We Don't Need Laws to Regulate Encryption Technology
"It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized" (1984, Orwell 6). Government shouldn't require in all encryption devices a trapdoor feature that would allow immediate decoding of any message by law-enforcement officials.
To begin, the trapdoor feature would be a major disadvantage to U.S. technological companies. The cost to produce technologies comparable to these of other countries would increase with compensation for the extra parts and labor. Consequently, consumers would be more likely to purchase the cheaper products from other countries. Time and money would have to be spent on developing products to meet strict regulations. Thus, less of the focus could be utilized to improve product design. Foreign countries might develop a ...
I thought the first few chapters of 1984 were a bit ridiculous. In what world would a government ever act like that and get away with it? It's just way too extreme. But as I continued reading I realised that the government is doing some of these things already, even if it’s in a subtle way. One major example of this is internet spying. In the past few months there have been several controversies surrounding governments using the internet to spy on business, organizations, individuals and even civilians of their own nations. One recent example of this is the case of Edward Snowden, a former technician for the Natio...
Is Big Brother watching our every computer move? Is the government (FBI, specifically) reading and filtering our email and where we go on the web? According to the critics of the FBI’s new CARNIVORE program, the answer is a resounding “yes”. However, according to FBI spokesperson John Collingwood (in a letter to the LA Times on August 7, 2000), CARNIVORE is not a government-backed spy program to invade the privacy of US citizens--it is an effective weapon (similar to phone taps) in the war against crime.
One of the big advantages of using technology in monitoring people lives, is keeping them safe and secured. While some people argue that it’s not the governments right to interfere in their privacy, they will appreciate the government act when the walk in the middle of the night, knowing that they
Domestic Surveillance: Is domestic surveillance worth the hassle? In 2013, whistleblower Edward Snowden revealed to the American people that the National Security Agency had been spying on them. Not only that, but also on world leaders. Domestic surveillance is understood as the first line of defense against terrorism, but it has many downsides, not only it violates Americans lives, also it spies on our social media, it puts a fine line on their privacy, and it is a big stab at the freedom of speech. According to John W. Whitehead, “The fact that the government can now, at any time, access entire phone conversations, e-mail exchanges, and other communications from months or years past should frighten every American.”
As technology allows for the constant possibility that someone might always be watching you — whether it’s the government, your friends, or
It is the desire of the United States to preserve the technological superiority that we have enjoyed for so long. After all, if no other nation equals our level of technology, then it greatly reduces any threat from another nation simply because we can counter anything they may threaten us with. However, if it is not possible to retain such a lead in technology (and it is not, at least not for long), then it becomes necessary to retain the ability to deal with all subsequent security threats in an efficient manner. Smith advocated, and the United States has implemented, the use of export barriers to make sure that crucial goods or intelligence vital to national security does not leave the country or fall into the hands of our enemies.
In 2007, the NSA started a program called PRISM, where they can request information from large companies such as Google, Yahoo, Facebook, Microsoft, and Apple without probable cause. This program reduces our freedom and privacy (largely), but by doing so, the NSA is keeping us safe from terrorists and many more threats. In 1984, the government had posters of Big Brother on every wall, on coins and virtually everywhere you look. Also, there are telescreens in the workplace, in the streets, in the cafeteria, and in peoples homes. As stated in 1984, “Nothing is your own except the few cubic centimeters inside your skull” (Orwell 24).There is no escape. These telescreens are constantly watching you and “at any rate, they could plug into your wire,” (2). However, in 1984, the government is surveilling the people for a completely different reason. They want to stay in control and don’t want people to rebel. But nowadays, the heavy surveillance is for counter-terrorism and protecting the people. For that, I am willing to give up a small amount of my freedom. But, in 1984 giving up your freedom means giving up your freedom of choice, way of life, and basic inalienable
As our society is constantly improving and inventing new things our government is also keeping a closer and closer eye on us. An example would be the NSA or National Security Agency exists which can tap into our phones and see and hear all of our conversations. I believe if not now but in a few years with our technology advancing we will be like Big Brother in 1984 by George Orwell.
