What is critical security, what does it focus on comparing with the traditional security studies? While various protests arise with the outbreak of the 2013 NSA scandal, the enthusiasm about political participation has once again raised the public’s attention (Deutsche Welle, 2013). This leads to criticism of social controversies, such as privacy protections that the global political system is facing today. The society is divided in its opinion of whether the government has reached too far to restraining individual’s cyber privacy in practice, for not asking permission and enters searching information for his or her own interest. Others argue that the current circumstance is a reflection of government’s hopeless attempts to conceive an alternative solution for the aftermath of a lax regulation and inefficient policymaking. Overall, various research has shown an occurrence that the task before us is not easy while they are up against all odds.
But before we start to take a look into the recent issues of cyber privacy, we must answer the questions in regards of how should we analysis the cyber securitization via critical security aspects? Traditional Security studies argues that the national security is essential to all citizens, because that in a anarchy and competitive arm force battle, only when the country is secured, the people will therefore be secured in the same manner. In other words, if the country is not secure, the government does not guarantee the individual’s security. The traditional security studies reflect the crucial reality of the current status and the balance of power between the states; then again, as critical security studies scholars will point out: not everyone will be impact directly from military force but...
... middle of paper ...
..., hackers have found that the use of pure media renderer can be much successful than simply planning attacks through weapons of mass destruction.
Of course, there are many amazing achievements that have been achieved through the use of cyber resource, and many of them might or might not come from a not so clean background where the attack on privacy was used (Huffington Post, 2013). State leaders frequently be confront actions of turning a blind eye on privacy protections in cyberspace for political interests, howbeit, because the national security critical infrastructure - including power are now tightly attached with cyber network, such as the American federal judiciary filling systems or major broadcast news publisher. (Washington Times, 2013) The leaders are often stuck in making the tough decisions of what kind of actions should they use and to what degrees.
The United States has lived through an age of terrorism and the citizens have come to realize that they would rather ensure the safety of the masses than protect their privacy. Works Cited Cunningham, David. A. "The Patterning of Repression: FBI Counterintelligence and the New Left." Social Forces 82.1 (2003): 209–40. JSTOR.com - "The New York Times" Oxford Journals.
Is the American government trustworthy? Edward Joseph Snowden (2013) released to the United States press* selected information about the surveillance of ordinary citizens by the U.S.A.’s National Security Agency (N.S.A.), and its interconnection to phone and social media companies. The motion picture Citizenfour (2014), shows the original taping of those revelations. Snowden said that some people do nothing about this tracking because they have nothing to hide. He claims that this inverts the model of responsibility. He believes that everyone should encrypt Internet messages and abandon electronic media companies that track personal information and Internet behavior (op.cit, 2014). Snowden also stressed to Lawrence Lessig (2014) the importance of the press and the first amendment (Lessig – Snowden Interview Transcript, [16:28]). These dynamics illustrate Lessig’s (2006) constrain-enable pattern of powers that keep society in check (2006, Code: Version 2.0, p. 122). Consider Lessig’s (2006) question what is “the threat to liberty?” (2006, p. 120). Terrorism is a real threat (Weber, 2013). Surveillance by social media and websites, rather than the government, has the greater negative impact on its users.
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.
With the introduction of the internet being a relatively new phenomenon, the act of cyber espionage is not something that has been properly acknowledged by society. The American Government has done a stand up job of keeping its methods in the shadows and away from the eyes of its people since its documented domestic surveillance began on October 4th, 2001; Twenty three days after the Twin Towers fell President George Bush signed an order to begin a secret domestic eavesdropping operation, an operation which was so sensitive that even many of the country's senior national security officials with the...
As a patriot of this great nation, what has been presented is of extreme if not grave concern. The challenges of cyberculture to our nation’s security have been revealed . To what extent our security has been breached is a matter of speculation but be informed that these breaches must be met with complete counter active success - failure to do so is not an option.
Domestic Surveillance Citizens feeling protected in their own nation is a crucial factor for the development and advancement of that nation. The United States’ government has been able to provide this service for a small tax and for the most part it is money well spent. Due to events leading up to the terrifying attacks on September 11, 2001 and following these attacks, the Unites States’ government has begun enacting certain laws and regulations that ensure the safety of its citizens. From the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978 to the most recent National Security Agency scandal, the government has attempted and for the most part succeeded in keeping domestic safety under control. Making sure that the balance between obtaining enough intelligence to protect the safety of the nation and the preservation of basic human rights is not extremely skewed, Congress has set forth requisites in FISA which aim to balance the conflicting goals of privacy and security; but the timeline preceding this act has been anything but honorable for the United States government.
The attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what the ‘law is”, causing a lack of circulated rule. The actual leaders with political purposes jeopardize our individual privacy rights, liberties, and freedoms.
