Introduction
The digital age has revolutionized totally how interactions between human beings occur. Traditionally, human interaction often occurred only in social settings such as schools, workplaces, libraries, eateries, etc. However, through online communication, human interaction has been reorganized in the sense that a techno-cultural virtual world has been created that facilitates the possibility of anonymous relationships. Online communication as facilitated by the internet, has also afforded many benefits to the end user in terms of how services are provided by organizations and governments alike. It is very easy to access crucial government information, read about new laws that are been created, and, most of all, express one’s opinion regarding a particular matter. This is primarily why many commentators see the internet as a key contributor to the freedom of expression and the dissemination of information. However, while it is necessary to view technological innovations positively, they are, nonetheless, exposed to double standards and as such, are likely to have their negative side too. The purpose of this paper is to critically analyze the effects of surveillance on human online communication.
Review of Literature
Reporters Without Borders (2014) present a detailed list of some of the institutions worldwide that are involved in communications surveillance of citizens or online users within their countries. Their report is titled “Enemies if the Internet” and seeks to inform the reader of the fact that it is not the entire government apparatus that is responsible for internet surveillance, rather small distinct entities. They include the National Security Agency (NSA), The Syria Computer Society (SCS), Department 27 ...
... middle of paper ...
...html
Rodriguez, K. (2013). Internet Surveillance and Free Speech: the United Nations Makes the Connection. Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). Accessed on 25th June, 2014 from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/06/internet-and-surveillance-UN-makes-the-connection
Reporters Without Borders. (2014). Enemies of the Internet. RWB. Accessed on 25th June, 2014 from http://12mars.rsf.org/wp-content/uploads/EN_RAPPORT_INTERNET_BD.pdf
The United Nations Human Rights Council. (2013). Impact of State Surveillance on Privacy and Freedom of Expression. UNHRC. Accessed on 25th June, 2014 from https://info.publicintelligence.net/UN-StateSurveillancePrivacy.pdf
Wu, T., Chung, J., Yamat, J., & Richman, J. (2014). The Ethics of Surveillance. Stanford University. Accessed on 25th June, 2014 from http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs181/projects/ethics-of-surveillance/ethics.html
Communication surveillance has been a controversial issue in the US since the 1920's, when the Supreme Court deemed unwarranted wiretaps legitimate in the case of Olmstead v United States. Since telephone wires ran over public grounds, and the property of Olmstead was not physically violated, the wiretap was upheld as lawful. However, the Supreme Court overturned this ruling in 1967 in the landmark case of Katz v United States. On the basis of the fourth amendment, the court established that individuals have the right to privacy of communication, and that wiretapping is unconstitutional unless it is authorized by a search warrant. [Bowyer, 142-143] Since then, the right to communication privacy has become accepted as an integral facet of the American deontological code of ethics. The FBI has made an at least perfunctory effort to respect the public's demand for Internet privacy with its new Internet surveillance system, Carnivore. However, the current implementation of Carnivore unnecessarily jeopardizes the privacy of innocent individuals.
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.
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...
The government is always watching to ensure safety of their country, including everything and everyone in it. Camera surveillance has become an accepted and almost expected addition to modern safety and crime prevention (“Where” para 1). Many people willingly give authorization to companies like Google and Facebook to make billions selling their personal preferences, interests, and data. Canada participates with the United States and other countries in monitoring national and even global communications (“Where” para 2). Many question the usefulness of this kind of surveillance (Hier, Let, and Walby 1).However, surveillance, used non-discriminatorily, is, arguably, the key technology to preventing terrorist plots (Eijkman 1). Government surveillance is a rising global controversy; and, although minimal coverage could possibly result in safer communities, too much surveillance will result in the violation of citizen’s privacy.
