Pomelov 05

3/11/2015
Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs
The Limits of Privacy Post 9/11

Group Privacy Paper

Anna Pomelov
Brian Rono
Derek Williams

CST 238
March 12, 2015

1
https://docs.google.com/a/csumb.edu/document/d/18i4Fdz6Kcl__P5QCYC-CB_TxyvHAkUxNaV0jDAyUYm8/edit
1/21
3/11/2015
Introduction
Privacy is a concept that differs between individuals, such as family, cultures,
generations, regions, and politics. The definition of privacy between Anna, Derek, and Brian,
differs as well, even though we all grew up in a very technological era. We also have agreed on a
group consensus of our views of privacy.
Brians Views On Privacy
Brians definition of privacy is to have the ability to have control over what media is and
isnt shared. A user who uploads content, should have control over how it is shared. He believes
that businesses and corporations who use anonymous collected data, have no personal impact
other than for marketing analysis. In 2015, government and corporations will have access to a
large amount of data, and there is not much a user can do, except for choosing what information
they put out there.
Dereks Views On Privacy
For Derek, his definition of privacy aligns with the idea of being secure in all of your
personal information and communications regardless of how that information is stored or
transmitted. Privacy is an individual's personal responsibility to maintain. He believes that
obtaining private information about people without proper legal authorization in accordance with
the Bill of Rights of the United States should never occur under any circumstance or for any
reason. The only exception to this rule is that parents should have the right to all information
regarding their minor children or those under their legal care.
2/21
3/11/2015
Annas Views on Privacy

Based on her upbringing, Anna believes that balanced personal privacy in a family setting is very
important. There are times privacy should definitely be invaded in family settings but she grew
up with maximum privacy and a lot of trust from her parents, so that is what she believes in now.
Anna thinks that medical security should be a major priority. She also understands that in
todays world, its up to the user to make informed decisions about what to contribute on any
given platform. Anna doesnt have much of a problem with her information being used for
research purposes as long as her personal information is removed from the data.
Groups Views On Privacy
Together, we believe that privacy in todays age is lacking. People are more willing to
share their information freely without thought of recourse. Social media sites and applications
make it easier for groups of friends to share their lives publicly. However, by posting their daily
lives, they also give up their control of privacy, and believe that governments and businesses are
collecting data to use against them, when they find out information is collected.
Generational Differences
Generations have their own set of views on technology and privacy. The generations
whose childhoods werent impacted by the internet so heavily would have stricter views on what
to post online. Even parents who grew up in the 1990s, would try to reduce the amount of
information their children born in the 2000s put online. Digital natives- those who grew up
using the internet, tend to be more liberal in what they post and put out into the digital world.
In the earlier days of the internet, when widespread adoption was starting to gain
momentum, users online were more likely to share information. In fact, America Online had chat
3/21
3/11/2015
rooms for teenagers to join and converse with other teenagers online. People were more likely to
share their age, sex, and location, or ASL, online without thought of who might be on the other
side of the chat room. Now, as everyone has access to get online, the internet seems more of a
sketchy place, with information poachers trying to steal identities, stalkers getting home
addresses, etc. Parents who grew up in the 1990s are more likely to view privacy online as
restricting content posted or uploaded.
For many of Generation X, and those on the border between Generation X and the
Millennials, the middle of the 1990s marks their first experience with the Internet as we have
come to know it. It was an exciting time in terms of the possibilities such technology presented.
That being said, not too many were well versed on the inner workings of the Internet. People
didnt stop and think about what was happening with their data or that they were really even
generating data for that matter. As more people got online, security, privacy, and personal safety
became more of an issue. Through lessons learned the hard way many of those who used the
internet in the earlier days became quite cautious about what information should be offered up to
the Gods of the Internet. At the present time many of those who were there for the beginning of
the modern Internet now have children of their own. So it is with the remembrance of the hard
learned lessons that they teach their children about safety online.
Based on a survey of both Generation X and Millennials by security outfit Fortinet, both
generations were in agreement (60 percent each) that posts on social media shouldn't have the
same expectations of privacy as, say, personal emails, purchase histories, or phone audio.
(Yegalulp, 2014) Many of the younger generations feel that their parents are being restrictive or
preventing them from exercising free speech. From the parents perspective it is about teaching
4/21
3/11/2015
their children about privacy. Just as a secret is best kept between two people with no record, like
a whisper, privacy can most effectively be maintained if the information is never placed in a
space which the owner of that information doesnt fully control.
Encryption and The Government: Etzioni Chapter 3

