Governments, organizations and people have been circling around the use of encryption technology since the late 1960s when “...businesses started to use computers to share and store information in digital form...” (Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, 2016, P. 4, para. 2). Encryption is “...the process of scrambling or enciphering data so it can be read only by someone with the means to return it to its original state” (Internet Society, 2016, p. 1, para. 2). The ability to “scramble” or protect data from being read without authorization highlights the importance of encryption to the world. The new technology for protecting information was initially utilized by governments (Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, …show more content…
John Stuart Mill would evaluate the moral nature of each side of the conflict through the lens of which would fulfill the “Greatest Happiness Principle” which dictates that an act is morally right only if it maximizes the greatest amount of happiness while reducing pain for the greatest amount of people (Mill, 2001, Chapter 2, p. 10). Mill’s position would be that the NSA’s Clipper Chip, introduced in 1993, and the current demands by government to require technology companies, like Apple, Google and Microsoft, to include electronic backdoors in certain software and hardware is morally wrong. Allowing “law enforcement authorities access to all encrypted data communications” (Spinello, 2017, p. 219, para. 1) violates the individual liberty and privacy of every user in addition to creating a mistrust of government. There would be an erosion of the Free Speech of citizens and rights would be reduced. The question becomes, whether citizens have a right to communicate without worry of surveillance? Is it not the case that if people are all being “watched” they would lose liberty for fear of being watched? As such, would this not create a society of no freedom because people would regulate and/or change their behavior so as not to express their true feelings? Essentially, this would quiet dissent which results in loss of freedom which …show more content…
A backdoor would make society vulnerable for the benefit of government. The power gained from this form of unrestricted access could present society with a bigger dilemma, because everyone’s information would be exposed. The unrestricted access would not be limited to only U.S. citizens as Internet communication and online activity is a global, which opens the door to surveillance of foreign citizens, including the opportunity to spy on foreign allies, which could result in global mistrust of the U.S. government. In addition, the damage to corporate reputation, trust and revenue would result in a negative economic impact on our
In today's society with the increased use of computers, internet, and wireless communications, the need for safety and security has risen dramatically. The internet has become the number one communication medium and is more accessible than ever. Through the internet, vast amount of information is being transmitted between computers. At times, some of the information transmitted can be intercepted illegally, such as personal information and private messages. The percentage of information that is illegally intercepted has been dramatically reduced due to the use of encryption software technology, which was once used by the United States military and government. This technology has given businesses and private users the sense of security in transmitting information through the internet as well as to maintain national security. The use of encryption has been a topic of discussion for the past 20 years. The U.S government has attempted several times to regulate encryption because they felt that it was a matter of national security that they should have control of the technology and protect us from vulnerability if software is shared or sold to other countries. The effort of encryption regulation by the U.S. was unsuccessful and today there are least restrictions on the use and export of encryption technology. The introduction of encryption regulation in the United States has made a global impact. Other countries, such as China, Russia, and others around the world, have implemented encryption regulations to due to the influence of the U.S. but have restrictions that are far more stringent and harsh. The strong regulations by these countries are creating conflict among private users and foreign companies that export encryption software to these countries. This argument and debate continues between the government, businesses, and encryption companies. The question is should the government have the right to monitor and regulate encryption and what ethical questions does it raise?
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.
In early June 2013, Edward Snowden, a 29-year-old former defense contractor who had access to NSA database while working for an intelligence consulting company, leaked classified documents reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) is recording phone calls of millions of Americans along with gathering private data and spying foreign Internet activity. The Washington Post later broke the news disclosed PRISM, a program can collect data on Internet users. The leaked documents publicly stated a vast objection. Many people were shocked by the scale of the programs, even elected representatives were unaware of the surveillance range. A nationwide debate over privacy rights have been sparked. Although supporters claim that the NSA only does its best to protect the United States from terrorists as well as respecting Americans' rights and privacy, many civil rights advocates feel that the government failed to be clear about the limit of the surveillance programs, threatening Americans' civil...