Andrew Guthrie Ferguson thinks that people should be able to choose what areas they want to be secure from “physical and sense-enhancing invasion.” Another scholar, Joel Reidenbuerg, believes that current views of privacy do not fit well with the current technology, instead surveillance is dependent on “the nature of the acts being surveilled.” One more scholar, Chris Slobogin, believes that “the justification for a search should be roughly proportional to the intrusiveness of the search” (Hartzog, 2015). Point is, legal issues surrounding government surveillance is a complex topic without a perfect all-encompassing solution; each situation is different and should be treated
In 1948, George Orwell wrote about a society in which individual privacy was nonexistent. In this society, which he imagined would become a reality in the 1980s, surveillance was foremost. Everything one did was under surveillance by “Big Brother”, an unseen figure who was always watching you. Surveillance in this society was imposed and malicious. Although this type of society has never fully become a reality in the Western world, changes in technology and media are indirectly bringing this imagined society, one of complete surveillance, to life. With the rise in corporate business and commercialism, surveillance in society increasing; however, new media has brought about a significant shift in its use. In the 20th century, surveillance was primarily used for “protective measures”, as Orwell had imagined. In the 21st century, there has been a rise in its use for commercialism. This essay will critically analyze the developments in new media that have contributed to this shift, as well as explain the reason for the ubiquitous nature of surveillance in today’s western society. To aid with this analysis, surveillance will hereby be defined as a “focused, systematic, and routine attention to personal details for purposes of influence, management, protection or direction” (Lyon 2007:14).
“Human beings are not meant to lose their anonymity and privacy,” Sarah Chalke. When using the web, web users’ information tend to be easily accessible to government officials or hackers. In Nicholas Carr’s “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty,” Jim Harpers’ “Web Users Get As Much As They Give,” and Lori Andrews “Facebook is Using You” the topic of internet tracking stirred up many mixed views; however, some form of compromise can be reached on this issue, laws that enforces companies to inform the public on what personal information is being taken, creating advisements on social media about how web users can be more cautious to what kind of information they give out online, enabling your privacy settings and programs, eliminating weblining,
Part of the allure of the Internet has always been the anonymity it offers its users. As the Internet has grown however, causing capitalists and governments to enter the picture, the old rules are changing fast. E-commerce firms employ the latest technologies to track minute details on customer behavior. The FBI's Carnivore email-tracking system is being increasingly used to infringe on the privacy of netizens. Corporations now monitor their employees' web and email usage. In addition to these privacy infringements, Internet users are also having their use censored, as governments, corporations, and other institutions block access to certain sites. However, as technology can be used to wage war on personal freedoms, it can also be employed in the fight against censorship and invasion of privacy.
Taylor, James Stacey. "In Praise of Big Brother: Why We Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Government Surveillance." Public Affairs Quarterly July 2005: 227-246.
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.
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.
However, government agencies, especially in America, continue to lobby for increased surveillance capabilities, particularly as technologies change and move in the direction of social media. Communications surveillance has extended to Internet and digital communications. law enforcement agencies, like the NSA, have required internet providers and telecommunications companies to monitor users’ traffic. Many of these activities are performed under ambiguous legal basis and remain unknown to the general public, although the media’s recent preoccupation with these surveillance and privacy issues is a setting a trending agenda.
With continuing revelations of government surveillance, much has been said about the “trade-off” between privacy and security and finding the “right balance” between the two. As Michael Lynch, a professor of philosophy at the University of Connecticut, wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times, “this way of framing the issue makes sense if [one] understand[s] privacy solely as a political or legal concept.” In this context, the loss of privacy might seem to be a small price to pay to ensure one's safety. However, the relevance of privacy extends far beyond the political and legal sphere. Privacy – or the lack thereof – affects all aspects of one's life; it is a state of human experience.
The Internet provides a gateway for an individual to speak freely and anonymously without being targeted to what he or she said. With this said, one of the biggest issues concerning the Internet today is freedom of speech. The issue of free speech on the Internet has been a topic of discussion around the world within the past years. It is a unique communication medium and is powerful than the traditional media[2]. Because the Internet can not be compared equally to other mediums of communication, it deserves the utmost freedom of speech protection from the government. The restriction of speech on the Internet takes away from individual's rights and freedom from experiencing the Internet's benefits and uses. Information found on the Internet is endless and boundless and this poses the question, "should the government be allowed to regulate the information and content being transmitted or posted online?"
The Internet along with other technologies has opened channels of communication. Not only has the Internet played a great role in forming international public opinions regarding the United States throughout the Middle East, Asia, and Western Europe, but it has also helped to democratize the rest of the world by allowing them to voice their own opinions. However, sometimes the incited cyber public opinions would lead to some extremely negative behaviors and cause serious problems like cyber bullying, real life crimes, and even a long time social unrest.