Category: Internet Privacy

Technological development has had a strong impact on the way society communicates particularly with its growth in the last few years. From the invention of the telegraph and the telephone to the advent of the internet, technology has given people the tools to not only keep in touch with each other but also express their feelings and opinions to a broader audience that would otherwise have been impossible. Since the first Internet transmission on October 29, 1969, we have been deepening our dependence on digital communications. There are almost two billion users of the Internet who share opinions through electronic mail, peer-to-peer data sharing, and wireless networks. However, that enables almost unlimited access to information. “Privacy and civil liberties interest groups, and many individuals, are uncomfortable with significant increases in the government’s ability to investigate, collect information in an unfettered manner about, and regulate or otherwise interfere with, private activities on the internet” (Intelligence and National Security Alliance, 2009). This nonprofit company strives to identify, develop, and promote collaborative approaches to national security challenges. The INSA is well known within the field of surveillance, their expertise tells us that they have specialized knowledge in this topic, and can be taken as credible. As such, the interference with individuals’ privacy on the internet can both directly and indirectly limit the free development and exchange of ideas, opinions, and our future.

As such, ​when having the knowledge of being watched by the government, people tend to alter their behavior in fear of more surveillance. For creativity and the free expression of ideas, a survey conducted by PEN America in 2013 found that one in every six writers “has avoided writing or speaking on a topic they thought would subject them to surveillance” (Summer Lopez, 2013). PEN works to protect free expression and to defend writers and journalists who are attacked in the course of their profession. Having the ability to observe within the survey that they have published proves to us that this author and company are credible. This is due to the fact they have put themselves in this position to conclude how many journalists are afraid to publish work with their own opinions. This suggests that people alter their behavior when they are reminded that the government is watching their activities and are not able to send out their true opinion, or any opinion at most.

Though there are companies fighting for protection, people still feel at risk for publishing their own opinions. This results in the need to do it anonymously, under no name. “Often, these online cues (known as digital footprints or digital traces) are the sole information we have to form an impression of someone, particularly when he or she is a stranger, or a ‘zero acquaintance’”(Joanne Hinds and Adam Joinson, 2019). Knowing that both authors specialize in the field of digital security and traces, their expertise concludes that they both have found themselves in a position to know what they’re talking about and conclude a statement that we can find credible. By viewers taking their digital footprint off the internet, they are changing the way they express their opinions due to the fact that they are going under no name. We often rely on our internet based judgments of others to make decisions such as who we socialize with and who we believe in. A person’s digital traces can review aspects of his or her identity, opinion, or statement. By knowing the name behind an opinion, the federal government can make an idea of the personality behind the screen. This can result in more surveillance, and fewer opinions coming from the source.

Likewise, the government is able to control the public’s opinions by letting them know that their technology is being watched. Once being reminded that what you were communicating on and about is being watched by the government, people tend to fit their opinion to a governmental norm. The level of interference and the involvement of third parties will give national authorities the possibility to take an informed conversation that complies with the fundamental rights of the individual as well as a principle of personality. The EU SURVEILLE project considers a surveillance technology to be effective when it “has the technological capacity to deliver the intended security goals, and when employed for a defined goal within the necessary context (good location, trained operators, a large security system, etc.) achieved the intended outcome” (Coen van Gulijik, Simone Sillem, Michelle Cayford, 2013). Due to spending the time of carrying out their own unique experiment, their ability to observe proves to us that they are credible because they have put themselves into a position where they could get the statistics face-to-face.

Understanding that there is an authority over individuals’ opinions, the government has the ability to convey planned security objectives by controlling what is shared between many writers and journalists. In this case, Edward Snowden was an IT systems expert working under contract for the National Security Agency when he traveled to provide journalists with top-secret documents about U.S. intelligence agencies’ surveillance of American citizens. ​“What I wasn’t expecting was that the United States government itself … would cancel my passport” (David Davies, 2019). Snowden has the first-hand experience of what he is talking about. He has lived with the rules, the information and more that corresponds with his old career, making it noticeable that he has an ability to observe in this field. We can see that the government is able to control his spreading of information due to the fact that his passport was blocked. This shows us that the government is controlling the spread of his information because they are resisting him from expressing his opinion on others. The government was able to identify what was being communicated and stopped it as a whole.

