Internet and Our Information Privacy - Literature review Example

Internet Security Name Course Lecture Date Introduction Article 12 of the United Nations Charter defines privacy as the right of an individual to control his or her own individual information. An individual retains the rights to reveal or keep such information private. Most nations recognize this as a basic human right, but the internet continues to invade our personal spaces every day. According to Moerel (2011), over 2 billion people have disclosed their personal information over the internet through such services as social networks, search engines and Micro blogs. However, most people do not have an idea how this information is used by the site owners and what it implies for their privacy. In this paper, we explore the privacy debate caused by intrusive techniques used by internet companies, governments and individuals that infringe on the privacy rights of individuals. According to Rooney (2011), any individual working in today’s technological world has his privacy under constant threat of being violated. Internet services such as Google maps that can track an individual to the specific location, the curtailment of the right to surf the internet anonymously, video and voice surveillance, GPS tracking are some of internet privacy issues that remain unresolved. When people set-up their accounts to use particular internet services they expect the information they enter to be held confidentially. The lack of a universal standard for privacy means each domain on the internet applies its own proprietary standards which in most times end up compromising sensitive information. According to Crump (2003), the complexity of the internet makes it almost impossible to ensure privacy is not infringed. Secondly, the internet, especially social network brings about new legal challenges to all internet users. Governments have to enforce laws, but make sure they do not infringe on privacy rights. Internet companies have to collect important commercial information while ensuring user privacy. Users on the other hand, have to know how much to divulge, but at the same time ensure the information passed on is protected. Innocent User’s When every person logs on the internet they feel safe as they are using it as it should be used. When a person access his personal accounts he feels that nobody else can be able to see what he or she sees, however this is far from the truth. Constantly, our usage of the internet is being tracked. However, a large number of consumers of internet services are unaware of the amount of personal information there are handing in to domain owners (1). In the views of Miyazaki (2008), most internet users view the internet as a one-way street. People believe that the internet is purely a source of information and entertainment. They surf to get news, to view their friends’ updates on social media, to view videos and download stuff. In reality, the internet is a two-way street; people get entertainment and information, while the website owners also get information about a person's internet usage patterns and personally identifiable information. Some people maintain that domain owners get more information than the users, however this cannot be ascertained. Most users would be more cautious if they knew the amount of private information collected from one click of the mouse on the World Wide Web (Melik 2012). Internet browsers open the way for this infringement of privacy. The browser can easily reveal the computer hardware and software, the unique IP address of a computer, the link you followed and sometimes even a user’s email address (Neal 2013). Browsers are able to enable internet usage tracking through cookies. Cookies are defined as unique identifiers that web server’s places on each computer and use it to query records from an individual’s internet usage statistics (Miyazaki 2008). While most internet users are unaware of this, our usage of the internet is being stealthily tracked by the consumer world. Cookies and Privacy Cookies have been recognized as one of the biggest threats to privacy on the internet (Miyazaki 2008). However, the internet cannot function properly without cookies. As an advertising model, internet companies need consumer information in exchange for continuing to offer information free of charge. The EU directive of cookies is a policy measure that seeks to balance user concerns about the threat of cookies to individual security and the need to collect information that enable more effective advertising and smoother usage of the internet (Murpy 2013). The usage of cookies in EU countries now comes under the control of the Directive 2002/58 on Privacy and Electronic Communications Article 5 (3) (Murpy 2013). Recital 25 emphasizes the usefulness of and importance of cookies for a properly functioning internet. However, Recital 24 criticizes the uncontrolled usage of cookies as a huge risk to user security. According to the Directive, user consent will not be needed for cookies that are “strictly necessary” for the service requested by the user to be delivered (Moerel 2011). The Articles however, come short of naming any cookie technology (Moerel 2011). It generally refers to any technology that stores data in a user’s browser, and enables the user's internet usage to be tracked. In so doing the EU directive seeks to control any future technology that may be used to track internet usage and thus infringe on an individual’s privacy rights. The EU directive seeks to address users’ vulnerability to websites that track them without their consent. Under, the new directive, member states are obliged to require providers of electronic communication to provide “clear and comprehensive information” to users that information will be stored on their browser, the purpose of storing such information, or accessing it (Moerel 2011). It also requires providers to obtain user consent to store cookies and other tracking information on their browsers. One of the methods suggested for controlling the use of cookies is the Opt-in strategy. In the Opt-in strategy the user has to provide consent for cookies or any information to be stored on his browser (Rooney 2011). However, cookies that are