The Extent to Which Individuals Should Give Up Privacy - Research Paper Example

 The Extent to Which Individuals Should Give Up Privacy So the Government Can Find Potential Terrorists Introduction Terrorism has intruded the lives of modern day humans to such an extent that it has affected almost every individual on earth, directly or indirectly. Violence across the globe has increased to such an unimaginable extent that it seems almost impossible to reverse the current situation back to normal, by ordinary means. Moreover, there is confusion about tackling the problem of terrorism not only on individual level but also on national level. Different opinions are prevalent in various sects of the population and there is no consensus regarding the method of dealing with terrorism. A high level of dissatisfaction with the current global scenario regarding terrorism does exist in general population; there is yet a dire need to educate masses regarding the influence of terrorism and various methods to deal with it. No matter how difficult it may be, there is as yet much room to take various measures for the purpose of preventing further loss of precious lives and properties as a result of terrorism. The mainstay of counter-terrorism activities is the availability of authentic information about individuals as well as other factors associated with terrorism. With the advent of modern day information and communication technologies, the flow and spread of information at individual and international levels has risen to such an extent that the control and monitoring of information appears to be almost impossible. Adding to the complexity of the matter is the extent to which access to personalized information of individuals should be allowed to governmental bodies for the purpose of identification and monitoring of individuals to fight activities related to terrorism. Access to privacy is one of the basic rights of all individuals and unless there is a genuine reason to withdraw this right, it should be provided to all individuals and Government has the responsibility to provide this right to all its citizens irrespective of age, sex, religion or ethnicity. However, in view of the present day terrorism, it seems logical that a certain limit should be applicable to the extent of privacy that is available to every individual of the society. Different parameters of privacy should be defined and every individual should understand the importance of sharing private information with the government, understanding that such sharing can have potential benefits on national level and limiting access to such information can have drastic effects. Discussion Alexander Hamilton in 1787 wrote in his paper that ‘to be safer, nations at length will become willing to run the risk of being less free’. Time has proved that this is slowly turning into reality. Privacy which was once an irrefutable right of all individuals has turned into something which may or may not be delivered to citizens depending upon a number of conditions. There are a number of methods by the use of which access to private data is maintained. Using this data, certain patterns are identified, the process known as data mining. If not legal, it is the moral responsibility of the government to maintain the privacy of all of its citizens, this being one of their basic rights. If a breach of privacy has to be made, a number of limitations should be applied to such data retrieval to prevent unwanted trouble to the citizens. In developing and using data mining tools the government can and must protect privacy (U.S & Minow, 2004). The process of gaining access to personal information about citizens is not as difficult as is the maintenance of balance between security and privacy. This balance should be maintained at all costs, and every case should be dealt with individually and with extreme care to avoid non-productive breach of privacy. A major negative impact of this can be the lack of cooperation of other citizens, in case one citizen is unnecessarily affected by data mining and the subsequent investigation. A number of benefits are associated with an individual’s right to privacy. Privacy protects individuals from unjust discrimination by providing them with an opportunity to hide things about themselves that they think will cause others to think of them differently. Therefore it contributes towards decreasing the social divide and in turn promotes social equality. Moreover, intimacy becomes possible only if individual’s right to privacy is respected and is allowed to develop personal relationships away from relationships with general public. Similarly, privacy in financial and health matters are of utmost importance in maintaining a peaceful coexistence of society members. Privacy in such cases also prevents citizens from harming one another for financial gains. Many of the privacy matters relate to healthy relationships among individuals of a society. Any breach in privacy may affect mutual relationships of citizens and in turn affect peaceful coexistence. There are a number of laws in U.S which are meant to protect the privacy of individuals, some of which include HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and COPPA (Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act), ECPA (Electronic Communications Privacy Act) etc. In addition to these laws, a number of laws have been enacted at state levels. A number of laws exist in different states concerning privacy protection such as spyware use, school records, consumer credit information and financial data. Some states have adopted a different approach in their law