JamesEarthman

CST373
10/6/2015

TheLimitsofPrivacyPost9/11

Crimehaslongbeenapuzzleforpeopleofthegovernmenttoprevent.Longbeforethe
technologicalriseoftheinternetandmassglobalcommunicationcrimewaspreventedthrough
thefearofseverepunishmentthrougharchaicmeansthatwouldbedeemedinhumaneby
todayssocialstandards.Individualsthatcommittedcrimesweretobepunishedinalmostall
casesthroughasortoftortureordeathbroughtaboutinapublicsetting.Withtheinformation
agebeingthewayitisnowadaystheamountofdifferentcriminalactshasincreasedthrough
themeansofbettercommunicationanddifferentmodesofaccesstomaliciousbehavior.
However,withthePatriotactthatwaspassedaftertheterroristattackonSeptember11th,2001
theUnitedStateshasbeenusingtechnologyinordertomonitorandpreventcriminalaction.
Thisbroughtaboutaneweraofethicalargumentsthatstemmedfromthenotionofprivacy
beingimpactedbythePatriotactandhowthegovernmentdistinguishedwhoisaterroristand
whoisnt.Thegovernmentisethicallyresponsibleforprotectingitsdemocraticcitizensfromacts
ofwarbutthereisabalancethatneedstobemaintainedbetweenthepublicsprivacyand
governmentinvestigationsintosaidacts.
IntheBook
TheLimitsofPrivacy,
byAmitaiEtzioni,theauthordelvesintotheethical
argumentsonhandforthemajorityofcasesinthemodernUnitedStates.Thefirstbigissuethat
Etzionitacklesistheissueofhowencryptedmessagesaffectedthetransparencyoflaw
enforcementandhowthegovernmenthandlesthesearchesencrypteddatainordertofindlinks
toterrorism.Etzionioutlinesthreemainpointsinwhyencryptionisbadforthegovernmentlaw
enforcementagencies:encryptionandhidecrucialevidence,encryptioncanhide

communicationfromlawenforcement,andencryptioncanhelpsubvertterroristactivity.Thefirst
pointdoesagoodjobandoutlinestheentireissuewithencryptionandlawenforcement.In
ordertoprovethatcriminalactivityisactuallytakingplacethegovernmentmustobtain
informationthatshowsthecriminalsareresponsibleforwhatevercrimewascommitted.
Encryptionallowsforincriminationtobehiddenfromanyonethatmightbeinterestedinknowing
whateverinformationisbeingencrypted.ThesecondpointiswhatIfeelaffectstheAmerican
publicthemostinthatencryptedcommunicationhastobedecryptedinorderfortheinformation
insidetobeinspected.Thislogicallymeansthatinorderforthegovernmenttotrulyunderstand
whatisintheencryptedmessagestheymustfirstkeeptrackofwhatmessagesarebeingsent
whereandwhichonesarebeingencrypted.AccordingtoanarticlefromInformationWeek
Gmail,thelargestemailserviceintheUS,hasalreadymadeitastandardtoencryptuser
messagesEndtoEnd.(2)Thereareplentyofreasonsforamessagetobeencrypted,
obviouslyhidingcriminalactivityisoneofthosereasonsbutlawabidingcitizensshouldhave
therighttohideornothideanyinformationtheychoose,thisisessentiallytherighttoprivacy.
Withtheinternetbeingthewayitisnowadaysandallowingpeopletocommunicateseamlessly
itseemsnaturalthatsome,ifnotmost,informationhasacertainlevelofprivacyattachedtoit.
ThethirdandfinalpointseemstobereallytheonlyrelevantpointtothePatriotAct.Ithinkitis
interestingthattheauthorchosetoseparatethesethreepointseventhoughtheyareallvery
closelyrelated.Itseemstomethatthegovernmentshouldcomeupwithcertainprotocolsin
ordertochecktoseeifamessageshouldbedecryptedandinspected.Awarrantofsortswould
beappropriatebutitseemsthatcurrentlygovernmentsurveillanceisnotbeingdemocratically
regulatedlikeitshouldbe.InsteadtheNSAsurveillanceisrunningwildonthebackofthefear
ofterrorismintheUnitedStates.InanarticlepostedbytheAmericanCivilLibertiesUnion,it
statesthattherearesomemodesofsecuritythatusershaveontheirdevicesthatcanchange

