Brock, Kelso, Symkowick 1

Kevin Brock
Aime Kelso
Anthony Symkowick
CST 373
October 6, 2016
The Limits of Privacy Post 9/11
The limits of privacy in any culture must be constantly redefined to keep up with
ever-growing populations, rapid technological innovation, and inevitable total-globalization.
Unfortunately, as authors Amitai Etzioni and Bill Tancer point out in their respective works The
Limits
of Privacy and Click: What Millions of People Are Doing Online and Why

it Matters,
Americans are particularly bullheaded in their approach to revision. Among the many examples
cited, from mandatory HIV testing in infants to mass government surveillance, it seems that an
inability to gauge our own preferences is the root cause of our shallow capacity for
understanding privacy. When the majority of a societys members are poor self-analysts, it is
very difficult for any single actor to engineer remedies to destructive trends because they have no
way of verifying that the problem they are solving even exists. No investigative agency on the
planet would endorse the methods that most ordinary American citizens rely on to interpret
cultural data because we routinely arbitrarily dichotomize issues like privacy into freedom or
safety. In order to gain some perspective on the issue of slowed progress in areas regarding
privacy and technology, it is necessary to first examine our own understanding of concepts
surrounding privacy, and subsequently scrutinize the specific

mechanisms of justice within both

American subcultures and those of foreign nations.
Our personal opinion is that privacy is a highly important aspect of our lives, and
American society in general. In fact, it is perhaps the most important right which we possess.

Brock, Kelso, Symkowick 2

Regardless of the content, or the status of an individual, the government should not have the
power to invade citizens privacy or lives. This also extends into the online world. If people want
to post their entire lives online, thats fine. But, inherently, people should be anonymous online.
Trends like data mining and targeted advertising powered by programmatic social analytics
undoubtedly violate this, but only exist because of the post 9/11 atmosphere society created. For
individuals who experienced the internet prior to 9/11, the concept of anonymity was an
all-encompassing one. The internet was (and in many ways still is) a frontier. It was an
unrestrained wilderness where any information shared was presumably able to be seen by
anyone. People never gave out their personal information, let alone their real names. However,
following 9/11, and specifically the Patriot Act, these attitudes began to change.
As social media and the internet truly took off, people began to see the advantages of
anonymity less and less. With the government already looking into peoples personal lives, many
comparatively, began to adopt the idea that letting the rest of the world know who they were
wasnt so bad. As a society, weve now collectively reached a point where people actively
consent to (and find nothing wrong with) sharing their private data with absolute strangers. From
sharing what they eat, to where they go, individuals have a habit of not only sharing every aspect
their lives online in regard to what theyre doing, but including location tags in their posts as
well, making them easily trackable. However, this is not without consequence. Many times
potential employers (or current employers) will look up an individual online and apply a fair
amount of scrutiny to their social media. This can potentially cost the individual their job, or the
possibility to be interviewed for a job. Similarly, there have been cases where convicted
criminals have posted or bragged on social media about their exploits (and been caught), and

Brock, Kelso, Symkowick 3

cases of the news tearing people apart after going through their social media background when
they want to report on them. We have now entered an age where people regularly post
everything about themselves online. And, in many cases, they do so of their own volition.
Privacy is a right, and as such, it is the right to make bad decisions. Despite peoples poor
choices, the government monitoring them and invading their privacy without their consent is not
only unethical, but morally wrong, and a violation of fundamental rights. However, this is
precisely what the Patriot Act does. We, as US citizens, did not consent to allowing the
government to monitor our private lives. The Patriot Act was passed by both houses of congress
and signed it into law very quickly, without the express approval of the American people. This
realization is crucial to properly deconstruct one system by which privacy is categorically
undermined distortion of public sentiment with political rhetoric and intentional obfuscation of
facts.
By examining both the punitive and corrective measures of a society, one can unearth the
subtle contradictions that inevitably arise during cultural maturation. As Etzioni describes in
constructing the foundation for his argument, societies are unable to make perfect choices
they often must sacrifice some measure of one good for the sake of another (Etzioni, p. 11).
American citizens today face some of the most divisive politics in the countrys history, arguably
due to the collective habit of burying points of cultural tension like racism, sexism, and a
vindictive judicial system. The United States houses a quarter of the worlds prisoners despite
the fact that it only accounts for 5% of the worlds population (Peleaz, 2016). The terrible and
shamefully impressive prison industrial complex was not architected by accident, nor was it kept
secret from the millions of Americans who supported the ideas that ultimately sent their

