How IT Security and Robust Technology Compromises Peoples Freedom - Literature review Example

LITERATURE REVIEW Number: Lecturer Literature Review: How IT security and robust technology compromises people’s freedom and how canpeople, government and organizations adapt to these challenges? 1.1. Introduction The concept of privacy is difficult to understand. According to Allan Westin, a US privacy scholar, privacy cannot have an absolute definition because privacy issues are fundamentally concepts of values power and interests (Westin, 1995, quoted in Gellman, 1998). Westin argues that privacy, as perceived by individuals, involves living a life free from any interference. A number of other scholars have related the aspect of privacy and transformations in society. Westin conducted privacy surveys in which respondents expressed their satisfaction or concern with respect to the collection of private information, its use and the level of protection provided by laws and legislations. The surveys were conducted between 1978 and 2004, and Westin used the data to build a privacy concern index. According to the index, there are three classifications; privacy fundamentalists (people generally distrustful of organizations asking for their personal data and use of computerized systems), privacy pragmatists (people with moderate concern on the use of technology for intrusion, 57% of US population), and privacy unconcerned (individuals who are trustful of organizations and are not bothered about privacy constrictions by using information technology) (Clarke, 2008). 1.2. Privacy and covert surveillance Bennet, (2005) explored the impacts of technology ion privacy; Clarke, (1988, Lyon, (1994) examined surveillance and privacy while Zureik, (2005) attempted communication interception in the age of technology. The innovation telecommunication sector triggered a number of legislations on surveillance. As indicated by Privacy International (2003) states moved in to update their surveillance laws. For instance, the case law in Strasbourg was used to update British legislation to take note of the technological advances. Though it can be argued that the intentions are good, the governments use old legislative instruments to apply new technologies to address the interception of information and networks without taking into account how the technology has altered the nature and sensitivity of information. The European Union introduced a number of legislations as an immediate response to terrorist threats after 2001 attack on the US. Though the trend was replicated by law enforcement agencies worldwide, in an attempt to adopt a more comprehensive approach to the capture, retention of information and access to information systems, Blakeney, (2007, quoted in Akrivopoulou, 2012) notes that the manner in which this was done this remains questionable. As the author notes, much of the research pointed out to legislative changes which questioning the impacts such changes would introduce on the fundamental human rights. 1.3. Changing global security Security climate around the globe has intensified in the recent past due to extended security threats. The security vulnerabilities have made it difficult for public policy decides to strike a deal with the rights to freedoms and privacy and broader public security. A range of policies such as national identity card programs for every individual, the growing use of technology which adversely affects privacy, and policies intended for public policy. The UK Government counter-terrorism strategy and related legislations like section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 and Terrorism Act of 2006 are intended to provide security to the citizens. However, a raging public debate as ensued as to whether there is a balance between this legislations and privacy of the subjects. According to an article in The Guardian and Daily Telegraph, 2007, titled “a balance between security and liberty”, it draws attention to the fact that the debate is highly polarized with civil society groups actively arguing against any legislation that infringes on their privacy and liberty. Those from security and policy segments argue against express privacy and liberty, and that surveillance is for public interest and in most cases, the end justifies the means (Newell, 2014). 1.4. For surveillance The model of the compromise of human liberties and rights to privacy to obtain security benefits is not new. According to Thomas Hobbes, in Leviathan, the society cannot be secure without individuals giving up their rights and privacy privileges. Thomas argues that some of the freedoms inherent in a state of nature are surrendered if citizens are to obtain security. Niccolo Machiavellis in The Prince concurs with this assertion and states that to preserve the state some measures need to be undertaken, including curtailing the freedoms of individual subjects (Gregory, 2007). The recent actions in the UK reveal the extent the rights might have been abrogated or suspended, some instances permanently and some temporarily. According to Brown, (quoted in Benedek, 2008), government communication regarding extension of pre-trial detention, national identity register used in the fight against terrorism and unwarranted use of CCTV for identification of suspects indicate instances when rights are abrogated. The author notes that suspension of rights is necessary, particularly in the current state of insurgency and terrorism, because of the complexity of identifying suspected criminals. Brown illustrates the Irish Republican terrorism of 1970s in Great Britain where security and intelligence agencies could collect information and evidence and build a case prior to the arrest of a suspect. In current times, the author notes that the ideological, suicidal and extremist nature of international terrorism gives little room for security agencies to collect data and prioritize the avoidance of mass casualties (Benedek, 2008). Governments have express right to monitor its citizens and detail them using intelligence from their digital interactions. Even with little evidence, as long as it points to an attack, citizens are detained until robust evidence to sustain a case is obtained. The need for surveillance is emphasized by Gregory (2007) in support for proactive planning in response to counterterrorism after 9/11. Taking reference from British intelligence agencies, the author posits that the dynamic nature of catastrophic terrorist actions as a result of suicide bombers, automatic assault weapons, truck bombs, and aviations targets such as Man-Portable Air Defense System as well as chemical, biological, nuclear and radiological weapons require covert intelligence and information gathering. 