making e.g., The personal information and Privacy Protection Act of California which mandated the formation of an office of privacy protection within the state’s department of consumer affairs which is given the responsibility of protection of the privacy rights of citizens (Klosek, 2007). Such laws were enforced at times when privacy of citizens was given more importance than it is given now. Privacy is the basic right of all citizens and it should be respected at any cost. However, with the increasing trend towards terrorism, this notion has changed and now privacy of individuals does not enjoy the prime position it used to enjoy in the past. Regarding public behavior about privacy matters, a number of things should be kept in mind. There is a general tendency in public of defending civil liberties in a more pronounced manner in the abstract rather than in specific situations. Generally speaking, public seems less concerned about the privacy of others as compared to their own privacy matters. Another important fact is that, people tolerate surveillance more readily when aimed at specific ethnic groups or when aimed at activities in which they do not engage. It is for this reason that passenger screening which has continued long after 9/11 has received much appreciation while at the same time; collection of personal information of people has received opposition. However, people often do not object to the collection of personal information if assured of anonymity (NRC(U.S), 2008). The fact that the vast majority of those involved in terrorist activities work in camouflage and they remain dormant until opportunity for action arises, makes it necessary that a high degree of suspicion is maintained at all times and at the same time vigorous activities to sustain adequate levels of surveillance are performed continuously. Newer methods and technologies for investigating terrorism incidents should be developed and made available to all law-enforcing bodies at all times. The incident of 9/11 marks a cutoff point in the history of world after which war against terrorism was started. Since that day, the level of surveillance activity which in the start was considered to be temporarily in effect, has been continuously increasing in magnitude and frequency. Consequently, newer methods and technologies are continuously being developed which directly or indirectly fringe upon the privacy rights of individuals not only on national level, but also on international level. In this age of terrorism and violence people have become used to surveillance at international borders and most of us accept such high levels of surveillance that perhaps we will never accept in our daily lives. Public concern about privacy is not based on this kind of surveillance. Public is concerned when vast amount of personal information about individuals is collected in daily lives and then based on such information and data mining procedures, individuals are singled out and subjected to investigation merely due to the fact that the data patterns obtained from their personal information is consistent with that of a terrorist. This kind of activity is shifting the focus of surveillance already persisting on borders towards many non-border areas and daily lives of individuals. By doing so, the surveillance intrudes directly on the privacy of individuals who may never fall in the category of ‘suspicious’ at the borders. All of this has rapidly emerged in the post ‘9/11’ and ‘war-on-terrorism’ era. The question arises; ‘is privacy a casualty of the war on terrorism?’ (Macklem, 2001). There is no doubt that the level of breach of privacy seen in these days is beyond the imagination and expectation of nearly all civilized and peace-loving citizens. But again, we can also see that the level of threat to common citizens of any state in present times is also far higher than that seen in pre 9/11 times. Fairly speaking, the rise in breach of privacy appears to be proportional to the level of threat with which we are living today. As a result of the recent wave of terrorism, new machines are invented for security purposes. One such device was installed at airports for the purpose of security. This machine produces a three-dimensional naked image of humans it scrutinizes. Despite the fact that such gadgets would offer exceptional levels of security, the extent to which the privacy of individuals is violated is also exceptional. For many people such happenings are acceptable, for others this is what they expect to happen to them as they have already been subjected to such behaviors in other ways, and for some, this is very offensive (being naked in front of a crowd) (Samaha, 2006). A subsequent version of the same machine produces images which are comparatively less disturbing for people. The question is, if it was possible to make a machine which produces less offensive images, why was it not utilized as a first measure? Why offend someone’s privacy so profoundly when it is possible to be less offensive? Aspects like this should be addressed by the government prior to the use of technology when interfering with people’s privacy. According to a law signed by President George W.Bush, the law enforcement agencies are allowed to use pen registers and wiretapping devices on internet and other communication mediums, to help detect and combat terrorism (Swaminatha, 2003). This may be of some benefit to the government, but there are two problems associated with this. Firstly, there is a limit to the use of such devices on national level, since it is not possible to tap all devices of the country simultaneously. Secondly, the