Perspectives of Privacy Post 9/11

Assignment 05: Privacy Paper 2

Jacob Young
CST 373: Ethics in Communication and Technology
March 14
t h
, 2014





Young 1

The concept of privacy varies from person to person and can only be understood
through the perspective of an individuals thoughts, actions, and core beliefs. These
perspectives can waver and evolve through experience and insight. While I am a believer
that the development of personality is formed through nature and nurture, contrary to
the traditional thought of nature versus nurture, I feel that the degree to which a person
exhibits a behavior comes from experience more than any innate trait they are born
with. What makes an individuals perspective unique is that the emotional impact of
experience is intimately their own. It is through experience in which an individuals core
beliefs are developed and their core beliefs are what drive their actions, including their
desired level of privacy and what steps they take to secure that privacy. The level of
privacy an individual desires should be an inalienable right protected by their
government. Any person, agency, or corporation who invades those rights should be
punished for infringing on that most basic freedom.
Privacy can be defined as the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in
one's private life or affairs (dictionary.com). The range in which a person desires to be
free from an invasion of personal privacy varies. The most extreme case of this desire of
privacy results in seclusion. Some people desire privacy so much that they completely
cut themselves out from the outside world and do not share even the smallest details of
their lives. The reasons for such desired seclusion can mostly be attributed to social
anxiety disorders and post-traumatic stress disorder stemming from traumatic
experiences. Others have very little desire for privacy and express all their feelings,
thoughts, desires, and anything else they can think of through any medium available.
The willingness to share so many details can also be attributed to various experiences.
Young 2

Most individuals fall somewhere in between. Whatever the case may be, each individual
arrives at their desired level of privacy through the experiences they have had.
Within a society or a nation such as the United States, the concept of privacy
wavers less and is a bit more concrete over long periods. However, much like an
individual perspective, experience can shape and alter societys perspective on privacy
or the perspective on anything for that matter. Even the smallest actions can alter what
society believes and although the change can be slow at times, eventually a new
paradigm will come into existence. Major historical events can increase the pace in
which perceptions change. At times, knee-jerk reactions take precedence over long-term
goals and radical changes to political policy occurs almost instantaneously. Its also
reasonable to believe, and many conspiracy theorists would agree, drastic and
emotionally jarring events are planned to force a change in perception to further already
pending motives. Point being, history has shown that the perception a society holds on
what should be their most fundamental and inalienable rights, including the vague
concept privacy, can be altered if the event and the experience from that event is
emotionally impactful.
The events that led up to the American Revolution, such as the Boston Massacre,
the Stamp Act, and the Boston Tea Party, helped shape the foundation on which
America was built. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were the established rights of the
citizens of the United States. Prior to those events, many Americans were content under
British law. Had those events never been experienced, America could be a very different
place today. It was in those experiences that society altered its perception of right and
wrong and demanded a change to the status quo.
Young 3

The struggle for freedom and equality amongst African Americans has caused a
major change in perception, although slow moving, the change is reflected now today
more than ever. Adoption of the 13
t h
Amendment and the actions of civil rights heroes
such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Rosa Parks has changed the perception of what it is
to be free and what equality for all men really means.
More recently, the attacks on September 11
th
, 2001 resulted in a shift in
perspective within our nation and it led to another change in political and public policy
in the form of the Patriot Act. Along with the Patriot Act came a change in the
perception of privacy. It is, however, debatable as to whether or not this change in
perception was explicit or implicit and whether or not the change was for better or
worse.
The Patriot Act, officially known as the USA Patriot Act, was passed by the United
States Congress on October 26
t h
, 2001 in response to the 9/11 terrorists attacks (Taylor
and Black, 2004). It received overwhelming support by the Senate and the House. The
USA Patriot Act stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing the
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (Taylor and Black,
2004). George Pike, in his article USA Patriot Act: Whats next? wrote,
The USA PATRIOT Act was enacted just 6 weeks after 9/11 in response to lapses
in intelligence gathering that may have contributed to the attacks. Congress and
the Bush administration were especially concerned that existing statutes had not
evolved enough to respond to new communication technologies, such as cell
phones, electronic finance and banking, and the Internet. (Pike, 2006)
Young 4