Brock, Kelso, Symkowick 4

neighbors to a psychological nightmare resting somewhere between purgatory and hell. Modern
psychologists and neurologists have found unquestionable links between prolonged isolation and
mental degradation, evidence which becomes even more potent with the knowledge that up to
25% of U.S. prisoners already suffer from some form of mental illness (American Psychological
Association, 2014). If Americans truly stand for individual freedoms and the unique value of
each member in their great cultural melting-pot, it is quite a peculiar thing to incarcerate the sick.
This quick-and-dirty solution to cultural undesirables gained popularity when minority
groups started to demand the equal treatment hypocricized by their government. President
Richard Nixons tough-on-crime ideology permeated throughout the culture for its face-value
logic and punitive simplicity bad people deserve to go to jail. Upon even the slightest
inspection past carefully-crafted rhetoric, however, the practice of jailing criminals en masse for
largely nonviolent offenses is quite heinous. As is masterfully explained in civil rights activist
Ava DuVernays documentary film The 13th, the prison system was used as a transitional
economic system to exploit black Americans immediately after slavery was outlawed
(DuVernay, 2016). John Ehrlichman, an advisor to Nixon during his national nightmare as
described by successor Gerald Ford, stated outright earlier this year that at the time, the White
House had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people, adding that because they knew they
couldnt be openly discriminatory, they distributed propaganda that helped associate the hippies
with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and that by simultaneously heavily criminalizing those
drugs, the Nixon administration could disrupt those communities (LoBianco, 2016). A decade
later, in part due to President Reagans ignorance of the psychology behind drug use, American
policy had wholeheartedly embraced criminalization over treatment regarding addiction. This

Brock, Kelso, Symkowick 5

coordinated amalgamation of two previously distinct ideas - minority culture and drug culture,
continues to wreak havoc on American families.
Through historical revisionism and the whitewashing of civil rights leaders like Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. and ideologies focused on racial unity, many people are taught to believe
that the institution of slavery was totally dismantled, somehow remaining cognitively dissonant
from the mass incarceration of disproportionately black citizens. With the rise of an abrasive
demagogue skilled in the art of basal emotional appeal and deceptive rhetoric, infrastructure has
begun to emerge that allows the countrys worst anxieties to escape the safety of isolation and
float to the surface. Each day, Americans are now encouraged to confront their personal beliefs
through hyper-cultural interaction spurred by the rapid flow of information on the internet.
Contrary to the way this sudden increase in confrontation makes Americans feel, it is undeniably
opening up a dialogue that has been unfairly prohibited for decades with minimal reprieve during
times like the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Though many have been deceived about the
transgressions of their government, Donald Trumps conspiracy-laden campaign has forced the
debate of culturally-ingrained phobias into the mainstream, and assuming the majority of
Americans dont actually believe that Mexicans and Muslims are maliciously invading the
country or that global warming is a hoax propagated by the Chinese to dominate global
manufacturing, we have a real chance at addressing and overcoming these irrationalities that
leave us vulnerable to fear mongering and other tactics of manipulation. The pace of change in
any democracy is slow by nature, a fact that can be interpreted as either a critical bug hindering
social progress or a deliberate feature ensuring the protections of the many over the comforts of a
few. In terms of privacy, it is useful to follow this line of thinking in terms of how quickly the