A recent issue with privacy and the government is organizations such as the NSA are
requesting access to encryption keys in order to have blanket access to copious amounts of
personal data. Encryption makes gaining access to private data harder to obtain, and would take
more time to break. In that time, the alleged suspect would have the opportunity to carry out
whatever nefarious plan they have in place.
Although hyper-encryption greatly enhances privacy in the cyber-world, it
poses new and rather difficult barriers to public authorities as terrorists, drug
lords, pedophiles, and other criminals increasingly draw on the new forms of
encryption. (The Limits of Privacy, page 76)
The NSA has been requesting encryption keys from various companies in order to gain
access to everyones information. This is a double edged sword. If the government can use this
information to prevent a major disaster, such as a bomb, or other act of terrorism, to prevent
another September 11 style attack, would the invasion of privacy be worth the preventative
measure?
Encryption can make it impossible to obtain necessary evidence. Encryption can
frustrate communications intercepts that reveal valuable information about
intentions, plans, and memberships of criminal organizations, and generate leads
for criminal investigations. Encryption can frustrate anti-terrorism efforts.
5/21
3/11/2015
Encryption can hinder the gathering of intelligence. Encryption, oddly enough,

may lead to greater violations of privacy that would otherwise have occurred.
(The Limits of Privacy, page 79)
However, there has been no solid pattern that suggest the government having encryption
keys would foil the plans of terrorists. No one has actually held a city for ransom, threatening
that unless fellow terrorists are released, a nuclear bomb will be detonated or a biological or
chemical toxin is released. (The Limits of Privacy, page 81)
Even if the government had access to the encryption keys to various American
companies, criminals could simply purchase encryption software overseas, and the subject would
be moot. Then government would then have access to the average americans data, but would
still have the obstacles of breaking suspected criminals encrypted data. Is the invasion of
privacy now worth the little success at preventing terrorism?
Encryption is now easier to come by. In 1999, encryption was still considered new in the
digital world. Now, encryption can be obtained in various forms, from BitLocker with Windows,
FileVault included with Mac OS X, and Secure Socket Layer for various internet
communications, such as shopping, emails, etc, are also widely available for free through
companies, such as Microsoft, Apple, or Google.
These large Internet companies face the fear of government agencies trying to
obtain the SSL keys and expose information on their users. Microsoft, Google and
Facebook all said that they haven't given any SSL keys to the government, and
agreed that they would fight against doing so. (Kaiser, 2013)
6/21
3/11/2015
Companies like Google are now encrypting user data to prevent spying from the
government or other outside sources. Google is racing to encrypt the torrents of
information that flow among its data centers around the world in a bid to thwart snooping
by the National Security Agency and the intelligence agencies of foreign governments.
(Timberg, 2013)
However, in a recent interview with David J. Johnson, Special Agent in Charge of
the San Francisco Division of the FBI, has stated The threat landscape today is much
more complex than it was even a year ago. I need every tool I can get in my toolbox.
(Johnson via Steen, 2015) According to the article, its rare that the FBI will try to get
access to protect data without a court order, even with the Patriot Act in place.
In fact, with the advent of 128 bit or higher encryption, the codes become
virtually unbreakable. Previously, with a court order, law enforcement were able to break
the encryption codes. "High-power encryption has caused a major setback for law
enforcement. Even when granted a court order, public authorities simply seem unable to
implement it." (How Patriotic is the Patriot Act, page 50)
Marshall Erwin, a senior staff analyst at Mozilla and non-resident fellow at
Stanford University, however, pointed out that in several recent terrorist attacks, it has
become clear that the government had information beforehand that could have provided
a warning, if it had been properly analyzed... I think the trend line is about more data
collection and more access. (Erwin via Steen, 2015)