The Patriot Act granted authorities a number of tools to strengthen domestic
security and broaden the scope in which law-enforcement agencies could identify and
prevent terrorist threats (Taylor and Black, 2004). Title II of the Patriot act gave law
enforcement agencies the ability to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and
further aid investigation by allowing agencies to intercept communications and to share
that information with other federal authorities. It also authorizes roving surveillance,
which basically means that authorities can track a person where ever there may go. Prior
to the Patriot act, surveillance of an individual would only be granted to wiretap one line
in one single location. The government can also procure information from
communication service providers about a customers use, such as the IP address and
internet activity.
The authorization of a number of these tools has come under scrutiny about
whether or not they are constitutional. Several hundred immigrants remained in
government detention under a separate emergency order allowing them to be held
without charge for an extended period (Sinnar, 2003). Along the border, Homeland
Security has the authority to stop individuals and conduct search and seizures with no
probable cause. According to legal precedent, the Fourth Amendment the right to be
free from unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply along the border. By the
way, the government contends the Fourth-Amendment-Free Zone stretches 100 miles
inland from the nations actual border (Kravets, 2013).
Its been nearly 13 years since the 9/11 attacks. In 2001, the American people
rallied together in support of the families who lost loved ones and there was a great
sense of American pride. Many questions arose as to how this attack on American soil
Young 5

occurred and what could we have been done to prevent it. Prior to the attacks, the US
Government had already been hard at work trying to gain consent to decrypt hyper-
encryption to access communications. As Amitai Etzioni describes in his book The
Limits of Privacy,
As encryption has improved by making codes ever stronger, public authorities
have found that they cannot break the codes on their own. The Washington
scuttlebutt is that the National Security Agency (NSA) has spent $5 billion trying
to break the strongest codes and failed to do so. The government has repeatedly
stated that public safety requires that it be granted, by the parties involved, the
keys needed to decipher their encrypted messages; the business community
and cyber-libertarians, however, object strenuously. The White House, under the
leadership of Vice President Al Gore and Ira Maga-ziner, has negotiated with
these parties-to no avail (Etzioni, 1999).
Did Americans know what rights they were giving up with the Patriot Act? As
Benjamin Franklin said, They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. One has to wonder whether the
Patriot Act is a positive addition to the foundation of America or has the Patriot Act
infringed on the rights of the citizens of the United States. Is the extra security provided
worth the liberties we must give up? Etzioni explains how the desire to keep our
liberties, such as privacy, while also aiming for more security is a double-edged sword.
We may be tempted for a moment to employ a double standard, to seek to enshrine our
own privacy while denying that of others, perhaps on the grounds that we are innocent
but they are suspect. However, such a position is too cynical to be seriously
Young 6

entertained (Etzioni, 1999). Is privacy even a right protected under the Constitution or
the Bill of Rights?
The Bill of Rights does not explicitly say that Americans have the right to
complete and utter privacy. While it could be argued that these rights implicitly include
privacy, it does not include explicit details that the government must honor the privacy
of these rights. Michael McFarland in his article, Privacy and the Law, states:
There is no explicit mention of privacy in the United States Constitution. But the
courts have found a constitutional basis for privacy rights in the broad sense of
freedom from interference in certain intimate realms of personal life. This is
based on the protection of individual liberty from government interference
The 1
st
Amendment protects the right to free speech and of the press, the right to
peaceably assemble, and the right and freedom to practice religion. Even the 2
nd

Amendment, the right to bear arms, comes with strict limitations and citizens
purchasing guns must register their firearms so that the Big Brother can keep track.
The 4
t h
Amendment protects the right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, with
probable cause, search warrants can be issued to conduct searches and seizures. The 5
t h

Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which essentially means that citizens
can remain silent, but not necessarily withhold the truth. There are laws against
withholding incriminating evidence if a crime is committed. While the 4
t h
and 5
t h

amendments offer loopholes to invade privacy given probable cause and for good
reason, no amendment in the Bill of Rights offer American citizens the right to complete
privacy from the Government. So, is the idea of privacy as an inalienable liberty a
Young 7

misconceived notion or is there true cause to the assertion that the liberty of privacy is
at stake with the Patriot Act?
The Patriot Acts purpose is to give the government the tools necessary to
intercept communications and access information stored by communication service
providers. However, this contradicts previous legislation that protected that information
from the government. The Privacy Act of 1974, which was passed into law on December
31
st
, 1974, sought to protect individuals privacy rights as it pertained to information
stored in large databases (Privacy Act). No agency shall disclose any record which is
contained in a system of records by any means of communication to any person, or to
another agency, except pursuant to a written request by, or with the prior written
consent of, the individual to whom the record pertains (justice.gov). It is often
referred to as a code to fair information practices and requires government agencies to
follow these practices. The act requires agencies to show individuals what records are
kept and what information is in their records. Restrictions are in place to limit how the
government can use an individuals data.
The protection of an individuals rights does seem to have some backing in the
United States, although more implicitly protected than explicitly guaranteed. Being that
the United States is a country founded on the idea and promise of liberty and freedom,
one would think it has the greatest protection of its citizens privacy. Spain is considered
one of the leading countries when it comes to protection of its citizens privacy and
protection of their personal data (Kelly, 2013). Spain recently fined Google $1.2 million
for breaching the nations privacy laws. According to a report by Julien Toyer of
Rueters.com:
Young 8