absolutely necessary to deliver user request are not subject to user consent. It is correct to assume first party cookies will not be subjected to user consent, as they play a pivotal role in ensuring a user stay logged in, passwords are remembered; items placed on a shopping basket are also remembered (Barnes n.d). On the other hand, privacy concerns are directed at third-party cookies. An Advertiser’s tool, third-party cookies track the frequency of user activity and repeat visitors in order to optimize advertising. However, internet companies have complained against the opt-in model suggested by the UK regulations. Instead, the companies suggest an Opt-out model, where a user can choose the cookies he/she wants to remain in his computer (Barnes n.d). Under the Opt-out scheme users will agree to have cookies deleted or removed from their page while they are still working. They argue that an opt-in scheme will become a mere formality where users click “I agree” just to access the website. Already Internet Companies are recognizing the need to protect the privacy of vulnerable internet users. Apple’s Safari browser has already disabled Third-party cookies a move that Firefox has followed in its latest version (Murpy 2013). However, there are concerns that browser’s may mistake first-party cookies from third-party cookies and block them. This may mean the user is denied the convenience and benefits provided by third - party cookies (Murpy 2013). However, most companies still take advantage of loopholes in regulations to continue using cookies to infringe on individual privacy. In the UK, some companies only alert users they are using cookies on their site (Barnes n.d). The companies interpret the ruling by the UK communication commissioner that they only have to obtain implied consent from users to mean that a notice that they are using cookies is enough. According to Lee (2012), most companies were still flouting the cookie regulations and continued to place cookies on user browsers without their consent. One such company challenged the regulator to punish it for flouting the regulations (Lee 2012). Anonymity and Privacy Anonymity refers to the ability of an individual to do something while other people are not aware he/she is the one doing it (Shinder 2011). Anonymity on the internet is closely related to privacy. If people are able to surf the internet anonymously then their privacy is protected. However, maintaining anonymity on the internet has become more difficult than ever before. In most cases it is users who have technical skills who can remain anonymous. According to Neal (2013) being unrecognizable on the internet is a good way of ensuring privacy. It is especially important for crime victims, whistle blowers, celebrities who wish to keep their online identity secret and dissidents. Anonymity is almost impossible when every other site requires a person to register on their site to view more information or the products on the internet. In most cases this information contains personally identifiable information. Ethically, companies are supposed to keep the information provided private (Barnes n.d). In contrast, most companies do not observe ethical codes and use the private information for other purposes. The information gathered this way is used by the company for marketing purposes or sold to other companies. However, if users could surf the internet anonymously such personally identifiable information would not be provided therefore partially protecting an individual’s privacy. For example, employees can complain about their workplaces without running the risk of losing their jobs for exercising their freedom of expression. According to Chawki (2010), an anonymous user is harder to spy on than one who surfs the web in the ordinary way. Anonymity, Privacy and Cybercrime However, internet anonymity is criticized as it enables cyber-criminals to hide behind the anonymous identity (Shinder 2011). Security organization argue that every user should be uniquely identifiable and his internet usage easily traceable to ensure that cyber criminals are caught. An internet where every other user is anonymous would be chaotic as it would serve as an incentive for normally cautious users to attempt criminal activities. The FBI accuses anonymizer service TOR for enabling a notorious child pornographer to hide his internet communication (Neal 2013). Since cybercriminals are also a direct threat to internet privacy they present a great barrier to allowing anonymity as a tool for users to maintain internet privacy. Online anonymity is indeed a significant threat to security as shown by some incidents involving anonymous surfer. The FBI has on occasion used Malware to identify user TOR, a website that enables user to surf the internet anonymously (Neal 2013). At one point the FBI was able to catch illegal weapon dealers by identify anonymous users. This underlines how Cyber criminals force law enforcement agents to interfere with the privacy of anonymous users in an effort to apprehend criminals who hide behind a mask of internet anonymity. National Security vs. internet Privacy In a world that is becoming increasingly more violent the needs of privacy are subordinated to the greater need to live secure lives. However, the question of whether personal privacy should be ignored in the pursuit of security goals like tracking down terrorism always comes up (GonChar 2013). Nations still continue to look for a balance between security and individual privacy. Recently, News reports revealed that the National Security Agency collects and analyzes internet and telephone communication data from millions of Americans (GonChar 2013). This shows the extent the American government infringes on individual rights in its crusade against terrorism. However, most US citizens support the government surveillance claiming that security comes before privacy. This reaction by US citizens is owed to the fact that support for anti-terrorism remains strong in the wake of the 9/11 attacks which claimed the lives of 3,000 Americans (Noble 2013). However, in other countries intrusion on individual privacy by the government is frowned upon. For example, in Germany the legality of a network used to