Brock, Kelso, Symkowick 6

decision was made to drastically reduce the freedoms of every American, notably people of
color, after the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11th, 2001.
While Americans willingness to give up their privacy can be extrapolated from its
history of being manipulated into locking up its citizens and legitimizing criminalization over
victimization, the culmination of these behavioral patterns was the invention of highly dangerous
legislation that infringed upon individual freedoms following terrorist attacks by the militant
extremist group al-Qaeda. Drafted in terror, ratified in panic, and matured in great controversy,
the Authorization for Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF) gave then President George W.
Bush and all future presidents implicit permission to mobilize military troops in virtually any
scenario, so long as it met the shamefully loose requirement that the target planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks on September 11th (Radiolab, n.d.). Because American
politicians did not understand the nature of a decentralized terrorist organization, and, more
broadly, the concept of decentralization in the first place, they felt it necessary to grant express
ability of war to the president. It was a power that potentially corrupted both of the presidents,
since the documents passing, into justifying Americas involvement in the deaths of at least one
million Iraqis and thousands of our own soldiers between war on terror efforts in Iraq and
Afghanistan (Physicians for Social Responsibility, 2015). Blinded by fear, American leaders set
out to fight the very idea of terror itself, and in doing so implemented the precursor to a
document so invasive it should arguably never be found in true democracy, suited best for
obvious dictatorships and totalitarianism the Patriot Act.
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve
neither liberty nor safety (Franklin & Franklin, 1817). Americas founding fathers were not

Brock, Kelso, Symkowick 7

only advocates for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but firm proponents that these were
more than just mere ideas. They regarded them as the unalienable rights, with which all men
were endowed. The term endowed signifies the intrinsic quality of these rights, implying that
they are an inseparable part of our humanity. The government did not give them and therefore
cannot take them away (Hawkins, 2013). These principles became the fundamental doctrines
upon which America constructed its identity. However, post 9/11, America has found itself in the
wake of all that it once stood for. The terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001 brought about
mass hysteria, and resulted in congress passing the Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT)
Act. The Patriot Act, as it is more commonly known, severely restricted and infringed upon
citizens constitutional rights, but pledged that in doing so, it was upholding national security and
the integrity of America and all its inhabitants. Under this guise, the Patriot Act has continually
undermined the privacy rights of both American citizens and immigrants alike. As such, it has
remained a matter of great controversy. The Patriot Acts blatant and inconspicuous intrusions on
our basic rights have brought to light the irrefutable value of privacy, both as a nation, and as
individuals.
In The Limits of Privacy, by Amitai Etzioni, encryption keys are discussed as a way to
thwart terrorism. Encryption refers to complex code which is used to protect the privacy of
communications on the internet. Encrypted messages are only able to be seen by the parties
directly involved in said message. The government cites public safety as a reason they should be
given access to decipher encrypted messages. By granting the government encryption keys, they
could potentially reveal and prevent the intentions, plans, and membership of criminal

Brock, Kelso, Symkowick 8

organizations and generate leads for criminal investigations (Etzioni, p. 79). Though
problematic in regard to individual privacy, it would benefit the common good, an idea which
Etzioni refers to throughout the book. He raises the question of public safety in regard to the
hyper-privacy of encryption, and whether or not public authorities should have the capability
to decipher encrypted messages. Can privacy (which encryption helps protect) and the common
good (including national security and domestic peace) be reconciled, at least in part, by limiting
the conditions and situations in which encrypted messages may be deciphered by public
authorities? (Etzioni, p. 77). While this is up to the American public to decide, often times
perceived knowledge (what one believes they know to be true), as opposed to actual knowledge
(what one actually knows to be true), can lead people to make poor decisions and implement
ineffective policies. This is especially true in regard to privacy, as proven by the implementation
of the Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act infringes on citizens constitutional rights in many ways. Upon being
signed into law on October 26th, 2001, the Patriot Act granted the US government a great deal
more access to citizens private data, essentially allowing them to spy on citizens without their
knowledge or consent, or even probable cause. The government can now monitor and collect
citizens phone and email data, track citizens on the internet, and access citizens bank and credit
reports. Under the Patriot Act, National Security Letters (NSLs) are issued by FBI agents,
without a judges approval, to obtain personal information, including phone records, computer
records, credit history, and banking history (Surveillance Under the Patriot Act, n.d.).
Additionally, citizens who receive NSLs are prohibited from telling anyone under the Patriot
Act, and the data obtained is not required to be destroyed. This is not only a direct violation of

