The Right to Privacy
Privacy is one of the severe issue in today’s Modern Technology era, tied to human right around the world. Most countries have started thinking differently regarding between the people’s right and national security, and trying to leverage on new technology to detect potential national threats without hurting people’s privacy. However, there's a blurred line between privacy violation and government surveillance. (Sánchez, Levin & Del, 2012) It would be a learning process for governments to seek an optimum balance between retain integrity of privacy right and eliminate national threats in order to make the country better.
According to Kate’s article, National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA), has hosted a meeting with stakeholder about government implement facial recognition technology and privacy violation issue on February 6, 2014. John Verdi, director of privacy initiatives at the Commerce Department, emphasized that these information on government uses would only help federal officers to understand the technology, and they would not actually access technology to misuse the confidential information. (Kate, 2014) However, he did not respond any questions about government uses of facial recognition technology; we could not stop wondering, once it came cross the national security level issue, how long the government could endure a temptation from the demon? Is the government surveillances a necessary of evil?
Although many people could not explain or define the concept of privacy very precisely, based on Baase, S. (2012), A gift of fire: Social, legal, and ethical issues for computing technology, he mentioned three key aspects of privacy:
1. Freedom from intrusion – being left alone
...
... middle of paper ...
...question-government-use-of-facial-recognition
Zimmer, M. (February 3. 2014). Mark Zuckerberg’s theory of privacy. Retrieved from February 6, 2014 http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/mark-zuckerbergs-theory-of-privacy/2014/02/03/2c1d780a-8cea-11e3-95dd-36ff657a4dae_story.html
Peterson, A. (March 20, 2013). The government can (still) read most of your emails without a warrant. Retrieved from http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/20/1742871/leahy-ecpa-reform-email/
Wikipedia. (2014). Electronic Communications Privacy Act. Retrieved February 6, 2014 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Communications_Privacy_Act
Wikipedia. (2014). Mark Zuckerberg. Retrieved February 6, 2014 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Zuckerberg
National Telecommunication & Information Administration. (2014). Retrieved February 6, 2014 from http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
Edward Snowden is America’s most recent controversial figure. People can’t decide if he is their hero or traitor. Nevertheless, his leaks on the U.S. government surveillance program, PRISM, demand an explanation. Many American citizens have been enraged by the thought of the government tracing their telecommunication systems. According to factbrowser.com 54% of internet users would rather have more online privacy, even at the risk of security (Facts Tagged with Privacy). They say it is an infringement on their privacy rights of the constitution. However, some of them don’t mind; they believe it will help thwart the acts of terrorists. Both sides make a good point, but the inevitable future is one where the government is adapting as technology is changing. In order for us to continue living in the new digital decade, we must accept the government’s ability to surveil us.
The feeling that someone is always watching, develops the inevitable, uncomfortable feeling that is displeasing to the mind. For years, the National Security Agency (NSA) has been monitoring people for what they call, “the greater good of the people” (Cole, February 2014). A program designed to protect the nation while it protects the walls within as it singles people out, sometimes by accident. Whether you are a normal citizen or a possible terrorist, the NSA can monitor you in a variation of ways. The privacy of technology has sparked debates across the world as to if the NSA is violating personal rights to privacy by collecting personal data such as, phone calls and text messages without reason or authorization (Wicker, 2011). Technology plays a key role in society’s day to day life. In life, humans expect privacy, even with their technology. In recent news, Edward Snowden leaked huge pieces from the NSA to the public, igniting these new controversies. Now, reforms are being pressed against the government’s throat as citizens fight for their rights. However, American citizens are slammed with the counterargument of the innocent forte the NSA tries to pass off in claims of good doing, such as how the NSA prevents terrorism. In fear of privacy violations, limitations should be put on the NSA to better protect the privacy of our honest citizens.
3. Herman T. Tavani, "Privacy Online," Computers and Society, Vol. 29, No. 4, 1999, pp. 11-19.
Different people, cultures, and nations have a wide variety of expectations about how much privacy is entitled to or what constitutes an invasion of privacy. Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information. Personal privacy has been declining in the past year which is caused by today’s technological society. With the latest technology such as face scanners, data collecting, and highly advanced software’s, privacy can be compromised, which is exactly what is being done today and it is unconstitutionally intrusive.