track and compare Motor Vehicle number plates in the pursuit of a gunman was questioned as it infringed on the privacy of affected drivers. However, even in America some security experts are warning that some of the counterterrorism surveillance is too intrusive. Sullivan (2013) advises for a need to strike a balance that favours individual liberties over security and terrorist concerns. Since American concern about security went up after the 9/11 attack, liberty and privacy have taken a back seat. It is argued that the NSA and other security organs are merely instruments of the American people (Noble 2013). However, anxiety over terrorism is expected to wane and thus the American government must become less intrusive in American internet communication. However, some analyst worry that governments may not have the political will to restore civil liberties as most politics like being in control (Noble 2013). Surveillance systems that people do not know about and are not subject to public opinion are a big risk to privacy of individuals over communication networks. However, some Americans feel that the intrusion on their privacy has not made their country safer (GonChar 2013). No evaluation is ever done to the effects of the increased surveillance on American security. Conclusion Ensuring the privacy of personal information on the internet remains a challenge and an issue that raises heated policy debate. Unfortunately, most internet users are not aware that their privacy is being infringed upon, they surf the internet innocently not knowing that they are revealing personal information about themselves. Internet companies using cookies are able to track any consumer internet usage patterns among a host of other consumer behaviours. While cookies play an important part in ensuring a smooth surfing experience for users, they are used as a spying tool by unscrupulous web companies. The EU has led the way by trying to protect users from the unscrupulous usage of cookies. The EU directive now requires web companies to request user consent before placing intrusive cookies on their browsers. Hiding one's identity from other web users or anonymity can go a long way in ensuring personal privacy while using the internet. However, the clock of anonymity is used by cyber criminals to perpetuate various crimes. Therefore, security agents are forced to work against anonymity therefore compromising the privacy brought about by being anonymous on the internet. Security at the international level has also remained a big challenge to internet privacy. In countries threatened by terrorism, concerns for privacy are put aside in pursuit of national security. Americans confessed to being comfortable with their government collecting and analyzing their internet usage data as part of investigations in the anti-terrorism campaign. Internet privacy remains an integral part of an individual’s basic rights; however the right balance must be struck between privacy and the rights of other parties. Companies, for example have the right to collect user information in exchange for free internet service. While the government’s responsibility for national security is larger than the responsibility to guard and maintain internet privacy. References Barnes, Jn.d, Internet users' privacy concerns may mean cookies start to crumble, The Guardian http://www.theguardian.com/technology/blog/2013/may/24/internet-privacy-cookies-firefox Chawki, M 2010, Anonymity in cyberspace: finding the balance between privacy and security. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialization, issue 9, no. 3, pp.183-199. Crump, C 2003, Data retention: privacy, anonymity, and accountability online, Stanford Law Review, pp, 191-229 GonChar, M 2013, What Is More Important: Our Privacy or National Security? New York Times, September 17, accessed on 21 January 2013, http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/what-is-more-important-our-privacy-or-national-security/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 Lee, D 2012, Web software firm taunts UK data regulator over cookies, BBC News, September 12, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19505835 Melik, J 2012, Internet privacy: Genuine concerns or paranoia? Business Daily, march 25, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17369659 Miyazaki, AD 2008, Online privacy and the disclosure of cookie use: Effects on consumer trust and anticipated patronage. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, vol 27, no. 1, pp. 19-33. Moerel, L 2011, The long arm of EU data protection law: Does the Data Protection Directive apply to processing of personal data of EU citizens by websites worldwide? International Data Privacy Law, issue. 1, no. 1, pp 28-46. Murpy, D 2013, Firefox 22 to Disable Third-Party Cookies by Default PC Magazine, February 24, Accessed on accessed on 21 January 2013, http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2415810,00.asp Neal, WR 2013, TOR Users Exposed: FBI Blamed For Malware Identifying Anonymous Network Users, International Business times, August 5, accessed on 21 January 2013, http://www.ibtimes.com/tor-users-exposed-fbi-blamed-malware-identifying-anonymous-network-users-1371933 Noble, J 2013, U.S. debates security vs. privacy 12 years after 9/11, USA Today. September 11, accessed on 21 January 2013, http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/10/us-debates-security-vs-privacy-12-years-after-911/2796399/ Rooney, B 2011, UK Publishes EU “Cookie” Directive Guidelines, Wall Street Journal. Retrieved December, 13, 2011 Shinder, D 2011, Online anonymity: Balancing the needs to protect privacy and prevent cybercrime Online anonymity: Balancing the needs to protect privacy and prevent cybercrime, IT security, September 20, 2011, accessed on accessed on 21 January 2013, http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-security/online-anonymity-balancing-the-needs-to-protect-privacy-and-prevent-cybercrime/6578/#. Sullivan, B 2013, Privacy vs. security: 'False choice' poisons debate on NSA leaks, NBC News, July 6, accessed on 21 January 2013, http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/privacy-vs-security-false-choice-poisons-debate-nsa-leaks-6C10536226 Read More