Duka 1

Jackie

Eng 1100

Essay 4

November 29, 2019

Online User Data and the Government

How much does your privacy mean to you? Once you put your personal data on the

Internet, it is there forever, and it is accessible by anyone. This is something we have learned

since the Internet and social medias were first introduced to us. The Internet is no longer limited

to the confines of a computer and has moved on to mobile devices and even in security and

entertainment software that we plant in our own homes. We are content with the fact that our

personal information can be looked up within seconds by our peers, but we feel much differently

when it is the government that is looking into the details of our private lives. Many people have

grown to trust major companies in which we communicate with each other and gather

information, thus leaving our personal information at their hands. Though we put our trust into

companies like Apple and Google, the laws that are currently in place to protect our privacy are

outdated and do little to protect information, even though online privacy is now seen by most as

a basic right. In addition to the invasion of privacy, it can be argued that the government has

obtained too much power over the people of the United States. Corporate powers such as Google

and Apple are part of our daily lives, but they have been known to share personal information

with powers that be without a user’s consent. The government should not be granted access to a

user’s personal data without a legal warrant.

 Duka 2

There are very few laws that are currently in place that protect our personal information

online. Daniel J Solove, a law professor at the George Washington University Law School, and

author of multiple books regarding privacy and law, believes that the law should acknowledge

unethical uses of online private information and strive to correct them. He states in his article,

“The End of Privacy?” that “The U.S should recognize that a person does not sacrifice all

privacy rights when appearing in public”. (Solove 104). Another professor of law at American

University, Jenifer Daskal, believes that the FBI should be required to obtain a legal warrant

based on probable cause before attempting to access the personal online information of a U.S

citizen or resident. Internet usage has drastically increased within the past ten years, making it a

completely new and complex present-day issue. Like everything else in our lives, the Internet

must have regulations. The Privacy Act of 1974 was first introduced to control the collection and

use of personal data by the U.S government. Since then, technology has advanced beyond what

was imaginable at the time. In 1986, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act was

implemented and has not been altered since. This act states that using only a subpoena, the

government has access to any digital communications such as email, information on cloud-

storing databases, text message, social media messaging, and even GPS and location. A warrant

is not required under this act once the information in question exceeds over 180 days in age. In

2012, Google confessed that it had received around 20k requests for user data from various

governments from around the world, making online privacy a global issue. Broken down, the

United States government was responsible for nearly 8k of the requests that were made. Among

the thousands of requests, Google reported that an insignificant portion of these inquisitions were

made with a warrant. Google went on to admitting to complying with about 90% of the requests.
 Duka 3

The Internet is now seen as a necessity that most people use daily. Solove states on page

106 of his article that with the fast-evolving nature of technology, people are beginning to regard

their online privacy as a basic right, meaning that new and up to date privacy standards need to

be implemented. Because of people’s sudden and excessive use of smart phones and other

technologies, there is a new demand for online security from authorities. Just as authorities

would need a warrant to search an individual’s car or home, a warrant should also be obtained to

search an individual’s online records as many people now see online data as personal property.

In Solove’s article, he uses multiple examples of information leaks, proving how fragile the

Internet’s security system really is. Though we may not be aware that our online rights are being

relinquished, we knowingly accept the “terms of use” before accessing a platform such as

Google or Apple. Studies show that most Internet users do not read the terms of use before

accepting them. A study conducted by Jonathan Obar and Anne Oeldorf from the University of

Connecticut tested two thousand individuals by presenting them with a sham site called Name

Drop, in which about 98% of the people tested unknowingly agreed to sell their first-born child

as payment in order to use the site in addition to relinquishing their personal information to the

National Security Agency. Though this was only an experiment, an overwhelming amount of

people were willing to sacrifice not only their personal rights, but anything else the platform may

have demanded in exchange for access. The terms of service are often neglected due to the

lengthy and complex nature of the text. As a basic right, privacy terms must be made clear in a

way that all users no matter what age or skill level will understand.

