Intrusion of Personal Privacy through Snooping
This paper addresses the annoying practice I encounter daily about people intruding into the privacy of others through snooping. Accessing information about another person, usually from the internet, without his or her authority is not only wrong but also irritating. Snooping is not only limited to the retrieval of information from the internet, but also through casual means. I occasionally might come across somebody who is trying to look at what I am texting on the phone while travelling, or even a worker casually looking at the email of another workmate at the workplace. This act creates some discomfort to the offended person.
Snooping is not only restricted to the relations between strangers. Sometimes, I would find some of my friends going through my emails or text messages on my phone, just to get information about my relations with other people, what I say with whomever I communicate to among other things. Neighbours at times are nose around looking for information on what I do in life in terms of schooling, where I work among other things that do not concern them. Even after the retrieval of the information, it may not be of much help to the person seeking it for they are only doing it out of curiosity.
Not many people would be comfortable if they find somebody accessing information about their private business without your authority. It can even scar the relationship between the two if the culprit is a friend. It is a good idea for everyone to resist being snoopy to avoid having bitter relationships.
In the memo, I used the idea of reciprocity. Reciprocity involves doing something that I would expect another person to do (Cialdini 2009). Since I would want the other person to stop snooping at my privacy, I also do the same by not snooping into his or her private business. I also used the principles of social proof. This principle lays emphasis on the fact that a person can change his or her decision to do something based on the influence surrounding him or her (Cialdini 2009). A person can undergo the pressure of snooping into the privacy of other people if a majority the people he relates to do the same. Consequently, if no one in your social group engages in the vice, even a person that does might resist.
The memo is ethical because the persuasion is not coercive (Guffey 2008). The targeted audience has the freedom of choice. They choose either to snoop or not to snoop. There is no threat issued to those people who will continue with the act, but the memo gives an assurance of good relations between people who choose not to snoop.
The memo is also ethical because it is in the best interest for the audience to stop the act (Guffey 2008). As outlined in the memo, a person nosing around the private matters of another might end up having a tainted relationship. This situation could be much worse when the two are friends.
The memo communicates directly to the audience, and this enables them to make an informed decision. Here, the audience is able to look consciously at the arguments presented, analyse them and decide on whether to comply or not, being fully aware of why they are making their choices (Guffey 2008).
References
Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice. Pymble, NSW: HarperCollins ebooks.
Guffey, M. E. (2008). Business communication: Process & product. Mason, OH: South- Western Cengage Learning.