7/21
3/11/2015
National IDs and the False Threat: Etzioni Chapter 4

Outside of the United States, there are multiple governments that issue national
identification cards to its citizens. Some consider a national ID system would threaten
the privacy that Americans have always enjoyed and gradually increase the control that
government and business wields over everyday citizens. (ACLU, 2003)
Unlike many of its friends on the European Continent, the United States routinely
balks at the idea of a National ID system. Many in America complain that a national ID,
which would be required to gain employment or other basic necessities would encourage
discrimination and work to suppress free speech. Beyond discrimination, Etzioni points
out that ID cards are viewed by Americans as a major tool of oppressive governments;
indeed, these cards are so alien to Americans that ID cards are not considered fit for
discussion. (The Limits of Privacy, page 103).
Germany and Spain have had national ID cards for quite some time and neither
country is considered oppressive by modern standards. In some ways Germany is much
better about protecting the privacy of its citizens than the United States is. The reason
behind Germanys extreme stance on protecting personal privacy is due to its recent
history and the lessons learned from that history. Because of the country's Nazi legacy,
Germany has some of the world's strongest privacy laws. As an example, detailed phone
bills do not include the last several digits of all phone calls to protect the information on
whom a subscriber has called(Freeman ,1998). Coupled with the recent history of the
oppressive East German Government, German citizens have such vivid and recent
8/21
3/11/2015
reminders of what can go wrong when governments get too much access to the private
information of its citizenry.
As Etzioni points out in the work of Marc Rotenberg of the Electronic Privacy
Information Center, the United States is actually backwards in comparison to the
European Union in general and Germany specifically in terms of the protection of the
privacy of its citizens, Rotenberg also highlights a significant European data privacy
directive that not only establishes privacy rights and regulations covering all European
Union citizens but also forbids the exchange of personal data with countries deemed to
have insufficient privacy protections such as the United States(The Limits of Privacy,
page 137).
In the United States the main arguments against any form of mandatory national
identification cards or biometrics is that they constitute suspicionless search and therefore
violate the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United
States.The problem is that ID cards and Biometric Identification are really just the face of
the larger problem. That problem is that not only do private businesses in the United
States profit from the collection and sale of private data but that very same data is
available to anyone with the funds needed to purchase it. This includes governments both
foreign and domestic. The fears that surround many of the arguments regarding ID cards
have long ago been realized. It is that the collection of data generated online is essentially
invisible to the average user. ID cards or other forms of national identification represent
the physical embodiment of what has already happened. All that is left is for a totalitarian
government to take power and use all the information that is readily available.
9/21
3/11/2015
National ID cards have been used by multiple democracies within the European
Union to no ill effect. In fact the reduction of crime points towards the idea that they are
beneficial to modern, complex societies. It is the idea that they represent a single focal
point for all the data that comes from our daily activities that makes the nay sayers cringe
at the thought of such instruments. What they miss is that the data is already there and
each individual, through their daily actions, built the record that exists on them. It does
not matter if a card is issued or not.
The Patriot Act
Legislation like the Patriot Act is just one more brick in the wall that will become
a totalitarian regime in the United States. The adoption of the Foreign Intelligence and
Surveillance Act (FISA) and the FISA courts are where we as citizens of the United
States have further eroded the protections afforded by the Constitution and the Bill of
Rights. The common misperception of the Patriot Act is that it allows for warrantless
searches of citizens. The real problem is that the FISA court is a secret court. The
names of the judges, rulings, and all other information relating to the FISA court is
classified under the auspices of National Security. What this comes down to is essentially
the government saying trust us were the government. There is no way for the public to
know if the actions of the FISA court are truly in keeping with the law.
Medical Privacy: Etzioni Chapter 5
In the words of Etzioni, Medical privacy concerns people more than practically
all other privacy issues.(The Limits of Privacy, page 139) Perhaps this is because
virtually everyone has medical records, which cannot be said about other privacy issues.
10
10/21
3/11/2015
Even though medical privacy affects almost everybody, legislation that protects medical
information has been blocked for two decades because groups like insurance companies
oppose it and claim that private sectors can protect peoples privacy on their own.
On page 140 Etzioni outlines some cases in which medical privacy was invaded illegally
or against policy by individuals, causing adverse consequences. He calls these kind of attacks
unauthorized use. An example includes, a rapist employee getting ahold of thousands of phone
numbers and obscenely contacting young girls. Another incident occurred in Florida when a state
health department employee collected the names of thousands of HIV positive people and
forwarded the names to the health department and two newspapers for publication. Etzioni
admits that these unauthorized use attacks are scary, but he claims they are nothing compared
to authorized abuse.
Etzioni says that the largest violations of medical privacy are the ones that are legally
sanctioned or tolerated. Some health insurance companies openly give information to company