Spain's privacy watchdog on Thursday fined Google for breaking the country's
data protection law when combining personal information from its many
different online services and failing to inform users clearly on how it uses their
data.
China has previously lacked regulations to protection of consumer data.
However, an amendment to their Consumer Privacy Laws has begun to add regulations
in regards to protecting their citizens privacy. The Amendment provides that consumer
business operators must: obtain the consent of consumers when collecting their
personal data; follow the principles of fairness and necessity in collecting and using such
data; and make their privacy policies publicly available (Durham and Thomas). It is
believed that China has amended their policies over concerns of security in an attempt
to increase ecommerce. In an apparent effort to encourage consumer engagement in
the e-commerce market and establish baseline security standards, the Chinese
government has in the past several months released laws, regulations and guidelines
focused on privacy and security issues (Hogan Lovells Privacy Team). Regardless of the
new amendments to their Consumer Privacy Laws, China is still regarded as one of a
handful of countries who actively spy on its citizens.
China isnt the only country spying on the internet activity of its citizens. Iran,
Syria, Bahrain, and Vietnam are also notorious for spying on its citizens. According to
French news agency Agence France Presse:
Iran meanwhile is in the process of creating a home-grown Internet system,
citing a series of cyber-attacks on its nuclear installations, RSF said.
"Applications and services such as email, search engines and social networks are
Young 9

proposed to be developed under government control," to allow for "large-scale
surveillance and the systematic elimination of dissent."
While the United States is still in limbo about the long term rights and protection
of privacy, they are still ahead of the curve. The difference, however, is that the countries
who dont protect the privacy of its citizens are typically led by dictators or come from
communist parties. As stated earlier, the United States is a democratic society run by the
people. So, why are we, the people, being tracked by our government? Does the Big
Brother label of the United States fit? Edward Snowden shed a lot of light on the
attempts of the National Security Agency to oversee all communications of American
citizens. The news of NSA activities has become a huge source of contention amongst
activists of the Big Brother state. It is likely time to rethink the control we allow our
government to exhibit.
Mark Zuckerberg, the creator of the famed Social Network site Facebook, recently
called President Obama to express concern over the governments online behavior.
Zuckerberg wrote in a post on his Facebook page, [t]his is why I've been so confused
and frustrated by the repeated reports of the behavior of the US government. When our
engineers work tirelessly to improve security, we imagine we're protecting you against
criminals, not our own government. Zuckerberg went to explain the steps that
Facebook takes to protect our data and information:
To keep the internet strong, we need to keep it secure. That's why at Facebook we
spend a lot of our energy making our services and the whole internet safer and
more secure. We encrypt communications, we use secure protocols for traffic, we
Young 10

encourage people to use multiple factors for authentication and we go out of our
way to help fix issues we find in other people's services.
While I respect the honesty of Zuckerberg over his frustrations, I find it quite
ironic that he is concerned with the privacy of Facebook users. Companies like Facebook
often sell information and online habits of users to the highest bidder so advertisements
can be tailored. Many people I talk to dont seem to care about tailored ads and suggest
that they would prefer tailored ads over getting random ads that theyre not interested
in, but I find it to be an intrusion of my privacy.
The collection and selling of user data is a $12 billion-a- year industry. Marketing
companies such as Acxiom have created large corporate wealth by collecting user data
and selling it to companies that advertise and sell products back to consumers. Acxiom,
which grossed $1.1 billion revenue for the fiscal year of 2013, is the top grossing
analytical services company, making up nearly 11% of the industrys total revenue.
Acxiom collects a wide array of data on consumers and uses this information to place
users of online services into socio-economic classes. Overall, Big Data is considered a
$300 Billion-a-year industry and one of the largest grossing markets in the world
(Lavandera and Morris).
Consumers, while largely unaware of what data they are sharing, do not have the
option to opt-in to data collecting. Currently, by using online services, they are agreeing
to share their data. Some companies allow an opt-out service, but require that a fee be
paid to do so. As society moves further into the digital age, online services are becoming
more prevalent. The prevalence turns into necessity if users are running a small
Young 11

