Online Privacy - Research Paper Example

CAVERIVIERE Leslie Composition & Rhetoric I Peter Heslin Topic: Online Privacy Thesis: Assignment 5 “The United s Constitution should be amended to include a provision that guarantees the privacy of all online users” Introduction Surfing on the Internet could be seen as a basic activity. It is something that we automatically do at home or at the office, in order to look for some information or just for fun. However, today, when we are looking for anything on any website we risk of revealing some of our private information. Indeed, every website we are visiting registers our information about us. For example, our IP address. Moreover, research that we do without thinking could also be supervised. The debate in the United States about the privacy of citizens opposes the fact that, people should have their own privacy and on the other hand police could have access to their virtual data. Most U.S citizens dont want to be watched while surfing on the Internet or sending text messages to their friends. This essay will argue that the Constitution should protect the privacy of all online users. People, especially the ones who work for the government prefer that privacy continue to be monitored than staying private. It is right that having access to Internet research is strongly useful for police because of criminals that are online users. However, Government should recognize that watching Internet research of US citizens affects their privacy. Firstly because staying anonymous is impossible today, people who want to stay anonymous can’t live in the society. Everything in everyday life requires our personal information. Secondly because some sources of information picked up by the government could be wrong and these mistakes have important impacts on innocent people. And thirdly because online misuse is a breach of the constitution, knowing everything on people thanks to these new technologies is unconstitutional. A lot of technology is being invented and reinvented every day. This is makes technology dynamic which is the major reason as to why the government should prevent invasion on any individual’s privacy (Colbridge, 2012; Price 2012). Individuals have the right to privacy, Kyllo v. United States: technology v. Individual’s privacy, Colbridge, poses the question “do individuals have an actual expectation that their activities will remain private?” (337). It is from this statement that Calbridge backs it by saying that the fourth amendment expresses that the government should have a search warrant when it does an invasion. When one is online it can be said that he is on a private situation and trying to grasp what he is doing can qualify to be a form of intrusion to privacy. As much as the privacy of online users is permitted the government should not deter itself from invading the online user if it is reasonable enough to do so, as the fourth amendment qualifies it (Calbridge). This essay presents three opposing views to protection of online privacy by the government and the roadmaps presenting the major views of this essay. Opposing view: Having access to Internet research is strongly useful for police because of criminals that are online users. Road map: 1) The Constitution should protect the privacy of all online users because staying anonymous is impossible today. People who want to stay anonymously can’t live in the actual society. Today, everything in everyday life requires our personal information. Individuals who try to remain anonymous online are exposed through other ways and their information is leaked. Some individuals believe that remaining anonymous by using fake names, VPNs and encryption, hiding from people from their social circle and their past will help them maintain their privacy, but their information usually leak through other means. According to the research done by Pew Research Center, people who take reasonable measures to ensure their privacy may leave a loophole which could be exploited to reveal their identity. Due to the emergency of high technology and the internet everywhere, many services are offered online and it is very inevitable to use the internet. For instance, banking services will require personal and financial information of a client. This information is considered private and important to a client and therefore, it should be protected. Communication these days is mostly done through phones and computers. Remaining anonymous is very difficult especially in social life as one can be tracked by following people they have engaged in conversations with or they have shared information with. As a result, the information leaks to the people who might use the information in other intended ways. Therefore, as much as one would like to hide under other names, their identity finally comes out one way or another. Example: Price who tries to stay anonymous during few days finds out that it is not possible. Anonymity is becoming even harder to maintain as the technology advances rapidly nowadays. New developments occur all the time. For example, in the 1880s, there was no television, people did into have telephones and even taking pictures was difficult as people has to wait until the time of day when the cameras could take the photograph using a specific kind of flash. Many other conditions were needed just for people to take a single photograph. This made taking photographs a very rare exercise which could only be indulged in very special occasions. Major developments since then have been