employers. Then the employers use that information against future and current employees. It is
also known that companies who provide their employees with insurance often delve into the
workers information without their knowledge.
Etzioni even claims that people get discriminated against because of their predisposed
conditions, even if they dont have any current symptoms. He says that many people are known
to be denied jobs and insurance just because of their family medical histories.
In one case study, 30 percent of eligible women refused to undergo genetic testing for the
breast cancer gene in fear of their genetic privacy being violated. This just shows how the fear of
privacy violation can actually affect someones health. Those women will never know if they
11
11/21
3/11/2015
have the gene and if they can somehow prevent breast cancer. A.G. Breitenstein, director of the
Health Law Institute, made the point that less people will be willing to seek a doctors assistance
for the fear that their medical information wont be safe and it will be known to employers that
they had an STD or a mental condition or such.
One terrifying fact is explained in this quote from the book: Pharmaceutical companies
have obtained medical records to discover which prescription drugs individuals are using and
which physicians are prescribing them so that they can solicit the physicians to prescribe their
drugs. This is completely unethical. How am I supposed to know that my doctor is honestly
prescribing the best medication for me instead of some new or subpar medication that the doctor
was told to market that might end up harming me? Apparently, These companies also obtain
patient lists and medical information from pharmacists in order to advertise prescription drugs
directly to select patients. This includes sending out emails reminding people to refill their
prescriptions and advertising things that relate to their conditions. These methods are similar to
that which Tancer deals with in Click. The data these companies obtain is used for advertising
and making money, not so much for the safety of the citizens or for the greater good, as the U.S.
government would use it.
Bill Tancers Click and Hitwise Data
The difference between government having access to consumers data, and businesses
access to their users data is how the data is used. Bill Tancer, author of Click, is head of
research at a company called Hitwise. More than 10 million Internet users in the United States
[has their data] anonymized and aggregated... in a massive database every day. (Click, Page 10)
He analyses the huge amounts of data concerning millions of peoples online searches. He often
12
12/21
3/11/2015
gets asked about the privacy of all these users. How can so much data ever be private? Tancer
says that the companies that send the data over to the Hitwise system make the data anonymous
and untraceable. Also all personal information is scrubbed from the data to keep it private. But
ultimately, Tancer says that Hitwise is not interested in knowing whose data belongs to who.
They are just interested in patterns and information that the data brings with it.
Traditional methods of gauging consumer trends and interests would be to write
or phone individuals or families. The issues with the old method is the accuracy of the
responses given, if any have participated. First, the traditional methods are opt in, as in
the consumer could respond to the letter, or actually take time out of their day to respond
to that pesky phone call at dinner time. Second, the accuracy of the responses are
questionable. Responses could be guesses based on past patterns, or complete lies.
Marketing analysis firms such as Hitwise collect its data from hard information,
such as internet searches, following clicked links from site to site, and following what
users are placing in online shopping carts. Data collection through anonymous tracking is
more reliable and consistent when removing human error or inaccuracies, and is therefore
more marketable and profitable to use.
Privacy Post 9/11
These issues of data collection have been stable and consistent across the world since the
birth of record keeping. On the contrary, technology has certainly shifted, gown, and advanced
since September 11th, 2001. Looking at the history of the modern Internet, we see that it really
started to gain widespread public acceptance and use in the middle to late 1990s. At best, we as
the average citizens of the United States have been using the modern Internet for approximately
13
13/21
3/11/2015
6 years prior to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Social media websites like Myspace, Facebook and
Twitter did not exist at the time. The level of personally identifiable and private information on
the internet was no where near the levels we see and accept as normal today.
What that means is that 9/11 and the changes to American law that restricted some
freedoms werent made with the modern use of the Internet and social media in mind. What did
happen in terms of technology was that the government and law enforcement were able to adapt
policy and procedures to modern technology. Prior to 9/11 it was tedious and time consuming for
any law enforcement agency to be able to wiretap email accounts and communication systems
that were based on the technologies of the Internet. As Etzioni points out in How Patriotic is the
Patriot Act,
Before September 11, 2001, the regulations that allowed public authorities to
record or trace E-mail were interpreted by the Department of Justice lawyers as
requiring court orders from several jurisdictions through which e-mail messages
travel. This was the case because in the old days phone lines were local and
hence to tap a phone local authorization sufficed. In contrast, e-mail messages
zoom by a variety of routes. (How Patriotic is the Patriot Act, page 29)
Some see this as an affront to personal privacy but realistically all that has
happened as a direct result of the Patriot Act in terms of digital privacy is that the
government has reworked wiretapping laws to fit modern methods of communication.
Many of the issues we are now facing in terms of digital privacy rights are issues that
have existed since the 1986 Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). With the
advent of the 1986 ECPA the previously existing wiretapping laws were extended to
14
14/21
3/11/2015
