How Much Internet Privacy is Enough Privacy?

Over the past few years the use of technology has increased and led to many
privacy issues. It is only recently that activist, like Edward Snowden, have spoken out
about the abuse of privacy. As a result, the issue of privacy has now become mainstream
and has raised the question of where the line should be drawn when dealing with privacy
and security. The concept is fairly new and laws have just started to adapt to the problems
that the Internet posses. In the act, fear has grown amongst citizens because where there
once was privacy there now lays doubt. The Internet has brought many changes to the
way information is accessed and the thought of having personal information that can be
misused and that is available to governments or companies for their own benefit is of no
citizens interest. Technology has started a revolution, a revolution between security and
privacy. And through looking at various sources from various points of view, a better
understanding will be developed of how governments, people, and hackers view the issue
of privacy and security, which will all aid in developing a conclusion that will settle the
argument of privacy versus security.
The Governments View of Security
Security has become an issue of major concern since the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001. The issue raises the question: how much privacy is enough privacy
and how much should the government intervene to keep the nation safe. It is questions
like these that arise when trying to find a balance and it is questions like these that
President Barack Obama addressed in his speech Security and Privacy: In Search of a
Balance. President Obama reasoned why the NSA, the US security agency, was
established and its purpose to serve the general public for the safety of the citizens.

President Obama described how the whole point of intelligence is to obtain information
that is not publicly available which depicts one of the main reasons why people are
uncomfortable with such secrecy (103). Was freedom not what the founding fathers
fought to protect is how author, Simson Garnfinkel, responds by saying; is it not a
constitutional right to be protected against the prohibition against illegal search and
seizures (the Fourth Amendment)(66). Taking this approach it would seem that the
government is breaking the laws that established the nation because searching a users
computer is like searching his home without consent or a warrant. But, President Obama
argues that we should [confide] in the integrity of those in our intelligence
community(104). But again, Jonathan Schell argues how can we confide on our
government with evidence where the FBI failed to keep adequate records made by
governments to phone companies, frequently violating the limits of what they were
entitled to take which proves otherwise (6). The government has been gathering Internet
data and broken several rules and in many cases such as the one mention above the
government agencies have failed to follow their own protocol.
(Reword) Still with these sources the line seems to be closer to the side of privacy
but what about all those times that Intel has helped as it is in the cases mention by Chris
Baraniuk where he explains how he has used technology for good, "Let's say on a news
website: if I look at all the comments that people are making and I start tracking one
particular person, then I can identify that person in other places. Making educated
guesses, eventually I might be able to track down and figure out who that person is.
"Unsurprisingly, many parties -- from accounting firms to intelligence agencies and law
enforcers -- have asked Pennebaker for help to profile individuals(37).

And the issue does not end there, courts have had much to do with the way the
law approaches cyber crime or cyber espionage. The constitution was drafted centuries
ago and since then, technology has significantly changed, and because of this the law has
fallen behind in designing laws that apply to the Internet. Challenging Supreme Court
cases like Thomas M. Cooley Law School v. John Doe 1, No. 307426 where as mentioned
by Robert Shapiro, the court ruled, that the right associated with free speech protected
the right of anonymity (4). These cases have challenged the law and in many cases as it
was in this case the judge had to make a decision solely based on his interpretation of the
constitution. But then there are those critics, according to Shapiro, who argue that the law
does not need to accommodate because they say, the old rules work rather well(5). So
once again we are left in the fighting ground, in the zone of neutrality fighting while we
try to find a compromise between security and privacy.
The Publics Perspective
We saw what the government thought about the issue of privacy and security, but
what about the general public, the people who day to day are affected by this issue. In one
way we can see the benefits of security as it is in the case where the data that [the]
iPhone users [generate] for Google), the data being specific location coordinates,
where the collection of data can actually help track down a stolen phone as it is offered
by Apples Find my iPhone service or the great use of Googles Maps service, both
of which without justice would not have been able to be served (Fisher 9). Yes, both of
these services to some extent invade users privacy, but lets not forget that its under the
Users Agreement and that the user is the one that decides to have the service, it is not
forced upon the user but offered. So is the Internet at a time where anonymity started to

come to an end, according to Shapiro it is and There's almost nowhere left to hide (1).
The Internet, from the evidence provided by Shapiro is evidently slowly starting to lose
its privacy. The Internet used to be a safe haven for those who choose to remain
anonymous, users who used screen name instead of their real names, but slowly that
has disappeared. The Internet used to be a place for anonymity where users could say
what they wanted, when they wanted, how they wanted, to whoever they wanted,
something that is already protected by the first amendment but without the fear of being
identified, but now according to studies found in the article End of Anonymity, if we
feel [like] we are being watched, we are a lot less likely to transgress social norms, cheat,
litter or steal (Baraniuk 35). The Internet has become a bad place where wrongdoers
have gathered to conduct their grotesque behavior as described by Barnuik, when he
recalls coming across a comment that read Im going to in your own vomit across your
forehead [with] a stick, vile woman you area and the piss on the ashes while I burn you
alive which was recalled by Nicola Brookes (34). And why did all this start, because a
women decided to challenge an Internet troll for such bad conduct on the Internet. Yet,
another incident that brings more questions about the integrity of people on the
cyberspace, but lets not forget that freedom of speech is being practiced.
The Ethics of the Internet
But what is all this talk without the opinion of an ethical hacker, a person who
exploits the World Wide Web in search of vulnerabilities with the intention of fixing
them. Internet security professional, Simson Garfinkel, is here to shed some light on the
issue of privacy and security. From a security analyst point of view, he explains how he
knows about the issue of hackers and how he believes that the issue to solve the problem

