Companies: Devious or Virtuous?
The cloud of fear that hung over Americans during the Cold War has carried over into current society and plays a role in the amount of safety citizen’s desire. According to Elaine May, a Regents Professor of American Studies and History at the University of Minnesota, Americans have been willing to compromise their basic democratic rights for a long while in order to achieve security, and the Cold War has fed this irrational fear.
By living in the shadow of war since the 1930s, the fear now penetrates Americans at a level of daily life. Large businesses such as the Electric Light and Power Companies fed off of this fear through advertising. They portrayed the government as affiliated with socialism and communism. For example, General Telephone and Electronics in 1970 placed an ad in Time that portrayed a man in a trench coat, face obscured by a hat, ringing a families doorbell. The caption read in bold letters, “Who’s downstairs ringing your bell? A friend? Or the Boston Strangler?”
Such advertisements were highly successful in selling private security systems; the worth of these businesses increased from $3.3 billion in 1970 to $52 billion in 1991 even though the crime rate was decreasing. 62% of Americans in 1994 recorded that they were “truly desperate” about crime, leading to an increase in firearms. In 2007, 90 per 100 residents in America owned a firearm.
Although some modern practices appear to be benevolent, other acts performed by companies have a more maleficent purpose, and the response to these proves that freedom is often valued.
One example is the testing that occurred at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. At this laboratory operated by state and federal agencies, employees were routinely tested without their knowledge for various traits, ailments, and conditions. Even worse, certain groups were targeted. One group being African Americans, who were tested for sickle-cell traits; another being women, who were tested for pregnancy.
The laboratory defends itself, claiming that the tests were part of a mandatory medical examination. However, it does not seem necessary for employers to have access to this information.
When taken to the courts, the Ninth Circuit court overturned the lower court’s dismissal; in turn, allowing clerical or administrative workers to sue employers for testing for private medical information without their consent or knowledge.
The procedures practiced by the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory were a violation of the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments put in place by the United States Constitution. The 4th Amendment is as follows:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The testing is a violation of this amendment because the employees had no knowledge that they were being tested, nor did they give consent, which constituted a significant invasion of the right of privacy.
The 5th Amendment protects citizens from self-incrimination, and the 14th Amendment grants equal protection of the law for all citizens. The testing violated the due-process laws under these amendments. In addition, the discrimination against African-Americans is a violation of the Civil Rights Act.
The incidences that happened at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory exemplify a time where power was taken advantage of, citizens were not willing to surrender their civil liberties without purpose, and the courts ruled in favor of freedom.
Another instance in which a company has been confronted with choosing safety or protecting civil liberties is in the case of Apple and the FBI. Contrary to the Lawrence-Berkeley laboratory, Apple chose to side with freedom.
In response to the terrorist attacks in San Bernardino in December of 2015, the FBI reached out to Apple. They requested that a backdoor be made in Iphone software that would allow the government to hack into the perpetrators’ phones.
Apple released a message to their customers in February of 2016, stating that they refused the demand because it threatened the security of their customers, and Apple is “deeply committed to safeguarding their data.”
If this technique were to be created, then it could be used to unlock hundreds of millions of phones, ultimately being able to intercept messages and phone calls, access health records, financial data, microphones and cameras, and track one’s location.
Although the government defends itself saying that this backdoor would only be used in limited cases, there is no way for Apple to ensure such control. Therefore, Apple decided not to abide by the government’s request and stated: “ultimately, we fear that this demand would undermine the very freedoms and liberty our government is meant to protect.” Apple proves to the American people that not all companies are trying to take advantage of them, and freedom is valued in the corporation.
Click here to visit the previous article
Click here to visit the next article