Brock, Kelso, Symkowick 9

freedom of speech (Constitution Amendment I), but freedom from unreasonable searches and
seizures (Constitution Amendment IV) as well. The government can also delay giving notice to
citizens when they conduct secret searches of their homes, another blatant breach of the
Constitutions fourth amendment. Although the United States is a front-runner in many things,
its intrusive privacy laws are regressive, voyeuristic, and unbecoming of an ever-advancing
modern society, especially when in comparison to the progressive privacy laws of other nations.
Contrary to the United States, many international countries have adopted strict privacy
laws which favor citizens rather than spy on them. The European Union (EU) Directive, which
was passed in 1995 and accounts for 27 European countries, restricts the use, sharing, storing
and collecting of personal data. This holistic view of personal data, defined as anything that can
identify an individual including a persons address and their image is seen as the gold
standard for many countries (Gustke, 2013). Companies must have an individuals consent to
collect their personal data, which is defined as anything that identifies a person [...], including
email addresses and even the IP address that identifies each computer (Gustke, 2013). Nations
belonging to the European Union place great importance and value on their citizens personal
privacy rights. The website BackgroundChecks.org created a privacy scoreboard to assess which
countries had the best privacy laws and which did not. Among the criteria involved in ranking
countries were whether a countrys government [actually had] privacy laws, if [the] Internet
[was] restricted in any way, if it [was] known that the government uses spyware, [and] if [the]
government protects free speech (Kelly, 2013). Based on the criteria, the countries that ranked
the highest in regard to privacy laws were Spain, Czech Republic, Iceland, Norway, and
Slovenia. The countries which ranked the lowest were Bahrain, Iran, Nigeria, Syria, and

Brock, Kelso, Symkowick 10

Malaysia. While the United States avoided the bottom 5, they were listed amongst the top of
nations who spy on their citizens. (Kelly, 2013). In comparison to the United States, Germany,
China, and Iran have vastly different policies when it comes to privacy.
Germany is a relentless advocate for personal privacy. Operating under the EU Directive,
it is among the top nations with the strictest privacy laws. Bundesdatenschutzgesetz (BDSG),
Germanys Federal Data Protection Act, states organizations cannot collect any personally
identifiable information without express permission from an individual, and the permission
that an individual grants must specify how, where, how long, and for what purposes the data may
be used (Germany Data Privacy Laws, n.d.). In fact, Germany has had numerous disputes
with companies such as Google and Facebook over data protection laws. When Google began
taking pictures of homes and businesses for its map applications StreetView, German officials
were outraged. They fined Google $189,225 for violating German privacy laws, and required
Google to blur out citizens faces and license plates. However, even that was not enough. Google
was also made to allow German citizens to request photos of their homes to be blurred as well.
Additionally, some citizens requested to opt out of having their homes photographed entirely
(Miller & OBrien, 2013). Most recently, Germany has ordered Facebook to stop collecting users
data on its WhatsApp messenger service stating that users must have a choice in whether or
not they want to connect their WhatsApp account with Facebook. More than any other region,
Europe has pushed back against American technology giants use of peoples digital information,
routinely forcing companies like Google and Facebook to change their policies after they
breached the European Unions tough data protection rules (Scott, 2016).

