Eth 301 Case 1

For module 1’s case assignment, I was asked if Justin Ellsworth’s email should be released to his parents after he had been killed in the line of duty. I will explain why Yahoo did the right thing by not releasing his email to his family. I will also explain the utilitarian and deontological considerations while making my decision.

Releasing Justin Ellsworth’s emails to his family would have been a violation of his privacy. He agreed that the email account is non transferrable and will be terminated upon his death when he signed up for the account. Yahoo had the legal right to deny the family access to his account and did the right thing. What if every relative of every person that passed away wanted access to their loved one’s email? Email providers would always be busy with trying to accommodate their requests and would probably cause them to charge users a fee to open email accounts. Providers keep their services free to the public by terminating the data rather than storing it for turn over.

Yahoo’s deontological reasoning on why Ellsworth’s email was not released is because they were doing what the provider agreed to. When you open up an email account, you are asking the company to provide a service for you. By agreeing to the company’s terms, both user and the company have obligations that they must meet. Users are prohibited from conducting illegal activities while using the services provided and the provider has the obligation of protecting the user’s privacy. Yahoo did the right thing by upholding their end of the agreement, therefore making it deontological. It is Yahoo’s duty to make sure that they protect Ellsworth’s fourth amendment right by denying any unwanted access to his account and they did what was agreed upon by doing so. Would you run the chance with signing up for an email account, knowing that the privacy that you are being promised could be compromised on someone’s request?

I am by no means a heartless person. As...