide against it, except when it is necessary.
References
Peny, L. J. (2012). Technology ethics for law enforcement. American International Journal of Contemporary Research, 2(2), 124-33. Web.
Schmalleger, F., Hall, D. E. (2016). Criminal law today. Pearson.
Tzafestas, S. G. (2018). Ethics and law in the internet of things world. Smart Cities, 1(1), 98-120. Web.