Brock, Kelso, Symkowick 11

China, on the other hand, lacks major data protection and privacy laws. Although they
have some privacy rights under their constitution, China has been slow to adopt specific laws in
regard to privacy, and their current laws have not been tested. Though e-commerce and online
activity has grown at a rapid rate, given the relatively lengthy time it takes to enact national
laws in China, the legislation has not kept up to date with these developments (Data Protection
and Privacy Issues in China, n.d.). A recent study by professors at Syracuse University revealed
Chinese [internet] users are much less concerned with online privacy issues than Americans
are (Kecheng, 2016). A similar study, by the Boston Consulting Group, showed China to be
well below the global average of nations whose citizens agreed it was important to be cautious in
regard to sharing personal information online. The global average across the nations surveyed
was 76%, with China ranking the lowest at 50% (Rose, Barton, Souza, & Platt, 2014). Perhaps
Chinas citizens family life is a determining factor in their indifference to personal privacy.
Many Chinese families consist of multiple generations and extended family who cohabitate
within the same household. Perhaps they are less concerned with their online privacy than
American citizens (and many other nations) because their family life affords them less privacy.
Nevertheless, despite its shortcomings, China is in the process of adopting and developing better
privacy laws for its citizens. A Chinese microblogging platform called Weibo has shown
citizens growing sensitivity to state surveillance and the intrusion of commercial interests.
More and more people are beginning to realize that the Internet is two-faced it can increase
user happiness, while also depriving the same users of their rights. (Kecheng, 2016).
However, unlike both Germany, and China, Iran is notorious for not only having a lack of
privacy laws, but a lack of basic human rights laws. According to IranIntelligence.com, the worst

Brock, Kelso, Symkowick 12

human rights issues came in regard to the governments severe limitations on citizens right to
peacefully change their government through free and fair elections; restrictions on civil liberties,
including the freedoms of assembly, speech, and press; and the government's disregard for the
physical integrity of persons whom it arbitrarily and unlawfully killed, tortured, and imprisoned
(Human Rights in Iran, n.d.). When it comes to the internet, the Iranian government spends
millions of dollars to maintain its strict censorship regime. Citizens have very little privacy when
it comes to both their personal homes, and their personal data. In Iran there is a major gap in
respect of data privacy protection as specific legislation on it is nonexistent (Hassan & Bagheri,
2016). In Iran, privacy is not an independent civil right. Many of the internets most popular
websites (including social media sites like Facebook and Twitter) are blocked. Despite the
egregious censorship, Iranian citizens have found ways to gain access to the internet through the
use of virtual private networks (VPNs). VPNs are sold openly, allowing Iranians to bounce
around censorship and seemingly render it ineffective. Nearly 7 in 10 young Iranians are using
VPNs (ONeill, 2015). Though VPN technology is illegal, many citizens believe VPN sellers
are somehow in alliance with the government, as many government-sanctioned services use the
technology to beat internet censors themselves, and line their pockets, offer a false sense of
security to Iranians, and even to make their surveillance jobs that much easier (ONeill, 2015).
In comparison to the United States, Germany, and China, Iranian citizens face a multitude of
privacy violations, in addition to a lack of basic human rights, which many other nations afford
their citizens.
It is unmistakably apparent that these three nations (Germany, China, and Iran) have
contrasting viewpoints and laws regarding personal privacy, in comparison to the United States.

Brock, Kelso, Symkowick 13

Some countries for the better, as in Germanys case, and some for the worse, i.e. Iran.
Nevertheless, the message the world over is clear: the government should not be prying into its
citizens private lives. The citizens of all three nations seem to want and value privacy to some
degree. In countries where the government makes an active attempt to monitor its people,
citizens are using tools like VPNs, or similar technologies, to circumvent that surveillance. In
places with low individualism, and places where privacy is not even an enforced right, people
still desire their privacy and their secrets, especially when it comes to the government.
In the case of American society, we have reached a strange paradox one where we have
become complacent and okay with placing ourselves online, yet take offense when the
government takes advantage of that. The basis of the works of both Amitai Etzioni, and Bill
Tancer show that often times our perceived knowledge and perceptions surpass actual
knowledge. As such, societies cannot always make perfect choices. However, for a society to
truly thrive it must find a balance between the common good and individual privacy. The
challenge of carefully crafting a balance between the common good and individual rights,
between public health, public safety, and privacy, is particularly keen if the balance sought is to
be achieved not merely within the context of some abstract theory or model, but in the context of
specific historical and social conditions of a real, existing society (Etzioni, p. 10). When it
comes to America, and our concepts of privacy as a whole, it is up to We, the People, to voice
our concerns in order to change, shape, and create the society we want to see.