witnessed as there are many devices which one can use to connect with others. Phones are very accessible and are inbuilt with cameras such that people can take pictures even at night at just a press of a button. The phone has been enabled to multifunction as they are not only used to make calls and receive them, they are also used to text, store music, watch movies, access to the internet and store important files such that it is almost carrying the entire life of a person. Other technologies developed include social media like Facebook and twitter, emailing services, chat texting, face- time and Skype. Technology has helped people keep in touch through such communication media and connect even when miles apart. But, it has also made the lives of people very open for public scrutiny. All the information which is shared by people by using different devices can be exposed either by hacking or authorized access. There are very remote chances that people living in such technological era can survive without using the technology because of fear of their privacy. Anonymity is therefore not guaranteed as hacking can expose all the information from one’s phone, computer, cameras and other devices. All the new technology presents more need for privacy. The government has no right to compromise the privacy of online users through intrusion. This view is consistent with that of Colbridge, who is an FBI agent and author of Kyllo v. United States: Technology v. Individual Privacy, Kaminer, a lawyer who is also the author of Trading Liberties for Illusions, and Price, author of The Autonymity Experiment. All of them are in the opinion that the protection offered by the government online users should be increased just as the technology increases. 2) The Constitution should be careful because some sources of information picked up by the government could be wrong. Such information is filed with a lot of human error whose reliance leads to misinterpretation. Example: An experience of new surveillances system for the government has shown some mistakes in this system. Innocent could be confused with guilty people. Technology is improving especially in the use of cameras for surveillance. According to karimer’s “Trading Liberty for Illusions”, there are many questions on the use of camera’s as judgment of motives and character. Kaminer points out that there are many human errors and inaccuracies in the handling of those cameras. Abuse of discretion is another irregularity associated with those cameras as results may be manipulated as a result of misinterpretation of the videos. Many people have lost confidence in the reliance of technology as means of ensuing security to the people. There are technological inaccuracies which are linked to the method and mode of showing the videos. For example, Kaminer points that the police can provide a very small portion of the video showing a suspect connected with a particular crime, that small portion may not provide a conclusive evidence of the entire happenings which may result to an innocent person being condemned while the guilty one walks freely. Facial recognition systems are prone to such problems yet they are mostly used by the police in their quest to capture criminal. The system is supposed to take pictures which the police may use to trace the criminal. The police use those faces to access all their personal information. This exercise mostly leads to misrepresentation of facts and the information is filled with enormous human errors. According to The Economist’s, “If Looks Could Kill”, looks which are displayed in those cameras are not enough to judge the character of a person, rather observation of behavior systems could be more appropriate. This is because behavior observation reveals aspects of emotions, nervousness, anxiety and human expression which can be distinguish an innocent person and a criminal. The economist also holds that watching a long surveillance clip may be tiring for the police such that they may have to skip or ignore important evidence. The notion of Facial recognition system protecting people from terrorists is full of false hope and promise of security. Kaminer argues that the government officials are mostly involved in evasive measures in matters of terrorism but people are still blinded by their faith in the facial recognition systems. The government has not been had the reputation of being trustworthy with personal information especially collected by the Facial recognition system. Once they have the face of a suspicious person, they do not wait to for him to be confirmed guilty before they dig all his personal information. Price says that the government should not be trusted on such grounds as we do not know what information is being collected, the process of collected the information, who are involved, who the information will be shared with, the use and the place the information is been held. Price believes that such information can be shared with anyone and anywhere as long as the police are investigating, they would not care about the privacy of your information (194). There are other legal ways of getting to criminals without getting the private information of a number of people who are just suspects. Technology has replaced the rigorous training that the police receive to trace and track criminals and now they just sit in their offices studying faces caught on surveillance which is lazy, tiring, ineffective and unconstitutional and are mostly biased by inaccuracy and misinterpretation. Example: price