1.5. Against surveillance A number of authors have objected to the abrogation of fundamental rights in the name of security. According to Newell (2014) a multitude of measures conducted by government agencies, particularly on surveillance of its citizens and foreigners using information technology represent insidious and piecemeal encroachment of their democratic rights. The imposition of surveillance software and techniques create an atmosphere of mistrust of government and slowly degrade the democratic rights of individuals in the name of security. For example, Newell argues that wholesale imposition of data gathering concepts, application of surveillance technologies and legitimization of the same, via legislative actions such as the Regulation of Inventory Powers Act 2000 and Data Retention Directive 2006 in the UK, and Patriotic Act 2001, comprise a steady advance upon fundamental liberties and privacy of citizens. According to Liberty, (2009), in (Akrivopoulou, 2012) these and other recent legislations implemented in the name of security constitute an enormous restriction upon habeas corpus and undermine many years of legal precedent. Lyon adds weight to the negative aspects of surveillance and argues that the worrisome and unethical aspects of control using technological innovations are the payoff for improved mobility, convenience, and security in modern life. Today’s western world as argued by Lyon, (2007), Stalder, (2002), and Marx (2002) in (Capurro, 2012) is a surveillance world where the liberties and privacy of citizens is no longer respected. The slight difference between the works of these authors is that they do not perceive surveillance in the context of the totalitarian regime as demonstrated by Orwell, but rather, continual gathering of information as facilitated by a networked computing environment. Even if every life is subjected to monitoring, checking and scrutinizing, Lyon claims that every society needs information and communication technologies for administrative and control activities. Just as the UK, with most CCTV cameras in the western world, privacy in the US is longer a right. UK has more than 4.2 million cameras, implying that there is a single camera for every 14 Britons nationals. According to a study by Surveillance Studies Network (2006), the routine tracking and information gathering using information technology capabilities is not always obvious to individuals. Such surveillance makes it difficult to develop frameworks and checks for safeguarding the process to make it accountable. 1.6. Need for realignment of definition of surveillance with respect to privacy Bennett (2005) has challenged the concept and definition of surveillance with respect to electronic data collection. According to the author, there needs to be a distinction between collection and storage of personal identification and analysis and manipulation of such data to derive insights about individual behavior. In his research, Bennett drew reference to a case study of his data records generated from an airline as a result of his travels in Canada and United States. The author drew a line between collection and storage of data for the purposes of business, as in the case of the airline he normally uses, and analysis of such data to come up with some decisions. Surveillance is not applicable to the former but applies in the second case where humans use data collected from electronic forms to make decisions about certain individuals. The author proposes the use of the word dataveillance, a term that had been proposed by Clarke (2007) to describe the processes of monitoring people’s actions or interactions using communication technology. Bennett argues that surveillance cannot be used to refer to any process of gathering information because it is a general term and trivializes the real surveillance that is applied to suspicious individuals. A shift has occurred with respect to privacy debate and restoration of fundamental rights. Earlier, citizens use to worry about commercial or government agencies having access to their data. Though it is still probable, a new relationship has occurred between the private sector and the government. The collaboration revolves around data retention and access. Government agencies now gain access to user’s mobile data that, in essence, is privatized and held by internet service providers and telecom companies. Clarke, (2008), posits that there is a great danger to individuals and society. With respect to individual, decisions made based on incorrect dataveillance lead to unfairness. Clarke notes that this is worse when the individual is not aware of the covert data collection and hence has no means of correcting wrong data. In addition, it can lead to blacklisting a person based on a disputed matter or false link to a person. 2.0 Reflection Literature and laws such as George Orwell’s 1984 and the Fourth Amendment stress how the laws and culture are used by states to scrutinize the lives of it citizens. The Electronic Communication Privacy Act and documentaries such as Minority Report and The Lives of Others illustrate the depth of distress in striking the balance between security of a nation and promotion of fundamental rights of freedom and privacy. The warnings concerning scrutiny of lives of citizens are common place, and though they are not very specific, they have huge impacts on the trust between the state and its subjects. There is the threat of Orwellian dystopia that is critical in the preservation of personal rights and freedoms. Other than that, there is vague information on how state surveillance is bad for the citizens and why they should be wary of it. The indirect effect of surveillance is the privacy of individuals, but there is no clear understanding what privacy means in the context of security and why it matters a lot. The digital technologies have revolutionized the lives of individuals and state surveillance is no longer in science fiction. Digital technologies improve communication, business, education and other prospects in society. However, it also creates minutely detailed records of people’s lives. In the age of terror, governments have taken a proactive action by acquiring data concerning people’s interaction with the world and using it for unknown purposes. In the recent past, governments have been buying and borrowing private-sector information systems and databases, and the recent revelation of National Security Service massive data centre and supercomputing space in Utah, supposedly developed for the purposes of intercepting and storing much of the world’s Internet communication