To control this, cybersecurity could warn and contain a mechanism for developing responses to problems as or before they develop. This is due to the fact that researchers on this topic have a vested interest within this field. By having their career composed of researching this topic, they are credible. They argue that “many individuals are uncomfortable with significant increases in the government’s ability to investigate, collect information” (Ellen McCarthy, Charles E. Allen, Stephen Cambone, Robert Farrell, Barbara Fast, Robert Gourley, Robert Pate, John Russack, Lou Von Thaer, Michael Karpovich, 2009). This could be a possible solution into stopping the fear of expressing your own opinions.

Furthermore, the knowledge of your actions being watched on the internet has caused people to turn on the source of surveillance, ending some in jail, or a closer watch on personal data. “The U.K. Home Secretary stated that communications data was used in 95% of criminal cases. Similarly, Omand characterizes communications data as “a very important investigative tool” in terrorist trials” (Cayford, Michelle; Pieters, Wolter, 2018). The U.K. Home Secretary is a high profile position and stated to be recognized as one of the most prestigious and important roles in the British Cabinet. The repetition of this position can prove to us that due to being so widely known, and having a very high position in the government, we are able to take these statistics into consideration due to the fact that it is credible. As stated, in many trials using the data taken from the surveillance over the Internet, the way one expresses his or her opinions could be used against them when taken into court.

Nevertheless, this may connect to new sources during the time of political activity. Jill Abramson, former executive editor of the New York Times, stated in 2013 that “surveillance has put a chill on really what’s a healthy discourse between journalist and our sources and its sources who risk going to prison” (Jillian York, 2014). She explains that during the time of elections, publishing their own opinions and using evidence put some at risk for prison. Their publishers, as she mentions risk going to prison and publishing these news articles. Having the knowledge of the outcomes of publishing something that would be watched by the government, people may hold back on their opinions or post it in fear. This may also affect the readers knowing how much trouble they are going through, or if they should take it into consideration.

As stated, authors begin to publish their works unanimously to have the ability to spread their ideas with no fear of punishment by the federal government. Google’s Eric Schmidt also agrees that ‘the solution to government surveillance is to encrypt everything (Joe Hagan and Anne Marie SqueoStaff, 2019). By being known in his field of work, former Google CEO, Eric Schmidt can be proven credible through his vested interest. He has served on various boards in academia and industry, showing that he has put himself into a position to get this information through his work.

Julian Assange, is a publisher who founded WikiLeaks. WikiLeaks is an international non-profit organization that publishes encrypted news leaks and classified media provided by anonymous sources. Assange was accused of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion with the intention of gaining privileged information in order for it to be published on WikiLeaks. The publication of this article, including the hacked information, garnered this particular publisher a maximum sentence of 5-years. Some people believe that inorder to express their ideas anonymously, they need to use encrypted sources. However, the Assange case proves that the government is capable of gaining your information whether encrypted or not.

In conclusion, individual privacy in regards to publishing on the internet limits the exchange of ideas and opinions because of government accessibility. After the new age of technology, communication and surveillance has grown throughout the world into something with consequences. For example, it results in changes in behavior, media control over public opinion, the want to fight back and more. Over all, government surveillance over technology has an effect on everyday activities including social media, journalism and TV.

Introduction

The world is rapidly experiencing changes in modes of communication. These rapid changes have been brought about by the invention and use of computers and, more specifically, the internet. The use of the internet amongst young people has increased to an alarming rate. There is a need to formulate laws that will govern the content of materials being accessed by these young people. With the increased use of the internet, many people have become worried about their privacy when using the internet. This is because there are other individuals who have managed to access accounts or confidential information from others. As a result, scholars and other stakeholders, like the government security agencies, have tried to formulate laws that will curb this menace to no success. This has mainly been attributed to the inability to locate the faces behind these illegal activities. For example, it is possible for an individual in Australia to hack into a website belonging to an American company. Therefore, it becomes extremely difficult to bring these culprits to justice.