warns that a person strolling in a park back and forth may be mistaken as suspicious and the police will start digging his private information to establish their claim. With the increase in technology, the surveillance cameras can be manipulated as the terrorists plan their activities well before they strike. Therefore, they are able to disable the cameras before attacking; others have very powerful instruments to disguise themselves before dissembling the surveillance. Images of people can also be manipulated through Photoshop. This is a program which changes one human being in a picture and replaces him with another. A terrorist with access to such pictures can Photoshop another innocent person, mostly their targets so that the police think the innocent person is guilty. Furthermore, the police usually rely on online information to judge the legality of one’s activities. People involved in suspicious deals will in most cases use anonymous identity which will look innocent than they are. The information may not be reliable as there are no official documents relating to various transactions under examination. Most of such information is filled with a lot human errors both intentional and genuine. Relying on such information will lead to biased judgments 3) Online misuse is a breach of the constitution. The police now have the possibility to look at everyones personal information without moving. Before, we had to move in person to get the information. Knowing everything on people thanks to these new technologies is unconstitutional. The exposure of people’s private information ends up being used for other purposes which are both inappropriate and inconveniencing to a person. Most of such information is obtained without consent of application in line with the amendment of the constitution. The government is very selective when dealing with matters of privacy of online users. According to the fourth amendment of the constitution, it is required that the government should have a search warrant before invading on one’s privacy. This is very rare in practice as the government gets access to other people’s information as they wish without obtaining their authority by suing experts who are able to hack into people’s personal information.The notion of ‘reasonable’ is very relative. According to Colbridge, the author of "Kyollo v. United States: Technology v. Individual Privacy” in Writing in the Disciplines, Colbridge argues that the government does not specify in the fourth amendment what types of searches were prohibited as it does not prohibit all government intrusion but only the ones felt as reasonable. The measures taken by the government to ensure reasonable protection of the privacy of online users is false hope. According to Colbridge and Kaminer, author of "Trading Liberty for Illusions.” in Writing in the Disciplines, the measures are not objectively reasonable and an individual has the right to know the ground of the invasion before such steps are taken. Example: In the case; "Kyollo v. United States: Technology v. Individual Privacy”, Kyallo, rejected the search on his house for lack of reasonable ground. On another case, United States v. Karo, a monitor was put on a person’s trash can so as to get information. This is a total breach of the constitution. Price, in "The Anonymity Experiment.", has explained of a system known as ON-Star which enables individuals who are stuck in a situation to contact their representatives and they would respond to rescue that person by sending a medical team, which is much faster than finding other means to the hospital. Price notes that most of such services are hacked and another way is introduced making the microphone two-way. This allows other people to eavesdrop on conversations they are not part of and it is totally unconstitutional. Listening to calls made by patients or their online quest for help in amidst a terror situation can mistake a sick person or an injured person as among the ones involved in the terror situation. As a result, an innocent person will be made to suffer because the security details will be connecting him with the attacks while nursing injuries and pain. The medical information related to a patient is very private, according to the doctor’s ethics. No one else in allowed to access to the patient’s information apart from the patient’s doctor and those that are authorized by law such as the parent and guardians in case of a minor and also a spouse in case of married adults. The hacking of online medical services poses the risk of exposing patient’s medical reports which could have catastrophic repercussions on the life of a person. Example: a person’s health status may be exposed to the public and maybe he has a contagious disease which will significantly reduce the chances of getting employed. The collection of information about certain individuals may have selfish aspects. The officials go a mile ahead to collect information related to the likes, personal preferences, Google search and other information which is totally irrelevant in their reasonable instruction and then they sell such information to corporations who then develop customized products for such people. This information is obtained at a profit which implies that they are benefiting from bleach of other people’s privacy. Example: a person shopping for high quality umbrellas receives an unexpected visit form an umbrella company willing to sell the umbrella. Such behavior can be very disappointing. According to price in her essay “The Anonymity Experiment”, she indicates the reasons why the government cannot be trusted with the operations of people online. She reveals that most authorities worry more about the corporations who are constantly given permit into people’s emails and phone calls. She warns about how much of personal life should be allowed online as it can overpower other aspects of life. She further explains how documents are lost or hacked in the name of protection. Searching on the internet about something does not mean one is interested in buying. Some information is just for curiosity sake, clarification or for general knowledge. Some people may have been rick by going through some financial problems which the corporations are not aware. Personalizing products for those people will be a bother and a big inconvenience as consumers are forcedly persuaded to buy things they have not planned for (price, 387). Example: price report of 127 million of sensitive electronic materials which were hacked (387).Businesses have the right to maximize their profits by promotion of their services but there is a limit to that. Infringing on the privacy of others for purposes of promoting their businesses is misuse of information which is very unconstitutional. Advertisement can be done online without having to modify brands to precisely fit a given person. This is because if such information is leaked to people of bad intention, even their own market will be in jeopardy once they are identified as the source. The terms and conditions and the privacy policies operated by many online sites are very complicated and has difficult language to understand. Furthermore, it is deliberately put at the bottom so that people are already tired reading the tiny letters as skim through the paper and sign it. When a privacy concern gets to you later, you are not aware of such condition. Therefore, the government should regulate such usage of information except where it is expressly written in conspicuous letters so that an individual joins the site while aware of the terms. According to the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, the financial institution were required by law to provide the consumers with a comprehensive updated report of all the information that was required of them and what the information will be used for. This was a chance to help the consumers to know the parties who will get access to their information and therefore opt out if need be. However, that practice is not overtly manifested as there were no measures of ensuring such information was used as intended. It is thus the role of the government to make sure that such provisions are made effective. Time-conscious consumers usually rely on the goodwill of the businesses to offer customized goods and services. Such customers have not time to queue and thus their daily life is characterized by technology ranging from shopping with a credit cards, quick access to credit facilities, selling stocks online, banking online, checking accounts balance and many more other online function. Exposing the information of such a busy person can cause a lot of defamation to the person and increase their risks. Hacking or losing data for such a person in a very big incontinence which would leads to heavy losses. Thus, the government should make sure that technology is helping its citizens without causing the inconveniences. This essay has been successful is showing many inaccuracies and discrepancies that result from intrusion of people’s private information. Inaccuracy and human errors are very prone from such technology whose reliance leads to errors in the interpretation. This does not only punish an innocent person but also cause a lot of inconveniences and losses while letting the real culprits go scot-free. The government should thus provide security the privacy to the online users. Work cited Colbridge Thomas D. "Kyollo v. United States: Technology v. Individual Privacy." Writing In The Diciplines: A Reader and Rhetoric For Academic Writers. 7th Ed. ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy and William J. Kennedy. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2012. 377- 384. Print. Economist, The. “If Looks Could Kill.” Writing in the Disciplines: A Reader and Rhetoric for Academic Writers.7th ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy and William J. Kennedy. Upper Saddle River, NJ.:Pearson 2012: 400-402, Print. Franzen, Jonathan. “I Just Called to say I love you.”Writing in the Disciplines: A Reader and Rhetoric for Academic Writers.7th ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy and William J. Kennedy. Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Pearson, 2012: 366-375, Print. Kaminer, Wendy. “Trading Liberty for Illusions.” Writing in the Disciplines: A Reader and Rhetoric for Academic Writers.7th ed. Mary Lynch Kennedy and William J. Kennedy. Upper Saddle River, NJ.: Pearson, 2012: 397- 399, Print. Paula Selis, Anita Ramasastry, Susan Kim, and Cameron Smith, Consumer Privacy And Data Protection: Protecting Personal Information Through Commercial Best Practices, University of Washington School of Law, 2003. Pew Research Centre, Anonymity, Privacy and Security Online, Rew Research Centre’s internet and America life projects, Washington, D.C. 2013. Price Catherine. "The Anonymity Experiment." Writing In The Diciplines: A Reader and Rhetoric For Academic Writers. 7th Ed. ed. Mary Lynch, Kennedy and William J Kennedy. Upper Saddle River: Pearson, 2012. 387-395. Print. Read More