whetherornotadevicecanbebrokeninto.(3)Ithinkthatthistypeoflegislationispositivein
thattherearespecificationsbeingmadeinorderforlawenforcementtogainaccessinto
people'sdevices.Ithinkifthislegislationweretobeappliedtonewencryptionsecurity
measuresthenitwouldbeastepintherightdirection.
ThenextissueEtzionidiscussesistheuseofidentificationcardsthatareadministered
byfederalgovernmentsinordertokeeptrackofcitizens.IntheUnitedStatestheprimaryform
ofIdentificationcaneitherbeaStateIssueddriverslicenseoraStateIDcard.Theauthor
arguesthattheseidentificationcardsisatooloftotalitarianismandletstheGovernmentkeep
trackofpublicrecordonascalethatistoolarge.IbelievethatIDcardsareafundamentalpart
ofauthenticationfortheuseofmosttechnologiesinthiscountry.Seeingasthoughsome
technologies,suchasvehicles,aregovernmentregulated,thegovernmentmuststepinand
issueoutIDauthenticationtocitizensthatwishtopartakeinsuchrights.Etzionidoesmakea
pointinsayingthatthegovernmenthasdocumentationofmostofitscitizensbutIfailto
understandhowthingssuchastaxesweretobecollectedinanaccuratemannerifitwasnot
possibletoeasilyauthenticateeachcitizen.Ifeellikecitizenauthenticationiscrucialinrunning
agooddemocracybecausewithoutauthenticationitisnearlyimpossibletoensurethata
governmentislegitimatelydemocratic.IdisagreewithEtzioniaboutIDcardsbeingatoolof
totalitarianismbecausecitizenauthenticationisanimportantfactorinrunningademocratic
government.Thereistheinterestingconcernofhowsecureisthenetworkthatisprocessing
citizenidentities.InJapan,in2002agovernmentnetworkknownastheJukinetwascreatedin
ordertohousetheidentitiesofcitizensandkeeptrackofcertaininformation.Therewasalarge
publicoutcrywiththeintroductionoftheJukinetbecausecitizenswereunsureofhowsecure
thenewgovernmentnetworkwouldbe.However,movingforwardJapanhadgreatsuccesswith

thenetworkandarenowpushingforcitizenstohavefurtherauthenticationwithfingerprintsand
irisscans.(4)
LateroninChaptersixEtzionigoesintothehistoryofprivacyandhowitcameaboutas
animportantpartofmodernsocietyintheTwentyFirstCentury.Etzioniexplainsthatprivacy
wasnotanimportantconcepttoAmericanintheearly1900sandgenerallypeoplefoundthat
privacywaseasilyhadbecauseofhowthepopulationwasdispersedandhowrudimentary
communicationwasbetweensgroupsofpeople.Astimewentonandtheriseofcomputers
startedtocomeintoplay,communicationstandardsstartedtogetmorerapidandmore
complicated.However,theseformsofcommunicationstillhadpitfallsintheirdesignandcould
betappedintobysomeonethatwantedtouncovertheinformationthatwasbeing
communicated.AccordingtheSaintPetersburgTimes,thefirstlargeFBIbustofcomputer
hackingwasinthe1980swhenagroupnamedthe414swasarrestedforhackingintoover
sixtyknownmainframecomputerbreakinsincludingtheMemorialSloanKetteringCancer
CenterandtheLosAlamosNationalLab(5).Thenwiththeultimateriseofencryptionduringthe
growthoftheinternetthepublicwasabletograntthemselvesanextralayerofassumedprivacy
ontheircommunicationsandtheirdata.Forme,thisisanimportanttimetoacknowledge
becauseatthispointinthetimewhatprivacymeantwaschangedfromwhateverwasheard
withoutpermissiontowhateverwasdecryptedwithoutpermission.Meaningthatifthecompany
thatwasprovidingtheservicewasdecryptingmessagesbetweenusersthenthecompany
wouldbeoutedandtheoreticallytheywouldlosebusinessduetobadbusinesspractice.But
whatifthegovernmentwastheonethatwasinvolvedindecryptingpeoplesinformation?This
iswherethemoderndayprivacydebateisrooted.ThedemocraticgovernmentoftheUnited
Statesissworntoprotectitscitizensfromactsofwarandotheractsofterrorinordertoensure
thesafetyofitscitizens.SohowdoestheGovernmentdothis?Howcanitcheckthe