business or become a student. The collection of data without allowing a free opt-out
alternative raises some ethical concerns when the use of online services are a necessity
and not optional.
Currently, companies have free reign to collect any user data they want, including
sensitive information such as credit card information. This data is stored in large
databases that become major targets for cyber-criminals. Companies such as Adobe,
Sony, and Target have had breaches in security and millions of customers have had their
credit card information stolen and many have had their identity compromised. This has
some serious implications on consumers who do not explicitly agree to the sharing of
their data.
Privacy should be an inalienable right given to United States citizens. It should be
up to us how much information we are willing to share. Forcing us to release
information to use online services is ethically wrong. The spying of our own
government, justified by the promise of providing security, is also ethically wrong. I, for
one, am not willing to give up my Liberty for security. I believe that our freedoms have
been paid for by the sacrifices of those that fought for our freedom. The drastic changes
in our rights, through knee-jerk reactions, compromise everything that our nation
stands for. Privacy should be protected and left in the hands of the people, not the Big
Brother state of our government.



Young 12

Bibliography
Bill of Rights. archives.gov. Accessed March 9
t h
, 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Black, William and Taylor, Mayo. In Search of Reason: Libraries and the USA Patriot
Act. Journal of Libriarianship and Information Science. June 1, 2004. Web.
Accessed March 2
nd
, 2014.
Durham, Matthew and Thomas, Liisa M. China Introduces New Data Privacy
Protections in Amended Consumer Protection Law. November 12
t h
, 2013.
Winston & Strawn LLP. Lexology.com. Accessed March 12
t h
, 2014. Retrieved
from http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=04c77add-d3da-4f62-
b79b-5fb3da5a7943
Etzioni, Amitai. The Limits of Privacy. 1999. New York, NY. Basic Books.
Evans, David and Toyer, Julien. Spain Privacy watchdog Fines Google for Breaking
Data Law. December 19
t h
, 2013. Rueters.com. Accessed March 12
t h
, 2014.
Retrieved from http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/19/us-spain-google-
privacy-idUSBRE9BI12Z20131219
Hogan Lovells Privacy Team. Making Sense of Chinas New Privacy Laws. June 28
t h
,
2013. Privacyassociation.org. Accessed March 12
t h
, 2014. Retrieved from
https://www.privacyassociation.org/privacy_tracker/post/making_sense_of_ch
inas_new_privacy_laws
Kelly, Meghan. These 5 countries were ranked best for privacy. Venturebeat.com.
October 13
t h
, 2013. Accessed March 12
th
, 2014. Retrieved from
http://venturebeat.com/2013/10/13/countries-privacy/
Kravets, David. DHS Watchdog Oks Suspicionless Seizure of Elctronic Devices Along
the Border. February 8
t h
, 2013. Wired. Retrieved from
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/02/electronics-border-seizures/
Lavandera, Ed and Morris, Jason. Why big companies buy, sell your data. August 23,
2012. cnn.com. Accessed February 12, 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/23/tech/web/big-data-acxiom/

McFarland, Michael. Privacy and the Law. June, 2012. Santa Clara University.
Accessed March 8
t h
, 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/technology/internet/privacy/
privacy-law.html
Young 13

Pike, George H. USA Patriot Act: Whats Next? InformationToday. April 2006. Web.
Accessed March 2
nd
, 2014.
Sinnar, Shirin. Patriotic or Unconstitutional? The Mandatory Detention of Aliens under
the USA Patriot Act. Stanford Law Review Vol. 55 No. 4. April, 2003. Accessed
March 8
t h
, 2014.
Tancer, Bill. Click: What Millions of People Do Online and Why it Matters. 2008. New
York, NY. Hyperion.
The Privacy Act of 1974. epic.org. Accessed March 8
t h
, 2014. Retrieved from
http://epic.org/privacy/1974act/
The Privacy Act of 1974. justice.gov. Accessed March 8
t h
, 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gov/opcl/privstat.htm
Watchdog: Syria, China, Iran, and Bahrain Spy on their Citizens Online the Most.
March 12
t h
, 2013. Agence France Presse. Businessinsider.com. Accessed March
12
t h
, 2014. Retrieved from http://www.businessinsider.com/government-that-
spy-on-their-citizens-2013-3