include electronic communications, including e-mail. So in terms of pre and post 9/11,
not much has changed in terms of expectations of privacy in regards to e-mail.
Cultural Differences
Privacy has had a long run in becoming what it is today in the United States. Long before
any concept of digital privacy, even human bodily privacy was obsolete. Just as animals have no
concept of privacy, the further back into human history we go, the less importance on privacy we
seem to see. From family members and guests sharing beds, citizen mail being opened, the
governments inspecting households for appropriate moral conduct in 1600 America, the whole
world has been evolving its sense of privacy in thousands of different directions for thousands of
years.
Christianity and Privacy
One set of cultural norms we chose to focus on are those instilled in Christianity. Back
when the origins of Christianity were first developing, privacy was a matter of life and death for
the early believers, since Romans saw them as a threat and enemy. A form of public
entertainment was throwing Christians to the lions. To keep safe, early Christians worshiped in
secret and hid any religious paraphernalia. In addition, it was most common that families were
living in close quarters. If people werent being monitored by the government, they were
certainly being monitored at home by one another. When intrusiveness from the government was
lacking, there was plenty from your own family and neighbors to go around. News and gossip
would travel quickly which in turn would contribute to low expectations of privacy.
It is the nature of the Christian Gospel that law is powerless to guide people to do the
right thing. Christians believe that legislation is not a sufficient solution to many problems. A
15
15/21
3/11/2015
Christian pastor would likely believe that privacy legislation would not be sufficient to keep
anyone from invading the privacy of others. Instead, only instilled Christian values can
sufficiently teach people to make the right decisions in life.
Buddhism and Privacy
Another culture we chose to focus on are the teachings surrounding the Buddhist
Dharma. A major Buddhist belief is that wealth does not equate to happiness and that wealth is
never permanent. Buddhists value spiritual wealth, but do not reject the possibility of
opportunities for success. This is why we think that a Buddhist would probably not be too keen
on the idea of collecting mass amounts of data from people for the sole purpose of making
money, like what is described in Click.
Buddhists, however, are embracing technology. Rather than let technology take over
their traditions and lives, they use technology to improve their lives. If we remain mindful of
our principles and priorities, just as we do in meditation, we can use technology to awaken our
discipline and dignity, instead of letting it take over our lives. (Rinpoche, 2013) By using
technology in a respectful manner, Buddhists carry their ideals of the five basic parameters of
karma: raising the intention, deciding to do the action, preparing to do the action, doing the
action and having no regret.
Islam and Privacy
An article called Islam, the Internet and Privacy, on Economist.com, outlines some
interesting ideas about what privacy means to some Muslims. One particular blogger was quoted
saying that he was raised believing that any phone conversation he had could be intercepted at
any moment. This is most likely a fairly recent governmental initiative, since such provisions
16
16/21
3/11/2015
couldnt have been outlined in the beginnings of Islam. Intercepted phone calls are not
something many Americans worry about. We have an expectation for the ability to talk freely on
the phone without being monitored, which isnt a luxury some places around the world.
To contrast, some verses in the Holy Quran directly address privacy issues. Some of these
include, Do not spy on one another, and Do not enter any house except your own homes
unless you are sure of their occupants consent.
Turkish Directorate for Religious Affairs has announced, It is improper in religion for a
person to expose their privacy on virtual platforms and share it with other people. This pretty
much means that sharing ones photos goes against the beliefs of Islam. He clears up that the use
of technology is appropriate, but Muslims should remember that Islamic values should be a
priority. Some thinkers in Turkey support this idea and some oppose.
Conclusion
Privacy is the concept of having control of ones information and thoughts. Before the
internet, it was as simple as burning documents, whispering a secret, or just talking without fear
of being recorded. Now, with technology so readily available, most people with access to the
Internet are connected. Social networks are starting up every few months, giving more means to
share information as freely as possible with no hinderance. However, being more connected does
not mean privacy goes down. Through various means, such as, encryption, or simply cautiously
choosing what to post, privacy may still be upheld.
We live in a world where data will always be collected and analysed. What is allowed
online is up to the consumer, and the precautions they take to ensure their data will not be used in
ways they deem unnecessary. It is now impossible to be anonymous online, and that may not be
17
17/21
3/11/2015
a bad thing. After all, security and life is generally important for Americans. With the trend of
the younger generation mentally and physically attached to their mobile devices, security, safety
and privacy is being threatened. Other cultures even put privacy first, and not an after thought.
Ideally, all users should be aware of the potential consequences of giving information and
posting online. As is evident all around us, this is not the case. It is also partially the
governments obligations to keep people safe in certain situations. Corporations should also be
held accountable for what they do with peoples information. Corporations can help by ensuring
the data they store is scrubbed of all personal information and is encrypted. We believe that in
the end, it comes down to consumers and users being aware and educated about the status of
their privacy, as well as companies and governments doing their part to ensure a balance of
maintaining maximum safety alongside maximum privacy.