for decryption and analysis purposes, raises a lot of eyebrows as to whether there is any form of legislation that guards against unwarranted surveillance. Although there are legislations that guard against government surveillance, there is little that can be done about secret government programs until they are discovered. Revelations such as that of Snowden did not impact or stir protection from surveillance laws and legislations. Courts have, in a number of times, challenged the illegality of such programs based on lack of standing, and with the theory that mere surveillance creates no harm. The only major case that held to the contrary was reversed by the Supreme Court. The Clapper v Amnesty International case was challenged, and the Court dismissed the case on assumptions that government agencies would not target domestic citizens in their surveillance activities. If recent revelations about NSA surveillance advances are anything to go by, the Supreme Court ruling was ill-informed and not based on facts. By undertaking this research, the objective is to seal a gap noted in the literature review process. The most striking aspect with respect to using information technology for surveillance and abrogation of fundamental liberties of subjects is the lack of frameworks and safeguards. While the intention of government agencies lies in fostering security and weeding out criminal minds in society, the lack of frameworks to check on the use of surveillance without compromising the basic rights is worrying. By studying ways in which the use of technology might help strike a balance between attaining security and preserving the fundamental rights and liberties of individuals, the gap will be reduced significantly. 3.0 Limitations This study will face some kinds of limitations. The first one is that government agencies conducting surveillance activities do not oblige doing it, until revelations of such actions are produced by dissidents. This implies that this research cannot be conducted using real information and data obtained from the subjects and government entities. Reports have emerged where state agencies such as NSA are compromising agents and technologies used by human rights crusaders to attain anonymity and privacy in this age of digital information. For example, NSA has been accused of launching attacks against online anonymity network Tor, and although the information is not authenticated, there is some fragment of truth. This complicates the aspect of security and privacy even further and indicates a notion of a silent war between state agencies and privacy advocators. As a researcher, this may introduce some kind of biases in analyzing information. The actions of various state agencies in their quest for security are not protected by law, and even with legislations, there are no checks and balances to audit their action. This implies a limitation in the genuineness of data that will be used in the research. The sources of data in this research are restrictive. Apart from academic databases, and there are no other genuine sources of data. Government agencies are the direct users of information technology elements to conduct surveillance, but they least expose such information to the public. On the other hand, human rights crusaders might be subjective in their opinions concerning security matters and human rights violations. Therefore, it will be hard to strike the balance between genuine security considerations and outright violations of personal privacy and freedoms. Another research limitation has to do with finances and time. This research will require numerous hours of research and analysis of academic materials to establish the course of action and research framework. Other than time, resources will be required. Since the research takes a case study approach with qualitative methodology, the researcher will require finances for research materials, logistic issues and miscellaneous activities. Note: Correction to last paper Research methodology This research will adopt a qualitative case study approach. A qualitative research design will be concerned with the opinions and experiences of the population under study. As noted by Jones (2012), qualitative examination displays both preferences and limits. The critical point of interest got from the system is the capacity to examine the words utilized and answer the inquiries of when, what, and how at whatever point they are utilized. In the event that understanding is come to of why, when and how, then the idea can be connected to the entire populace. In this case, research subjects will be questioned through interviews and questionnaires how robustness in information technology and innovation compromises people’s lives and how a balance could be struck between the populations and governments. References Akrivopoulou, C. M., 2012. Human Rights and Risks in the Digital Era: Globalization and the Effects of Information Technologies: Globalization and the Effects of Information Technologies. s.l.:IGI Global. Benedek, 2008. Internet Governance and human rights In. Benedek W. (Eds.) Internet Governance and the Information Society. Global Perspective and European Dimensions. Bennett, C. J., n.d. Regulating privacy: data protection and public policy in Europe and the United States. , s.l.: Cornell University Press.. Capurro, R. E. M. &. N. D., 2012. It and Privacy from an Ethical Perspective Digital Whoness: Identity, Privacy and Freedom in the Cyberworld171.. In Internet Privacy , pp. 63-142 . Clarke, P., 2007. DAC Peter Clarks speech on counterterrorism, s.l.: Online at http://cms.met.police.uk/news/major_operational_announcements/terrorism/dac_peter_clark_s_speech_on_counter_terrorism (as of May 2008).. Clarke, P., 2008. Benefits and disbenefits of security initiatives, London: s.n. Gregory, F., 2007. Police and counter-terrorism in the UK, a study of one of the highest and most pressing challenges for police nationally in Homeland Security in the UK: Future Preparedness for Te rrorist Attack since 9/11. London: Routledge. Newell, B. C., 2014. Crossing Lenses: Policings New Visibility and the Role of ‘Smartphone Journalism’as a Form of Freedom-Preserving Reciprocal Surveillance.. s.l.:s.n. Privacy International, 2006. Privacy International’s leading surveillance societies in the EU and the World. s.l.:Online at http://www.privacyintern ational.org/article.shtm l?cmd[347]=x- 347-545269. Privacy International, , 2003. Who Knows whewre you have been? Privacy Concerns Regarding the Use of Cellular Phones and Personal Locators. s.l.:s.n. Surveillance Studies Network, n.d. Surveillance and Ethnography. s.l.:http://www.surveillance-studies.net. Read More