between security and privacy is to pay employees(70). The employees, in this instance,
are themselves. Another solution would be for the people to decide or in his words to
determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent, information about them is [to]
be communicated to others(67). But, it is questions like these that once more which
make it difficult to draw the line between privacy and security. But as Garfinkel sums up
the solution of Internet privacy the only real solution seems to be a stronger identity
system thats free to use and backed by the governments of the world true passport of
online access (69).
An online identity would not only help to identify an individual, but it would also
reveal the users identity. With the introduction of an online passport or identifier, as it can
already be seen with Apples introduction of its new fingerprint based technology, users
would be able to be identified and traced but at a level where these fingerprint records
would be stored in a central database not on the phone itself. But a problem arises when
this happens as mention by Baraniuks interview with Cylance, the consequences of
losing a biometric log-in that cannot be changed are potentially much worse than losing a
password. "If one service loses that biometric, then every other service that's using the
same artefact is going to be compromised -- and the user can't change their fingerprints,"
says Billy Rios, a former Google and Microsoft security researcher now at Cylance
Security in Irvine, California.(37). (Reword) What happens if this fingerprint data is
ever stolen? As we all know a phone can be replace but a fingerprint cannot. If at some
point information like this was compromised what would happen? With much
information linked to a fingerprint it would be difficult for a person to gain their identity
back. The though of an online passport is one with good intentions, but as we all know,

not everyone has the same intentions, and one leak of such delicate information could be
detrimental. (Fix wording) The technology is on the right track but its implementation is
still years ahead of our present in order for it to work accordingly with minimal security
issues.
As we can see in the article Privacy Requires Security, Not Abstinence, author
Garfinkel points out how governments are not ready yet for the new era that the Internet
has brought; proposal have been made in the past but [the] projects have never really
got off the ground partly because the technology wasnt quite ready (71). More work
needs to be done in order for the Internet to find the balance between security and
privacy. Still we encounter another security issue with the Internet. The Internet is open
to everyone and many hackers have used that to their advantage. The Internet is a
playground for hackers, the Internet is not security proof and hackers are always finding
ways to exploit the system. The backbone of the Internet is written in code and anyone
who knows the language can do serious harm to the structure of the net as it has been
done before by groups such as Anonymous (find article on Anonymous?) who for good or
bad reasons have used the loopholes in the system to prove that it can be hacked and that
information on the Internet is not secure.
(Addition to business perspective on Internet) Another problem with the Internet is that it
is not governed which either way it would be impossible to govern. The Internet is a
cloud of vast connections with multiple locations. To try to control the Internet would be
impossible and expensive for many Internet Service Providers (ISPs). From a business
perspective the Internet has become a very profitable service accessed by many. And it is
that reason, the reason that many use the Internet that people have become targets of

forced advertisement because of new features such as the like button and other social
plugins [which] provide deeper insights into ones interests and preferences. Thus, these
types of privacy area also affected (Staub and Nentwich, 728). The Internet has
become a mass data dump for companies to pick and choose how to target individual
people in order to sell a service or product. Add ons like the like button on Facebook
have created this new advertisement of free information, which is given by the user in
many cases without the knowledge of what is actually happening. It is issue like these
that reinforce the need of a strict policy that protects users privacy online. It is new
services though like Googles Maps service that has brought some of these privacy
issues, with good intentions Google plan is to create a mapping service that makes
navigation easier but to many opportunist the service has become a backbone in the intent
of using it as a tracking system that can give very accurate location coordinates. The
Internet has become a place of power and the scary thing is that it is unknown who or
what holds the reins of power in the cyber world (Choucri and Goldsmith 74). It offers
many opportunities to businesses to take advantage and exploit consumers interest in
order to use them towards their advantage. The race is on and it seems like many
companies are competing for the valuable data that is easily and freely available on the
Internet. An issue which to many does not come in mind but when an individual posts
something on the Internet it is there forever even when deleted. In part a weakness of the
Internet. For example one can do a simple Google search on the Internet of ones own
name and be able to complete a full profile of pictures, personal information such as
phone numbers, home address, ect the list goes on and on, because of piece of
information leads to another and another. Such information could easily then not only be

used for one individual but for various individuals.

(Conclusion) So we come to the conclusion and are left still pondering. We see
that the issue of privacy and security is not an easy issue to solve. The Internet has many
applications and the intentions of use depend on the user. There is no one correct answer
to the issue between privacy and security. This is the point at which the user has to
decide, how much privacy will be willing given up? Do we really want to give up our
privacy? Maybe the problem does not lie within the user but within a weak system, if the
problem is to be solved a new system needs to be implemented in order to keep the
Internet safe while still offering the security the user wants. (Quote?) Features on social
media sites like Facebook already offer feature likes these, but there is still work to be
done in order to accommodate to the new era that the Internet has brought. If we really
want a system that offers security and privacy then we need a true passport for online
access (Garfinkel 69). It is only then when an intelligent design is implemented, that true
freedom, security, and privacy will be witnessed. For now though we have to settle with
the current technology and fight for privacy before we lose it in the process.