18
18/21
3/11/2015
References
ACLU. 5 Problems with national ID Cards. Retrieved from
https://www.aclu.org/technology-and-liberty/5-problems-national-id-cards

The ACLU is a left-wing website that attempts to show a different argument against national ID
cards being implemented in the United States. The website is definitely biased, but provides
insight for another perspective.

B.C. Islam, the Internet and Privacy. (2013, May 16). Retrieved March 10, 2015, from
http://www.economist.com/blogs/erasmus/2013/05/islam-internet-and-privacy

This article is about modern Islam and its relationship to privacy and technology. It refers often
to dissidents and their relationship to privacy currently and before modern technology.

Etzioni, A. (2004) How Patriotic is the Patriot Act?: Freedom Versus Security in the Age of
Terrorism. Routledge.

Etzioni evaluates the Patriot Act and its implications. Etzioni takes a balanced stand when
considering the rights of the individual versus the security of the nation.

Etzioni, A. (1999). The Limits of Privacy. New York: Basic Books.

Etzioni explores the vast privacy issues in America and other nations. He analyses how the
government, companies, and individuals view and act on privacy on a diverse variety of
platforms.

Freeman, A. (1998). Germans rally round privacy laws constitutional change would expand
police eavesdropping powers. The Globe and Mail, A.13-A.-1

This article is about the reaction of German citizens in the face of a proposed law that would
weaken existing privacy laws. The article underlines modern Germanys political history and the
abuses of privacy suffered after the collapse of the Weimar Republic and subsequent Nazi and
Communist rule.

Id Cards: London edition. (2001). Financial Times. 22

This article demonstrates that there is no strong connection between national ID cards and
personal privacy. It references Germany as a country that has some of the strongest privacy laws
in existence yet still requires national ID cards.

Kaiser, T. (2013) FBI, NSA want master encryption keys from internet companies.
Retrieved from
http://www.dailytech.com/FBI+NSA+Want+Master+Encryption+Keys+from+Int
ernet+Companies/article32046.htm
19
19/21
3/11/2015

The article summarizes how the NSA wants encryption keys from internet companies, and how
Google, Microsoft, and Facebook have all responded by encrypting their customers data through
Secure Socket Layer.