The United States government is up to its ears in the personal information it has collected from its citizens. Americans are becoming increasingly “aware of these slowly eroding walls of privacy,”(Hirsh) and more than half polled admit concern “about the overall accumulation of personal information about them “by […] law enforcement, government, […] and other groups,” though “they accept it as an unavoidable modern phenomenon” (Hirsh). The question is, how far is too far to trust the government with the collection, proper storage, and usage of this information? Studies show that “Americans believe that business, government, social-media sites, and other groups are accessing their most personal information without their consent” (Hirsh). People should be given the ability to admit or deny access to their personal information. The government does not have a right to use whatever information it wants for any purpose it wishes. Michael Hayden, once the NSA director for seven years, says, “Even I recognize that it's one thing for Google to know too much, because they aren't putting me in jail. It's another thing for government, because they can coerce me” (Hirsh). The United States government's ability to collect information about its citizens and residents should be restricted by what kind of information it can take, how it can acquire it, and what it can use it for.
Privacy is an incredibly elusive concept, partly because no one can agree on what constitutes an invasion of privacy. One famous publication in the 1890 edition of the Harvard Law Review defines privacy as “...the right to be let alone” (Warren). While this suffices for a cursory look at the definition of privacy, a closer look reveals that it is still very vague (the latter portion of the journal reiterates this). Specifically, it does not address breach of privacy, a concept that is still disagreed upon today. There are many different interpretations as to what constitutes an invasion of privacy.
The word “privacy” did not grow up with us throughout history, as it was already a cultural concept by our founding fathers. This term was later solidified in the nineteenth century, when the term “privacy” became a legal lexicon as Louis Brandeis (1890), former Supreme Court justice, wrote in a law review article, that, “privacy was the right to be let alone.” As previously mentioned in the introduction, the Supreme Court is the final authority on all issues between Privacy and Security. We started with the concept of our fore fathers that privacy was an agreed upon concept that became written into our legal vernacular. It is being proven that government access to individual information can intimidate the privacy that is at the very center of the association between the government and the population. The moral in...
Most people concerned about the privacy implications of government surveillance aren’t arguing for no[sic] surveillance and absolute privacy. They’d be fine giving up some privacy as long as appropriate controls, limitations, oversight and accountability mechanisms were in place. ”(“5 Myths about Privacy”). The fight for privacy rights is by no means a recent conflict.
LeRoux, Yves. "Privacy concerns in the digital world." 03 Oct 2013. Computer Weekly. 24 April 2014 .
The world erupted in outrage following revelations by Edward Snowden regarding the extent of surveillance perform by the National Security Agency. Privacy becomes one of the hottest topic of 2013 and was chosen by the world’s most popular online dictionary, Dictionary.com, as the Word of the Year. However, the government is not the only one that conduct data gathering and surveillance. Employers often monitor their employees, and businesses collect data on theirs customer. The morality of these practices is a topic that generates heated debate.
[4] H. Nissenbaum. Toward an Approach to Privacy in Public: Challenges of Information Technology. Ethics & Behavior, 7(3): 207-220, 1997.
Biometric technology is used for the ways humans can be identified by unique aspects of their bodies, such as fingerprints, body odor, our voices and many more. If one was to think about privacy rights, he/she would be concerned about the widespread adoption of these systems, since such systems could easily be used to develop a record of known rebellious people and/or dangerous criminals, to be used for social control purposes. Although that may seem pretty good and a positive thing for the society, one should take into account of the defects and errors of technology. Of the many biometrics technologies that are being developed and are already developed, facial recognition is one of the most threatening because it can be deployed secretly; one may not know whether or when they can be caught in a surveillance camera for such facial recognition biometrics. Additionally, tests have found that the miscalculations for facial biometrics technologies are very high. As a result, according to Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, innocent people can be erroneously identified as dangerous criminals and actual dangerous criminals and/or suspected terrorists can fail to be detected overall, allowing for a huge injustice and unfairness. Privacy rights concerned with biometrics have sparked a concern and should be dealt with; otherwise, this is just one of the
The privacy of the individual is the most important right. Without privacy, the democratic system that we know would not exist. Privacy is one of the fundamental values on which our country was founded. There are exceptions to privacy rights that are created by the need for defense and security.
Privacy is not just a fundamental right, it is also important to maintain a truly democratic society where all citizens are able to exist with relative comfort. Therefore, “[Monitoring citizens without their knowledge] is a major threat to democracies all around the world.” (William Binney.) This is a logical opinion because without freedom of expression and privacy, every dictatorship in history has implemented some form of surveillance upon its citizens as a method of control.
Powell, Robert. "Four Ways Technology Invades Your Privacy." Lovemoney.com. N.p., 5 Oct. 2011. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.