“In the 1700s, English churchmen began to be interested by liberal religion, while in America two ministers had been preaching subjects considered heretical at the time, including the unity of God. Englishman Joseph Priestley, head of a group that would later call themselves Unitarians, fled across the Atlantic to America after repeated threats against his life. Many others remained in England in varying levels of secrecy to continue practicing and discussing the tenets of Unitarian faith.” (The History of the Unitarian Church, 2002)
The U.S. industries have been outsourcing manufacturing for several decades now. U.S. companies thought they were reducing costs by outsourcing development, manufacturing, and process-engineering abilities. Consequently, U.S. corporations’ knowledge, skilled workers, and supply chain, which are the necessities to producing advanced products, have vanished. For example, almost all notebook computers, cell phones, and handheld devices, which were once created in the U.S., are now designed in Asia. When a major U.S. company outsource, it pressures their rivals to do the same thing. They also lose the expertise of process engineering, which would interact with manufacturing on a daily basis. Minor companies and skilled workers go to where the jobs and knowledge networks are no matter where they are geographically in the world. This decline of trade in the U.S. has caused a negative chain reaction to their suppliers of sophisticated materials, tools, production equipment, and components. U.S. industries do not have a way of coming up with new ideas for the next generation of high-tech products...
Although they can be easily tracked, people overlook the invasion of privacy possibility because of the convenience they bring to every day life. Systems like OnStar installed in cars have made the tracking of stolen cars practically effortless. Similar tools are being used by law enforcement, Penenberg stated “cell phones have become the digital equivalent of Hansel and Gretel’s bread crumbs” (472). He then goes on to discuss how in Britain in 1996, authorities installed 300 cameras in East London. Although this didn’t affect the terrorism, it did affect the crime rate which fell 30 percent after the cameras were put into place. Penenberg closes his essay by mentioning that the surveillance is not only used to watch the citizens but also for citizens to keep an eye on the government. Through his organization, relevant information, and professional tone, Penenberg creates an effective
Civil liberties is a term coined by the United States that guarantees certain rights to the people by the Bill of Rights. Although the Right to Privacy is not officially enumerated into the Constitution, the Supreme Court ruled that citizens do in fact, have the right to their own privacy in their own home and their own beliefs. Privacy rights are an essential part of everyday American lives, in that everyone should be given the right to do whatever they want to do in privacy without anyone judging them or knowing what they have done. The right to privacy can also be considered jeopardizing to society because if someone is doing everything privately, including planning some sort of abomination or is doing something illegal, and the police does not find out, it can cause some serious damage to the society. The Patriot Act was enacted after 9-11 to ensure security among the nation. By doing so, the United States implemented strategies in protecting the people, such as decrease privacy rights that were “given” to the people. Also, in today’s society, iphones have an a setting in which the phone can track your location and so-call “help” you do whatever you need the phone to do. According to the Usatoday’s article, location services through GPS coordinates one’s online post and photos, in that one does not even know they are exposing their private lives to the online world. Although, The right to privacy plays an important role in keeping everyday Americans the will to do whatever they want in private, it may cause potential trouble in keeping everything a secret, even illegal actions.
The emergence of new and innovative technology can be used in many deceitful or secretive ways by law enforcement agencies to convict a suspect. The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights has had a large influence in regulating the ways that law enforcement agencies may use technology against the everyday citizen. Technology can be used to obtain information on an individual without the individual being aware of the invasion of their privacy: e-mail accounts can be hacked, IP addresses can be traced, phones can be tapped and tracked, cars can be bugged.
There is a litany of problems with wiretapping, regardless if it is at a private or governmental level. One is the failure of the algorithms used to filter out potential threats while wiretapping. These can create false positives that incriminate someone who is otherwise innocent. In the ehow article “Cons of Wiretapping” by Tom Lutzenberger, one example is a criminal using someone’s Wi-Fi that is unrestricted to commit various cybercrimes via the internet. Obviously, that scenario could’ve been avoided if a simple password was set on that Wi-Fi. Also, “multiple communications can travel through the same monitoring point” (Cons of Wiretapping, ehow.com). This can lead to non-targets being unintentionally spied on. This shouldn’t be a problem to begin with. All communications should be secure and not vulnerable to prying eyes. It seems as privacy is slowly withering away in this new digital age, with governments spying freely, and everyone’s personal data being up for grabs and easily exploited.
We say that we are heading toward a more global economy because of the fact that competition in today’s markets is global. This means that corporations in the United States can compete in foreign markets and vice versa, therefore U.S. corporations and foreign corporations become interdependent and thrive off each other. This can have a good impact on the United States because it allows U.S. corporations to seek materials and labor outside of the U.S. in countries such as China, India, and Mexico, where workers are paid a lot less money than U.S. workers, thus allowing them to sell their products for significantly cheaper than if they were produced in the U.S.; however, the tradeoff is that many American workers in the industrial sector lose jobs due to this shift of labor to overseas. In the long run this will be beneficial for the U.S. and although some percentage of workers are losing work, new jobs in the services sector, in fields such as computer technology, telecommunications, and language skills are opening up and experiencing growth because of this change.