Literature review on web privacy

A number of people have ventilated on this issue, although some of the recommendations given are proving to be unworkable. For example, according to Garfinkel (2002), web privacy relates to the individual’s prerogative. This means that it touches on the storage, as well as providing personal information of oneself through the internet. He has observed that many people, and especially the youth, have a tendency to share their information with others without knowing the real danger they are exposing themselves to. In addition, he has noted that the government and other stakeholders are not in a position to control or regulate the use of the internet in their area. However, he contends that the government can only make sure that its people have limited access to certain websites in an attempt to control and regulate web privacy. For instance, in the recent Arab uprising in the Middle East and North Africa, the governments tried as much as they could to block social sites such as Facebook and Twitter because they were used by the protesters to influence others.

On the other hand, Hamilton (2002) has argued that web privacy is today proving to be out of control. These are the same sentiments shared by Garfinkel (2002) because people tampering with other individuals’ content on the web cannot be tracked easily. He says that the governments should come together and establish a special group of its security who will communicate with others in case they arrest suspected computer hackers. In addition, he has observed that people who post their personal information on the web sites should make sure that adequate measures have been put in place to make sure that no one can tamper with such information. He has claimed that many victims of this kind of crime have claimed that their personal information on the website had not been properly secured. He says that if people embrace these kind of measures, the chances of having a secure and safe internet is possible. This opinion is shared by Connolly (2004), who has further stated that some of those individuals tasked with ensuring that personal information is safe on the internet to have been accused of sabotaging their clients by taking advantage of being the ones using their ability to access and maintain such information. As a result, he says that clients should be the ones having the passwords used in protecting the information other than the specialists who helped in posting such information on the web site.

According to Delta (2010), in order to maintain privacy, individuals are supposed to select which type of personal information should be made available to a particular web site. In addition, he has advised that people need to be informed about the profile information that is of importance to a particular web site as well. This is because it will allow such people to choose who may use this information, for what purposes, and under what circumstances. This may go a step further to include issues such as having the sole right to publish and update records and to withdraw usage permissions. In addition, information stored locally on a user’s machine may be modified in a way that it will be kept safe from unauthorized usage by other people having access to the web site.

What’s happening now?

In the 21^st century, the number of people using the internet has increased rapidly. On the same note, the number of web sites that allow people to interact has gone up at an alarming rate. For example, Facebook and Twitter have become the most commonly visited sites, especially by young people in their twenties. What these sites do is to allow people to post their personal information so that they can be used by others as they search them to become their friends on Facebook in particular. There is also an option in these sites where people have a chance to poke others whom they have never met. Therefore, these people, in many instances, are strangers.

Once the victim accepts the request, he or she has a chance of viewing the personal information in another person’s profile. It has been observed that such strange individuals may decide to copy some of the private information and share it with their friends who may be as well unknown to the victim. Such may include personal pictures. As a result, individual privacy on the web will have been affected. In addition, there have been instances where pictures of certain prominent personalities have been edited. As a result, this has made such people bear a negative reputation, especially from those not well versed with such kind of picture editing technology. Therefore, it is important to know and keep track of the people who are in a position to access an individual’s profile. This, as earlier stated, can only be possible by accepting requests from people known. This is a very good and effective way of keeping imposters at bay. Hence the web privacy will not have been compromised.

Recent abuses and improvements

On social sites such as Facebook, for instance, many people have been forbidden or suspended from continuing use of their accounts after many people reported receiving friend requests from people they do not know. As a result, the suspended people may have learned a big lesson and therefore, may only send such friendship requests to people they know and are sure that they, in turn, know them. Due to increased use of celebrities’ names, some of the web site owners have forbidden the use of such names so that they can protect the privacy of such individuals in the society and the world at large.