Brock, Kelso, Symkowick 14

References
American Psychological Association. (2014, October). Incarceration Nation. Retrieved October
16, 2016, from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2014/10/incarceration.aspx
Data Protection and Privacy Issues in China. (n.d.). Retrieved October 08, 2016, from
https://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=5340
DuVernay, A. (Director). (2016, October 7). 13th [Video File]. Netflix. Retrieved October 15,
2016.
Germany Data Privacy Laws. (n.d.). Retrieved October 07, 2016, from
https://www.bluecoat.com/resources/cloud-governance-data-residency-sovereignty/germa
ny-data-privacy-laws
Gustke, C. (2013, June 26). Which Countries Are Better at Protecting Privacy? Retrieved
October 06, 2016, from
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20130625-your-private-data-is-showing
Hassan, K. H., & Bagheri, P. (2016). Data Privacy in Electronic Commerce: Analysing Legal
Provisions in Iran. Retrieved October 8, 2016 from
http://www.icommercecentral.com/open-access/data-privacy-in-electronic-commerce-ana
lysing-legal-provisions-in-iran.php?aid=67480#a1
Hawkins, A. (2013, September 23). What Thomas Jefferson Meant by Unalienable Rights Breitbart. Retrieved October 06, 2016, from
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/09/23/what-did-thomas-jefferson-mean-b
y-unalienable-rights/
Human Rights in Iran. (n.d.). Retrieved October 08, 2016, from

Brock, Kelso, Symkowick 15

http://www.iranintelligence.com/humanrights
Etzioni, A. (1999). The Limits of Privacy. New York: Basic Books.
Franklin, B., & Franklin, W. T. (1817). Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin:
Written by himself to a late period and continued to the time of his death by his Grandson
William Temple Franklin ... comprising the private correspondence ... and a selection
from his political, philosophical, and miscellaneous works. London: Colburn.
Kecheng, F. (2016, May 11). Say Goodbye to Privacy When Surfing Chinas Internet. Retrieved
October 12, 2016, from
http://www.sixthtone.com/news/say-goodbye-privacy-when-surfing-chinas-internet
Kelly, M. (2013). These 5 Countries Were Ranked Best for Privacy (Infographic). Retrieved
October 6, 2016, from http://venturebeat.com/2013/10/13/countries-privacy/
LoBianco, T. (2016, March 24). Report: Nixons War on Drugs Targeted Black People.
Retrieved October 15, 2016, from
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks
-hippie/
Miller, C. C., & OBrien, K. J. (2013, April 23). Germanys Complicated Relationship With
Google Street View. Retrieved October 7, 2016, from
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/germanys-complicated-relationship-with-googl
e-street-view/
ONeill, P. H. (2015, February 22). The Big Money Behind Irans Internet Censorship. Retrieved
October 14, 2016, from
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/iran-censorship-circumvention-tech/

Brock, Kelso, Symkowick 16

Peleaz, V. (2016, August 28). The Prison Industry in the United States: Big Business or a New
Form of Slavery? Retrieved October 15, 2016 from
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-prison-industry-in-the-united-states-big-business-or-a-n
ew-form-of-slavery/8289
Physicians for Social Responsibility. (2015, March). Body Count of the War on Terror.
Retrieved October 15, 2016 from http://www.psr.org/assets/pdfs/body-count.pdf
Radiolab WNYC & NPR. (n.d.). 60 Words. [Podcast]. Retrieved October 15, 2016 from
http://www.radiolab.org/story/60-words/
Rose, J., Barton, C., Souza, R., & Platt, J. (2014, February 19). Caution: Data on Board [Digital
image]. Retrieved October 15, 2016, from
https://www.bcgperspectives.com/content/Slideshow/information_technology_strategy_d
igital_economy_data_privacy_by_the_numbers/#ad-image-0
Scott, M. (2016, September 27). Facebook Ordered to Stop Collecting Data on WhatsApp Users
In Germany. Retrieved October 7, 2016, from
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/technology/whatsapp-facebook-germany.html
Surveillance Under the Patriot Act. (n.d.). Retrieved October 06, 2016, from
https://www.aclu.org/infographic/surveillance-under-patriot-act
Tancer, B. (2008). Click: What Millions of People Are Doing Online and Why It Matters. New
York: Hyperion.