Ray, L. (n.d.). Buddhist Beliefs on Wealth & Achievement. Retrieved October 10, 2015,
from
http://people.opposingviews.com/buddhist-beliefs-wealth-achievement-3809.html

This article is all about how Buddhism relates to wealth and what it teaches about money and
achievement. The author puts a current myth to rest: that Buddhists are okay with being poor.

Rinpoche, S. (2013). The Shambhala Principle . Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sakyong-mipham-rinpoche/karma-and-smartpho
nes-how-to-use-technology-from-a-buddhist-perspective_b_3365310.html

The book describes life from a different perspective, by discovering the Shambhala principle of
basic goodness and enlightened society, and to describe how Buddhists are reacting to
technology.

R. Loy, D. (2008, June 1). The Greatest Wealth Is Contentment A Buddhist Perspective On
Poverty. Retrieved March 10, 2015, from
http://www.zen-occidental.net/articles1/loy15-eng.html

The author shows critics negative points of views regarding Buddhism and counters them, while
explaining the teachings of Buddhism. The Author also explains the different perspective
Buddhism has on what constitutes poverty and wealth.

Steen, M. (2015) The Ethics of Encryption. Retrieved from
www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/business/encryption.html

The author invited three panelists, David J. Johnson of the FBI, Marshall Erwin, of Mozilla and
Stanford University, and Jonathan Mayer, a Ph.D. candidate in computer science and law school
graduate at Stanford University, each with a different perspective on government and encryption,
and allowed each side to argue their point, either for or against.

Tancer, B. Click. Hyperion, 2008. Print.

In the book Click, Tancer describes several scenarios in how having access to anonymous data is
useful to analyze marketing trends. He explicitly states that the company he works for, Hitwise,
is not interested in personal information, rather, how the market and trends are shifting.

Timberg, C. (2013). Google encrypts data amid backlash against NSA spying. Retrieved
from https://www.benton.org/node/158397
20
20/21
3/11/2015

When the NSA spying news was breaking, Google reacted and began to encrypt the data it uses
and stores throughout their data centers.

Timeline-Privacy in America. (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2015, from
http://issuu.com/sciam/docs/extended-privacy-timeline/1?e=1052646/2599441

This is a timeline of historical events relating to privacy in America. There are events and
American provisions that are not well known and are hard to believe they were even in place at
some point. Some include mail opening and government checkups on private households.

Turkeys Top Religious Body Says Exposing Privacy With Online Photos Improper in
Islam. (2014, November 18). Retrieved March 10, 2015, from
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkeys-top-religious-body-says-exposing-priv
acy-with-online-photos-improper-in-islam-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=74484&News
CatID=393

This is a news article about a statement that was made in Turkey, 2014. Turkeys Directorate for
Religious Affairs makes a statements that posting photographs online is against the religion of
Islam.

Varughese, Ph.D, T. (1993, January 1). Christianity and Technological Advance - The
Astonishing Connection. Retrieved March 10, 2015, from
http://www.icr.org/article/christianity-technological-advance-astonishing-con /

Looks at technology from a historical Christian standpoint. This article seems very biased and
not too credible, but still an interesting Christian perspective.

Werner-Allen, G. (2007). Religion and Privacy. Retrieved from
http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/cs199r/fp/Geoff.pdf

This author discusses the historical impact of religion of current views on privacy and
technology. He makes many points based on the historical development of Christianity and
religion.

Yegalulp, S. (2014) Surprise! Gen X and millennials share similar views on security.
Retrieved from
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2610522/security/surprise--gen-x-and-millennials-
share-similar-views-on-security.html

The author analyses information from Fortinet and presents them regarding how two generations,
Generation X and Millennials, feel regarding passwords, privacy, and online marketing.
21
21/21

Pomelov 05

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pomelov 05

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/11/2015

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

The Limits of Privacy Post 9/11

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

Annas Views on Privacy

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

Encryption and The Government: Etzioni Chapter 3

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

Encryption can hinder the gathering of intelligence. Encryption, oddly enough,

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

National IDs and the False Threat: Etzioni Chapter 4

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

Group Privacy Paper - Google Docs

You might also like