communicationofitscitizensinordertoprotecttheentirenationfromactsofwar.Thesocietal
beliefisthatthegovernmentsimplycheckseverymessagethatwesendinordertomakesure
thatpeaceisheldwithinthenation.Andthisnotionisnttoofarfromthetruth,since2001the
NSAhassetupadragnetwithinternetserviceprovidersinordertogatheremailsfromitsusers
(6).IfthisisthecasethenIwouldsaythatthisisindeedaninvasionofprivacysimplybecause
ablanketstrategyofcheckingeverymessageisnotsmartnorpreciseinfightingterrorism.
Strategiesthatwouldbemoreeffectiveincludetheideaofonlykeepingtrackofroutesinthe
networkthatareknowntohavebeenusedbycriminalsforcommunication.Forinstance,
messagesonFacebook,acompanyknownforanalyzinguserdata,wouldprobablynotbethe
bestplatformforcommunicatingcriminalactivity.(7)Extendingthatpoint,anypublicallyknown
socialnetworkwouldseemtobeabadideaforcriminalsandterroriststoorganizeunder.Id
assumethatmostcriminalswouldeithercommunicateonaclientsecureconnectionora
encryptednetworkthatrequiredcertainauthorizationforitsuse.Theanalogythatcomesto
mindishuntingforrabbitsinthetrees.Theanalogymakingsensewiththecriminalsorterrorists
beingrabbitsandthehuntersbeingtheUnitedStatesgovernment.
Thetechniquesthatthegovernmentusesshouldbethemainfocusoftheethicaldebate
fororagainsttheamountofprivacyacitizenoftheUSshouldhave.Theissueitselfismadeto
besoblackandwhitebypoliticalpunditsthattheissuecannotbesolvedbyarealistic
solution.Aftertheeventsof9/11manycitizenswereinsuchfearofterroristsattacksthatthey
thoughtthePatriotActwasagreatideabutknowthatwhistleblowerslikeEdwardSnowden
havecomeoutthepublichasseenwhatthegovernmentdoeswiththecitizensinformationand
howitisused(8).
Ibelievethatthereareappropriatewaystodataminecitizeninformationsothatprivacy
canbeupheld.OnetechniquethatIthinkwouldgetdemocraticapprovalwouldbetheideaof

deletinginformationshortlyafterithasbeenexaminedratherthanbeingarchived.Also,ifthere
wereatieredsystemofauthorizationwhenitcametodecryptingdatathenitwouldguarantee
citizensthatanonymityunlessaninspectordecidedthatthepersonsidentitywasneededfor
furtherinspection.Theideaofnotstoringdataisimportantbecausecopiesofdatacanbe
accessedandspreadwhichexponentiallyaffectssomeonesprivacy.Itgoesalongwiththeidea
thatoncesomethingispublicallyavailableontheinternetitwillneverbecompletelygone.But
inthecaseofgovernmentspyingprivateinformationcanbekeptandusedinmaliciousways,
afteralltheNSAisrunbyhumans.Ifcitizensknewthattheirinformationwasnottypicallybeing
storedIfeelthatmostpeoplewouldbeokwiththegovernmentdatamininginordertoprevent
crime.Theideaofinformationbeingpermanentlyattachedtosomeone'sidentitycausessome
concernsimplybecausepeoplechangeandtheiropinionsandwhotheyarechange.Ifeellike
whensomethingisprivateitsindicativeofthatprivateactorinformationtonotbetiedtothe
personsidentitybecausesaidthingiseithertentativeorirrelevanttothatpersonspublic
reputation.Today,nearlyeverybehaviorcanbescrutinizedinsuchawaythatitcandamage
someone'sidentitytothepointofsuicide.Inthesecasesitsimportanttorealizehowimportant
privacyis.Theimportanceofprivacyvariesbutifprivateinformationisbeingcirculatedatthe
expenseofpeople'sreputationthenIbelievethatitispreventingacitizen'srighttolivehappily
andhealthfully.
Havingatieredsystemofauthorizationwhenitcomestomakingdecisionsaboutthe
anonymityofcitizensandtheirdatawouldlimittheamountofinformationthatcanactuallybe
tracedbacktoaperson.Thiswouldallowtrainedandeducatedindividualsofhighauthorityto
decidewhetherornottheidentityofapersonneedstobedisclosedtoallowforfurther
investigationintheiractivity.Informationthatcouldbereviewedwouldmostlikelybesparseand
wouldletcitizenswhomaresimplynotcommittingandcrimesoractsofterroravoidthepoolof