Ever since day one, people have been developing and creating all sorts of new methods and machines to help better everyday life in one way or another. Who can forget the invention of the ever-wondrous telephone? And we can’t forget how innovative and life-changing computers have been. However, while all machines have their positive uses, there can also be many negatives depending on how one uses said machines, wiretapping in on phone conversations, using spyware to quietly survey every keystroke and click one makes, and many other methods of unwanted snooping have arisen. As a result, laws have been made to make sure these negative uses are not taken advantage of by anyone. But because of how often technology changes, how can it be known that the laws made so long ago can still uphold proper justice? With the laws that are in place now, it’s a constant struggle to balance security with privacy. Privacy laws should be revised completely in order to create a better happy medium between security and privacy. A common misconception of most is that a happy medium of privacy and security is impossible to achieve. However, as well-said by Daniel Solove, “Protecting privacy doesn’t need to mean scuttling a security measure. 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”)
Cyber security is like trying to box while being blindfolded.. Cyber instability may cause massive panic in citizens of the United States. Government surveillance is one of the platforms of cyber security and it started to erupt after the 9/11 incident. The main ways the government watches people today is with cell phone, social media, and email surveillance. Should they be able to invade our privacy? Maybe. Many crimes are committed on computers everyday whether it be credit card hacks, stolen identities, or even social media accounts taken. Cyber attacks may lead people to distrust the cyber community and the people behind cyber protection.
James Madison once said “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” To gain a better understanding of a society, one must gain knowledge of the needs and wants the citizens’ demand from the country’s representatives. In every country the needed to protect its citizens is the same. In some nations, security is a higher priority which causes sacrifices to be made to obtain an indefinite protection against all rivals. In Peter Singer’s essay titled “Visible Man: Ethics in a World without Secrets” he states that there is a way that governments can collect information by using technology; to allow more ‘openness’ and exposure as an increase of unknown surveillance that the public is not aware of. Singer’s essay also talks about how also with the rise of secrecy within politics; organizations such as ‘WikiLeaks’ and ‘Anonymous’ reveal to the world what is really going on within their privacy. Benefits come from both sides in a world where surveillance exists to the highest priority with or without privacy.
Society has become ever-increasingly dependent upon technology, more specifically, computers to conduct personal and business transactions and communications. Consequently, criminals have targeted these systems to conduct information and cyber warfare, which can include politically motivated attacks and to profit through ill-gotten means. In an article written by Koblentz and Mazanec (2013), cyber warfare is the act of disabling an enemy’s ability to use or obtain information, degrade its ability to make decisions, and to command its military forces. Additionally, information warfare is composed of cyber warfare and related to the protection, disruption, destruction, denial, or manipulation of information in order to gain a benefit through the technologies (Taddeo, 2012). Accordingly, as technology becomes readily available to various entities, the ability to conduct or perform warfare through technological means is multiplying.
In recent years, many possible plans to enact government regulation to improve cybersecurity have been suggested. Most recently, in 2017, then U.S. president Barack Obama implemented the Cybersecurity National Action Plan (CNAP). The plan would have invested $19 billion in cybersecurity by gathering experts to make recommendations in regards to cyber security, help secure the government IT group, and encourage more advanced security measures (Daniel 1). However, while CNAP does present a way to solve the problem, it just adds another program that attempts to enhance cybersecurity: “It is the multiplicity of programs and division of responsibility that diminishes their effectiveness. At least eleven federal agencies bear significant responsibility for cybersecurity” (Cohen 1). Every so often, another cybersecurity program will be established, but former plans are seldom removed. This leads to a large amount of departments to share responsibility, which creates general confusion and limits each department’s power. Furthermore, widespread government regulation may weaken cybersecurity. Many fear that any regulation would not be flexible enough and would instead allow easier hacking (Ridge 3). If every system in the entire nation had the same security measures, it would be much easier to break into as by breaking into one system, a hacker a could break into everything.
The nation has become dependent on technology, furthermore, cyberspace. It’s encompassed in everything we deliver in our daily lives, our phones, internet, communication, purchases, entertainment, flying airplane, launching missiles, operating nuclear plants, and implicitly, our protection. The more ever-growing technology empower Americans, the more they become prey to cyber threats. The United States Executive Office of the President stated, “The President identified cybersecurity as one of the top priorities of his administration in doing so, directed a 60-day review to assess polices.” (United States Executive Office of the President, 2009, p.2). Furthermore, critical infrastructure, our network, and internet alike are identified as national assets upon which the administration will orchestrate integrated cybersecurity policies without infringing upon and protecting privacy. While protecting our infrastructure, personal privacy, and civil liberties, we have to keep in mind the private sector owns and operates the majority of our critical and digital infrastructure.
McGuffin, Chris, and Paul Mitchell. “On domains: cyber and the practice of warfare.” International Journal 69.3 (2014): 394+. Academic OneFile. Web. 5 Oct. 2015.