The critical issue that needs to be addressed in the argument for or against the use of public surveillance system in the USA is which one takes precedence, viz, whether safety of the public and property at large or the invasion of the rights of the individuals who are subjected to some sort of interference in their privacy. In other words, does a citizen have an unfettered right to privacy even when it comes to issues relating to the enforcement of law in prevention of terrorist attacks, crime and restoring security and peace of the citizens at large? I propose to argue in this paper in favor of the need for public surveillance system by advancing the reasons for its imperative and take the view that it does not amount to prima facie violation of individuals' rights and in contravention to the rights guaranteed under the constitution...
"Free societies turn their backs on privacy at their own risk, for privacy is one of the fundamental human rights from which all other human rights are derived, (C)." If you take away individual rights like privacy, there would be no way to tell if someone is listening in on your conversation or watching you. For instance, document C states that "people can't have honest discussions with one another if they think their words are being overheard. The freedom that allows Americans to have their own opinions would be taken away because if people can not trust anything, they will say what everyone else is saying and do whatever everyone else is doing. There would be no individuality and everyone's identity would be
People are exposed severally on the government gallery, and they are little things they can always do to protect them from such. Unregulated surveillance could in a greater manner strip individuals of their privacy rights, and by addition, restrict coming together of people, organizations and in such a comprehensive way that could vindicate us back to the most grievous errors in history swinging back to the present day (Boghosian 89). People, non-governmental institutions are living under such oppressive realms but cannot clearly articulate their concerns and issues that affect the society for fear of state cameras (Song
...t those laws and regulations should do make citizens uncomfortable with the fact that they are being watched 24/7. Therefore, the government should find a type of way to implement systems that will keep an eye on people’s actions but their systems should not be extreme and look at every single movement they make.
Throughout many years in the United States, there has been controversy over whether or not government surveillance and other technology is a violation of human rights. Ever since the publication of George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, there has been an increase in debates on the subject. The novel itself exemplifies what a surveillance-based society is like, providing the reader with a point of view of what could happen to their own society. Discussion over the usage of information that the government has gathered has become one of the foremost topics being analyzed to this day. The information that is being viewed by surveillance would otherwise be private, or information that people would not want to be leaked out. Therefore, surveillance executed by the government and companies has become an infringement to the right of privacy, and United States citizens should take actions upon it before the world reflects the Orwellian vision of the future.
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”)
The computer is considered one of the most important technological advances of the twentieth century. Security and privacy issues have been in existence long before the computer became a vital component of organizations' operations. Nevertheless, the operating features of a computer make it a double-edged sword. Computer technologies with reliable error detection and recording capabilities, permit the invasion of a supposedly secure environment to occur on a grand scale and go undetected. Furthermore, computer and communications technology permit the invasion of a persons' privacy and likewise go undetected. Two forces threaten privacy: one, the growth of information technology with its enhanced capacity for surveillance, communication, computation, storage and retrieval and two, the more insidious threat, the increased value of information in decision making. Information has become more vital in the competitive environment, thus, decision makers covet it even if it viol!
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.
Nearly every major international agreement on human rights protects the right of individuals to be free from unwarranted surveillance. This guarantee has trickled down into national constitutional or legal provisions, protecting the privacy of communications.
For thousands of years cryptography and encryption have been used to secure communication. Military communication has been the leader of the use of cryptography and the advancements. From the start of the internet there has been a greater need for the use of cryptography. The computer had been invented in the late 1960s but there was not a widespread market for the use of computers really until the late 1980s, where the World Wide Web was invented in 1989. This new method of communication has called for a large need for information security. The internet allows people to communicate sensitive information, and if received into the wrong hands can cause many problems for that person.
Today, society is affected by the many advances in technology. These advances affect almost every person in the world. One of the prevalent advances in technology was the invention and mass use of the Internet. Today more than ever, people around the world use the Internet to support their personal and business tasks on a daily basis. The Internet is a portal into vast amounts of information concerning almost every aspect of life including education, business, politics, entertainment, social networking, and world security. (idebate.com) Although the Internet has become a key resource in developing the world, the mass use of Internet has highlighted a major problem, privacy and the protection of individual, corporate, and even government security . The argument over whether or not the Internet should be controlled by the government has developed into a controversial issue in almost every country in the world.
Internet technology is accelerating the rate of globalization. Email, in particular, is now one of the fastest ways for us to communicate with each other, and to do business, making our world much smaller and more immediate. This same technology that can enhance our lives and accelerates the pace of global change can also destroy our personal privacy at the same rate.