compromisedidentitiescompletely.Totakethisstrategyastepfurther,theNSAcouldbeheld
responsibleforprovidingthepublicwithstatisticsthatshowwhatpercentagesofsnoopeddata
isbeingidentifiedandwhattrendsaregettingUSnetworkusersintotrouble.Thiswaythe
governmentwouldbeabletobetransparentaboutwhatinformationtheywereusingandwould
allowthepublictohavemoretrustinhowtheirtaxesarebeingspentandwhatthegovernment
isactuallydoingtostopterrorismandcriminalactivity.
Ithinkthereareafewholesinmyproposalthough.Firstoff,manywouldsaythatthis
doesntguaranteethateverycriminalwillbesurveillancedandtheywouldprobablybecorrect.
ButIthinkingeneralthesystematwhichthegovernmentdataminedinformationfromcitizens
needstobesmarterratherthanmorewidespread.Usinglocalityanddatatrackingwouldhelp
narrowdownpossiblesuspectsintheirsearchforcriminalsandwouldlessenthetimespent
siftingandarchivingthrougheverymessageinordertofindoneleadthattheFBImightnot
evenfollowupon.Ifeellikecurrentlythegovernmentisusingbruteforcesearchingalgorithms
tofindinformationthatcouldbeharmfulbutusingthesestrategiesisexactlywhatpeoplefear
whenitcomestotheirprivacyasacitizen.
Speakingspecificallyaboutlocality,itisimportantformembersofthepublicto
understandthattheyarehinderingtheirownprivacydependingonwhomtheyassociate
themselveswith.Meaningifsomeoneisknowinglycommunicatingwithcriminals,evenifthe
communicationisnotaboutcriminalmatters,thentheyaresubjecttosurveillance.Inastudy
donebytheUniversityofCambridge,geographicalboundariescarriedaheavyinfluenceinwhat
typesofdatawherecominginandoutofsocialnetworkssoonecouldevenconcludethatin
areaswherecrimeishigh,socialnetworksshouldbecloselymonitored(9).Privatematters
reallyshouldonlybedefendedwhentheyarelegalandthegovernmenthastherighttoprotect
othercitizensbybecomingmoreinvolvedwithindividualsthatareinthenetworkofcriminalsor

suspectsinterroristactivity.Ithinkthereisapointtobemadeherealsoaboutallocating
resources.Ifthegovernmentisspendingtimeonkeepingtrackofdatathehasnearlyno
probabilityofrevealingcriminalactivitythentheyaretechnicallywastingresources.SoIwould
arguethatnotdataminingonalargescaleandspendingmoretimeonresearchindividualsin
depthwouldbeagreateruseroftaxmoney.Trackingdataisalsoimportantinuncoveringintel
aboutpossibleillegalactivity.Ratherthanarchivingdataandthenreviewingit,followinga
specificconnectionbetweentwoindividualswouldbemoreintuitive,inmyopinion,becauseit
wouldbeobservinganentireinteractioninrealtimeratherthantakingpiecesofapuzzleand
tryingtofigureoutwhatthedatamightunravel.
Itsimportantforthegeneralpublictohaveaunifiedunderstandingofhowtheirprivacy
canbehinderedandthisisdifficulttoaccomplishbecauseofhowdifferentgenerations
understandtheirtechnology.AtrendthatIobservealotisthethenotionfromolderindividuals
thattheirprivacyisactuallybeingimpededmorethattheythinkandthattheinformationtaken
bythegovernmentandcompaniesisntbeingusedinmaliciousways.Oneexampleishow
socialnetworkingsitesusecookiesinordertostoredataandthenusethatdatatoappealto
theiruserwithads.Dataisalsousedinordertobetteranapplicationtomakeitmoresmartin
termsofwhatuserwants.
WhendiscussingprivacyasaNation,Ibelieveitisimportanttoholdtoeducationasthe
maintoolinordertocometoasolution.Whenpeopleunderstandtheirtechnologytheywillbe
lessscaredandmoreinformedaboutwhatprivacyinthevirtualspacemeansandhowthe
Governmentcanaccesscertainpiecesofdata.Movingforwarditisalsopertinentthatpolicy
makersareinformedofwhatinformationisappropriatetotakefromcitizensandtobesurethat
legislationisdemocraticallyagreedupon.Ibelievethatpeoplesimplyremaineducatedand
speakwiththeirvotesthentheissueofprivacywillslowlybecomediminished.


Citations:
1. Etzioni, Amitai.
The Limits of Privacy
. New York: Basic, 1999. Print.
2. Claborn, Thomas. "Google Previews Gmail Encryption InformationWeek."
InformationWeek
. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.
3. Soghoian, Chris. "Keeping the Government Out of Your Smartphone."
American Civil
Liberties Union
. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.
4. Bowe, Rebecca. "In Japan, National ID Proposal Spurs Privacy Concerns."
Electronic
Frontier Foundation
. N.p., 13 June 2012. Web. 15 Oct. 2015.
5. Trigaux, Robert. "A History of Hacking."
A History of Hacking
. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Oct.
2015.

6. "NSASpying."
ElectronicFrontierFoundation.
N.p.,n.d.Web.15Oct.2015.
7. Loomer,Jon."HowtoAnalyzeYourFacebookMetricstoImproveYourMarketing."
SocialMediaExaminerRSS.
N.p.,27Oct.2013.Web.15Oct.2015.
8. "EdwardSnowden,WhistleBlower."
TheNewYorkTimes.
TheNewYorkTimes,01
Jan.2014.Web.15Oct.2015.

9. Scellato, Salvatore. "Distance Matters: Geo-social Metrics for Online Social Networks."
University of Cambridge
(n.d.): n. pag. Abstract. (n.d.): n. pag. Print.