Web site policies on privacy protections

According to Hamilton (2002), many companies have privacy policies that are aimed at protecting their internet users and also increasing their confidence as they post their personal information on the web site. He says that this is the most effective and efficient way of making sure that a web site receives more people at any one given point. He contends that once a consumer is guaranteed that the information provided will not be disclosed to a third party, then he or she is likely to post a lot of personal information that he or she feels is relevant to the requirements of such a web site.

This paper has looked at the privacy policy given by the 24/7 Real Media Company. According to the company’s privacy policy, they do not ask for the online user’s personally identifiable information, such as the names of individuals and their addresses. The company’s main concern is its customers to abide by the applicable laws that govern online privacy and encourage them to publish privacy policies that inform others about how the information they are gathering is being utilized. The company requires their partner web sites that are part of the Global Web Alliance to inform users about their privacy and information collection practices via their privacy policies, including whether or not the web site is using their technology. They also advise their customers on how they can delete the information they have provided to the company’s website. This company has further encouraged its customers to frequently read the privacy policies of the other websites that they visit to understand issues relating to online privacy.

Current proposals for government regulations

Although web privacy has for over the years, proved to be an enormous task for the government and other stakeholders, there have been attempts to try and regulate web privacy in many countries. According to Delta (2010), the United States of America does not have a firm law that governs online privacy. On the other hand, he has observed that Canada, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom legislatures have passed stiff laws on privacy laws. He says that in the United States of America, the Federal Trade Commission is usually tasked with ensuring people’s privacy is observed. However, he has noted that this commission can take action only if privacy-violating action is deemed unfair to the victim. He has said that the main issue in trying to formulate federal privacy legislation was to try and curb the spread of this vice that has continued to affect many people in the world today. In addition, he claims that privacy laws are long overdue because there are some companies that have been gathering information from people and using such information to make money at the expense of such people.

Conclusion

Although the internet has brought more good than bad in our society today, there is a need to address its disadvantages so that it can continue being a useful tool in the life of mankind. Therefore, it is important to make sure that those people who infringe on other individual privacy are brought to justice and accorded stiff penalties. This move will go a long way in deterring others who want to engage in such activities in

the future.

Reference List

Connolly, J., 2004. Law of internet security and privacy. New York: Aspen Publishers, Inc.

Delta, G., 2010. Law of the Internet, Volume 1. New York: Aspen Publishers, Inc.

Garfinkel, S., 2002. Web security, privacy and commerce. New York: O’Reilly Media, Inc.

Hamilton, T., 2002. The privacy payoff: how successful businesses build customer trust. Philadelphia: McGraw- Hill Ryerson.

The right to access information is fundamental in any open society, the and so is the protection of intellectual property. The enjoyment of one, however, should not infringe on the other. This is ex ofactly what PIPA and SOFA attempted to do. SOPA was a bill tabled in the US House of Representatives. PIPA, on the other hand, was tabled in the US Senate. Both Bills sought to prevent violation of copyrights on the internet.

While the intention was noble, the means of achieving that aroused concern. Internet providers could be ordered to block the domain names of internet sites on suspicion of a violation. Various companies could also be forced to refrain from doing business with infringing sites. The two Bills failed and were not passed. This paper shows how Passing PIPA and SOPA into law could have caused gross infringements on the right to access information, and freedom of expression,

The drafters of PIPA and SOPA “understood what was at stake” (Gillmor 3). Gillmor is a media expert and author of ‘Media Active’, a book about empowering people as new media users. By making such utterances, Gillmor was by no means in agreement with the proposed “fixes” on internet use. Neither did he support the alleged advantages of; “wresting control of these tools from the masses” (Gillmor 3).

The bills promised a centrally controlled and more open means of communication and dialogue. These claims, made by the proponents of the two bills were misleading and did not reflect the bills’ true intentions. He argues that if the lawmakers were honest, they would have told the public the truth about their intentions. The truth, according to Gillmor, was to regain control over communications and information which the internet threatened to take away (2).

Gillmor’s sentiments are on point and I agree that the intention of the lawmakers was not to “centralize open means of communication”. I add that they found the threat the internet posed to their hold over communication and information unacceptable. To overcome this threat, they had to curb the internet’s utility for everyone. The proposed restrictions threatened to create an economy based on permissions. Permission would be needed from the holder of copyright to quote anything that is protected.

