At what point do restrictions and regulations, whether they occur in the workplace, athletics, or any other avenue in life, infringe on someone’s personal right to privacy?  Who, if anybody at all, has the right to have access to your intimate actions and information?  Are there ways of preserving your privacy and if so how can they be implemented?  These are just some of the questions that haunt this controversial debate which has continued to gain more attention over the last several decades as technology has improved so as to allow for ways under which one’s personal activities can be monitored.  These technological advancements include such things as superior and accurate forms of drug testing, improved ways of testing for diseases, and improvements in computer technology (email, surveillance technology, etc.).  The implications of this debate can be felt in many different areas of life and the following links touch on some of those that demonstrate this variability:

What you think is private may not be  (http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/stories/5f8232.html)---despite government efforts to prevent one’s right to privacy, employers are choosing to abridge privacy.  Specifically, infringement of privacy in the workplace can be seen in areas concerning drug testing, email, phone conversations and personnel testing.

Anonymity and Privacy on the Internet  (http://www.stack.nl/~galactus/remailers/ )---On this site you will find information on how to be anonymous, and how to secure your communications and files from third parties, as well as several other security aspects that may arise when you are on the Internet.

Content Providers: “Privacy is in the Eye of the Beholder”  (http://www.pcworld.com/news/daily/data/0298/980211113343.html)
---Is the release of cyberspace consumer information an invasion of one’s privacy?  Many times the answer is yes, and people, therefore, provide false information.

Is Anonymity in Articles Responsible?  (http://www-scf.usc.edu/~mweaver/page/vol45/iss9/editorial/faceoff.9.45.html)
---All people have the right, both legally and morally, to remove their names from a piece of literature slated to be published in any journalistic forum, including professional and high school publications.  Is anonymity justified or is it simply a way to avoid responsibility?

Drug Testing in the Workplace  (http://www.flashback.se/archive/ACLU_DRU.FAQ )---historically, life off the job was a private affair not to be scrutinized by employers.  However, recent technologies that make it possible for employers to monitor employees’ off-duty activities have resulted in drastic changes to this historical perspective.  This link contains a list of questions pertaining to an employee’s privacy in the workplace.

Confidentiality  (http://plague.law.umke.edu/Xfiles/x854.htm) ---While traditionally employees had little expectation of privacy in their occupational medical information, OSHA regulations and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) have greatly limited the employer’s access to an employee’s medical information.  As the employer still has full access to workplace information, it is important to establish separate records for non-workplace information in order to preserve this privacy.

Coaches Would Accept HIV-Infected Players  (http://www.star.so.swt.edu/96/02/21/02-21-96s2.html)---With the recent publicity concerning Magic Johnson and Tommy Morrison, a controversial question has arisen.  Should HIV infected players be allowed to participate in athletics?  If so, should their condition be kept confidential as to preserve their right to privacy, or do their fellow players have a right to know about their condition?

Mandatory Testing Necessary to Halt Spread of HIV in Sports  (http://www.shu.edu/life/setonian/1995-96/feb22/edop3.html)  ---Is mandatory testing necessary to halt the spread of HIV in sports?  Many say no, demanding that testing of any sort infringes on one’s right to privacy.

Paparazzi Focus of Privacy Legislation
(http://204.71.177.68/text/headlines/980...ertainment/stories/stories/media_privacy_1.html )---Based on their recent chastisement for an alleged role in the death of Princess Diana, the Paparazzi have become the focus of a possible new privacy bill.  If passed it will not limit a photographer’s ability to shoot a famous person’s picture in a public place, but would outlaw persistent chasing or following.

Why Patients Refuse Drugs  (http://www.mentalhealth.com/mag1/p5h-med1.html )---On the grounds that involuntary medication violates bodily integrity and personal autonomy, courts in most parts of the country now demand that psychiatrists respect the right of the hospitalized mental patients to refuse drug treatment.
 

Return to class readings page:  Kinesiology 493: Philosophy of Kinesiology