amount of information that is potentially helpful to combat terrorism by doing this activity is minimal, since it is almost impossible to filter all the content of devices, in case this measure is utilized on national level. However, targeted tapping of devices, which is again against the privacy of individuals, may have considerable yields. This again is a very controversial subject, and considerable opposition against this activity has been seen in public. There are circumstances when an individual’s right to privacy can and should not be given preference due to a larger interest of the society. If absolute protection of one’s right to privacy is accepted, then one has to assume that individual’s in the society are not co-dependent, which is far from reality. In such cases it can be assumed that the invasion of one’s private domain is part of the price that one has to pay in order to be a part of that society (SIL&TW, 2005). This is a very fair explanation for the genuine need of privacy breach of a citizen of the state, but despite this, it should be assured that such activities should have a counter-balance mechanism and proper legislation should be in place prior to allowing officials of the government to engage into such matters, so that clear cut guide lines exist to solve potential problems immediately, should any problem arise. Moreover, such access to personal data and the investigation that follows should not be in the hands of individual officials of government; rather such investigations should be carried out in teams and by specialists of investigation to gain maximum information by least interrogative activity. An individual’s privacy cannot be considered unlimited. To some extent, an individual’s privacy is respected in nearly all cultures of the world. But under circumstances, where the national interest becomes more important as compared to the individual’s privacy, this right to privacy has to be withdrawn in favor of national interest. The right to privacy grants protection to negative behaviors such as lies, avoiding responsibility for one’s actions and hiding information that can be potentially useful nationally. In situations where hiding information from the public can cause harm to the public, the right to privacy should be withdrawn. These are situations where the public has no right to the artificial concept of privacy at all (Etzioni, 1999). These situations may not only be related to security issues. Other social problems like having or discovering a communicable disease in an individual and recognizing the fact that masses may be affected by this disease if it is let free, the right of such diseased person to privacy is considered withdrawn, and it becomes the responsibility of citizens to report such incidents. Surprisingly, in such cases, failure to report becomes a crime! Summary Privacy of individuals, although an important right of every human being, has become a very controversial subject in the age of terrorism and terrorists. Once considered to be an absolute right of individuals, privacy is now a right of relative importance which can be limited, modified or totally denied in view of a benefit which has a broader effect on the society as a whole. It is for this reason that members of modern day society should understand their responsibility of sharing or withdrawing their right to privacy in case a situation arises where there cooperation is required for the benefit of their society. At the same time, the different parameters of privacy should be defined, in order to make things clear for everybody in the society. The right to absolute privacy is and will continue to be impossibility in the age of modern day terrorism. Members of the society should be aware that they have the moral duty of sharing their personal information with their government under situations which demand their cooperation. Governments on the other hand should define different aspects of privacy and clarify in Law to control the type of data that is collected from citizens for data mining, surveillance and security purposes, thus ensuring the safe utilization of such data for pure national security purposes, and not letting such data get into the hands of unauthorized or unintended audiences. Data relating to sensitive issues like those of financial matters or intimacy should only be collected provided there is genuine reason for its collection and the potential benefit from it outweighs the loss that can be incurred by that person, in case that data leaks out. References Etzioni, A. (1999). The limits of privacy. New York: Basic Books, p183-184. Klosek, J. (2007). The war on privacy. Westport, Conn: Praeger Publishers, p22. Macklem, P., Roach, K., Daniels, R. J., & University of Toronto. (2001). The security of freedom: Essays on Canada's anti-terrorism bill. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, p252. National Research Council (U.S.). (2008). Protecting individual privacy in the struggle against terrorists: A framework for program assessment. Washington, D.C: National Academies Press, p10. Samaha, J. (2006). Criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth, p125. Students of the Interdisciplinary Law & Technology Workshop (2005). Privacy in the Digital Environment. Haifa Center of Law & Technology, p17. Swaminatha, T. M., & Elden, C. R. (2003). Wireless security and privacy: Best practices and design techniques. Boston: Addison-Wesley, p157. United States., & Minow, N. N. (2004). Safeguarding privacy in the fight against terrorism: The report of the Technology and Privacy Advisory Committee. Washington, D.C.: The Committee. Read More