Requiring permission to quote or borrow from protected material would severely restrict freedom of expression. Wood argues that every internet user would be affected in one way or another (4). This move would affect users of information for commercial and academic purposes.

This would have had dire consequences on the education system. For example, a UTA student quoting passages from a copyrighted book would require permission from the author to use the material in academic write-ups. It will also affect professions such as journalism which “thrive on borrowed ideas” (Wood 3).

Wood’s argument that such professions thrive on borrowed ideas is narrow. It gives the unrealistic impression that journalists are not innovative and do not produce original work. My opinion is that, though they borrow and use other people’s creations, they build on the ideas to produce ideas that are understood better by their audiences. I, however, agree that the development of such careers would have been hampered.

The passing into law of the two bills would have led to censorship. These are sentiments expressed by DiMarco (6). DiMarco adds that not only would censorship have been its natural consequence, little would have been achieved in the fight against piracy. He engages the reader in a detailed discussion on how it is impossible to protect movie makers and musicians from piracy.

His conclusion is that the proposed laws could not have done anything to music or movie pirates. I find this argument as simplistic. It ignores the technological aspects of the failed Bills. Details are provided, showing how the measures taken would have acted as a “death penalty” on infringing websites. They would have practically been deleted, and it would be impossible for someone to access information from them.

DiMarco concedes that the problem of piracy is rampant and it costs the American economy millions of dollars in losses each year (3). Hundreds of jobs are lost as a direct consequence of copyright infringements. There is a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed. The proposed moves, however, should present an acceptable solution to this problem.

As a student, I regularly consult different sources of information for academic purposes. There are times when I need to quote this information in my research papers. If I look up certain information and the government limits my access to it, this will amount to an infringement on my right to access information.

The communication industry would have been more injured than assisted by PIPA and SOPA. It is an industry in which individuals rely on other people’s ideas and arguments to support or emphasize their own. Expression of one’s views would have been restricted if they refer to another person’s ideas. The proposed restrictions intended to protect intellectual property, but they would have ended up restricting information accessibility.

Broes and DiMarco are both of the view that the restrictions would have made it difficult for people to communicate (7, 2). I entirely agree with these sentiments for various reasons. For example, various pieces of information may not make much sense without reference to other relevant information. A writer may find it exceedingly difficult to compare his/her views with those of others if permission has to be grated before reference is made.

The problem does not lie in the requirement for permission to quote or use another person’s ideas. I acknowledge that protection of original ideas and innovations is crucial as it encourages innovative thinking and development. The issue I raise is there was a heavier requirement than to merely acknowledge the source of information. This would have been a severe handicap in communication and exchange of information.

Websites that are suspected of facilitating or aiding copyright piracy would be disabled and completely deleted from the internet. These measures would have been drastic, and in my view inappropriate. They were disproportional to the losses or injuries caused by copyright infringements. I do not trivialize the negative consequences of piracy, but there exists better methods of dealing with piracy than the suffocating those with views to express.

The government, in future, should not propose infringements on peoples’ right to get information from websites that have been censored. The advantages emanating from piracy have been entirely ignored. Those seeking protections from piracy have always known that it comes with increased exposure and a wider dissemination of information. It was, evidently, not an entirely evil thing.

Piracy is a legitimate problem that the government should address. Protection should be provided to innovators and owners of original ideas. This does not, however, validate a blatant trounce on individual rights to information and expression. In my opinion, POPA AND SOPA were just an attempt by the government to repossess its control over information and communication. In the process the right to information and freedom of speech could have been violated.

Works Cited

Broes, Derek. Why Should Your Fear PIPA and SOPA? 2012. Web.

DiMarco, Chris. SOPA, The Blackout and What it Means For You. 2012.

Gillmor, Dan. Stop SOPA, or the Web Really Will Go Dark. 2012. Web.

Wood, Chris. What SOPA and PIPA Could Mean to the Tech World. 2012.