Very early on in the film it becomes apparent that each of the guests are relatively famous to some extent, and with that comes scrutiny into their personal lives. Each character experiences violations of their information privacy by their own fault or the fault of others. Here are a few important highlights.
Throughout the film, Blanc experiences various possible invasions of his personal privacy. First, he is provided with a "biorhythm" monitor that he must wear to be able to access his room. [1] This device potentially transmits biometric information to a remote server and there is no disclosure about what is done with this data. According to 5.3.2 in the book, this could be an example of a private organization holding information about a person. The biorhythm information could be collected and and kept on record at Miles' company databases. [2] This is a voluntary disclosure of information by Benoit, and he likely didn't even consider the data might be collected and processed.
Later in the movie Andi and Benoit are in the island's gym having a private conversation about the ongoing murder investigation. They are interrupted by a screen on the wall which is a live two-way video and audio feed to Serena Williams, likely as a remote personal trainer. [1] This example closely relates to one provided by the book in section 5.1, where an Amazon Alexa in a Portland Oregon woman's household misinterpreted commands and sent an audio recording of one of their conversations to her husband's employee. [2] These two examples coincide well, as they are both examples of how people's privacy were violated when they were under the expectation they were having a private conversation.
Miles opts to have a very high profile and make many things about himself public. In addition, he frequently changes information about people in a way to violate their privacy. A prime example of this is the control over the narrative of Andi's severance with their company. Andi was the actual founder of the company, and after a falling out Miles changes the history of the company to make it seem like he created it. He kept the actual history of the company private, and manipulated the intellectual property and Andi's personal identity to destroy her career. [1] Section 5.2.2 in the textbook states that giving privacy to some people or organizations can cause harm by allowing them to "carry out illegal or immoral activities" in secrecy. [2] The privacy Miles had in this case caused harm on others, including Andi.
Claire, being a politician running for senate, is very aware of her public image and reputation. The film is set during the COVID-19 pandemic, so she tries to avoid letting the public find out about her trip to the island to avoid scrutiny and criticism. [1] Although this trip is socially questionable because of the circumstances, this is a case where someone's lack of privacy negatively harms them. She'd like to go on a trip to Miles' private island, and this can be done using proper COVID-19 spread prevention measures. Whether or not these measures were actually taken is not important for the case of the following argument. The textbook states in section 5.2.2 that privacy can have beneficial by allowing people to be themselves instead of having to maintain their public persona. [2] If Claire had more personal privacy and wasn't as much in the public spotlight, she might have been able to enjoy herself more and relax.
Whiskey is in a public relationship with Duke in part for the publicity since she wants to be a politician later in life. Near the beginning of the film, Whiskey is shown in one of Duke's livestreams saying anti-feminist statements to appease him and for publicity. [1] A case can be made that these statements could be used in opinion mining on social networks that post Duke's videos with her statements. The textbook states in 5.4.4 that opinion mining is when sentiment is analyzed from the public responses to content posted on social media and used to determine responses/markets to push their product or information into. [2] In this case, it's possible that the social networks are able to profile the interests of people that engage with Duke and Whiskey's content, and push that content on to others with similar interests. This is not good for Whiskey's career goals, as she is appealing to larger and larger audiences by sharing her opinions that don't actually reflect her real views.
Another issue for Whiskey is that the lack of privacy around her content on social networks could cause difficulties for her when running for governmental positions in the future. The textbook states in 5.4.4 that about 2 in 5 employers use social media background checks when screening job candidates. [2] For government positions, there would be even more scrutiny over this information. Since Whiskey has such a strong online presence because of Duke, she will be unable to hide this online presence when running for office. As a result, any irresponsible activity posted will make it difficult for her to be elected or appointed.
“Glass Onion: A Knives out Mystery.” (IMDb, 23 Dec. 2022), www.imdb.com/title/tt11564570/.
Michael J. Quinn, "Ethics for the Information Age Ninth Edition", (Pearson, 2025), https://www.pearson.com/en-us/subject-catalog/p/ethics-for-the-information-age/P200000011623, (Accessed 4/20/2025)