It can be argued that the government has obtained too much power over its citizens using

surveillance and other data-collecting methods. As of right now, the government can access

personal messages, posts, and locations along with any other information a user might have on
 Duka 4

their smart devices without the use of a warrant. The government can use our information for

what ever they want, when ever they please. Writer Kalev Leetaru states in his article, “Will

Governments Turn Our Smart Devices into A Massive Surveillance Network?” that

“The biggest threat to privacy from smart devices, however, comes from how

governments will eventually wake up to their immense potential. Whether nation state

actors like NSA find remote vulnerabilities that allow them to turn on vulnerable devices

microphones and cameras at will or whether governments simply go through their legal

systems, using court orders to force companies to hand over the controls to law

enforcement and intelligence services, we can rest assured that it is only a matter of time

before government agents are on the other end listening to and watching us.” (Leetaru

paragraph 7).

Leetaru gives his readers a clear warning that the government can access not only our online

information, but also our microphones and cameras at any time they see fit. This is a clear

violation of privacy and must be dealt with in order to ensure a citizen’s safety and discretion.

With new technologies such as Amazon Key, Portal camera, and other smart-home devices, it is

easier than ever to collect detailed data on an individual’s private life. Most details of our lives

are now intertwined with technology and the media platforms that we trust our information unto.

It would be easy for the government to collect and use our data without our knowledge. With

new invasive technologies such as Amazon Key, there must be new regulations on how to deal

with privacy and how much of it the government has authority over.

In addition to those of us who oppose government surveillance, there are people who

believe that it may not be such a bad thing for the government to request and use our data. One

argument is that in order to maintain national security, people must relinquish their privacy
 Duka 5

rights. Ideally, national security would be upheld without the need to sacrifice our online

privacy. There are, however, causes to search through an individual’s data when an individual or

the country’s security is threatened. It is true that Americans must sacrifice some privacy, but not

to the extent that we do today. There is no need for the government to have automatic access to

every citizens information whenever it suits them. There must be probable cause and a legal

search warrant. Another argument against privacy is that if a citizen does not have anything to

hide, then government surveillance should not be an issue. I agree with this statement to an

extent; however, I believe that an individual should have the right to remain secretive about their

life and communications until there is cause for investigation. When the government is watching

us all the time, we alter our behavior in order to appease those who can potentially see us,

whether our actions are illegal or not. As Daniel J. Solove states in one article, “…that person

shouldn’t have to justify every action that government officials might view as suspicious. A key

component to freedom is not having to worry about how to explain oneself all the time.” Part of

our freedom really does include not having to justify every action or communication that we

have with an explanation. The people’s personal data should remain in the hands of the people.

The government does not have any realistic use for every citizen’s online footprint.

Smart phone and Internet usage have been rapidly increasing over the course of ten years,

along with the government’s accessibility to the user’s information. With no updated privacy

laws currently in effect, the people are vulnerable to surveillance at any time for any reason. The

government and large data-collecting corporations such as Apple and Google must be honest

with their citizens and consumers if they want lasting trust and support from them. People feel

that privacy is a basic right that should be acknowledged by the law and the companies that they

trust their personal data unto. More laws should be put into effect that not only protect user
 Duka 6

information from other users, but from authorities as well. Authority over information should

remain in the hands of U.S citizens so that the government does not attain too much power.

Government surveillance can be helpful at times of dire circumstance but must be regulated so

that authorities can only access online information with the use of a legal warrant.
 Duka 7

Works Cited

 Thompson, Richard M, and Jared P Cole. Stored Communications Act: Reform of the

Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA). 19 May 2015,

ipmall.law.unh.edu/sites/default/files/hosted_resources/crs/R44036_150519.pdf.

 Gao, George. “What Americans Think about NSA Surveillance, National Security and

Privacy.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 29 May 2015,

www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americans-think-about-nsa-

surveillance-national-security-and-privacy/.

 Greenberg, Andy. “U.S. Government Requests For Google Users' Private Data Jump

37% In One Year.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 25 June 2012,

www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/06/17/u-s-government-requests-for-google-

users-private-data-spike-37-in-one-year/.

 Etherington, Darrell. “Google Reveals Government Requests for User Data, Content

Removal on The Rise.” TechCrunch, TechCrunch, 13 Nov. 2012,

techcrunch.com/2012/11/13/google-reveals-government-requests-for-user-data-content-

removal-on-the-rise/.

 Solove, Daniel J. “The End of Privacy?” Scientific Magazine, September 2008, 101-106

 Daskal, Jennifer. “Balancing Privacy and Security in the Digital Age.” Foreign Affairs.

October 16, 2017. 1-9

 Duka 8

 Leetaru, Kalev. “Will Governments Turn Our Smart Devices into A Massive

Surveillance Network?” Forbes. October 9, 2018.