I found our discussion on cryptography very interesting and although I enjoy my freedom and privacy just as much as the next guy, I think the government's hand in monitoring our internet activity is a bit overplayed. Due to the very size of our country it is simply improbable to go sifting through everyone's email with the hope of finding something bad. It is safe to assume certain people are targeted by government organizations just as some of us have a more difficult time getting through airport security. You can call it racism or stereotyping but this is a part of our nations security system. When we can trust no one we make assumptions and weigh likelihood or probable cause. I think it is also important to not jump to conclusions. You may get stopped in the airport due to random scanning with no connection to your race, name, or physical appearance. Furthermore, the very structure of the web allows organizations, not just the government, to track and monitor Internet activity and this will continue to be true regardless of policy or law.
I also want to point out a number of groups use the web anonymously and do so with ease. Nearly 75% of the webs content is not visible through the browsers we use and there is always a way to go unnoticed. The TOR network is an excellent example of this. TOR (the onion router) enables anonymous browsing through the use of volunteer servers worldwide that allow for layers of encryption to disguise a users location and IP address. Despite its initial intentions the TOR network is in many ways the dark side of the internet, allowing criminal organizations to thrive on the web. It is used for black market sales, drug trafficking, and human trafficking. If the entire web were to go anonymous imagine the potential damage that would follow. I think people often forget they are accountable for their actions on the web. I won't say I like the idea of someone looking at my personal information, regardless of legality, but at what point we will be able to demand the government takes a stand against the corruption of the web when all this time we argue for our privacy and freedom?
I agree with Will and much of what Zach was saying in class on Tuesday. I do not necessarily find the idea that the government may monitor my activity to be a massive invasion of privacy. As of present, I have nothing to hide or be afraid of them seeing and no way to know if something I do or say now will get me in trouble in the future. If we want the safety from the terrorists and groups that our society fears, we may have to give up some of our privacy. However, if we desire total and complete privacy, we may give up some of the safety precautions our government is taking now. I did find it interesting in when the articles discussed the legality of the government monitoring our internet activity. What struck me most was the idea that these actions have been deemed by some judges to be illegal yet internet monitoring is still allowed so what other illegal actions may be allowed in the future for safety and security. That was the main concern the articles created for me. Many things I do or say through the use of email or messaging I do consider to be private and between me and the individual I am contacting or merely myself. I would feel a great unease about my invasion of privacy if someone I knew were to look through such things or someone to make them public. However, I am only one person in this large country, so the thought of a government official who I most likely have/will never meet monitoring some of my internet activity does not significantly bother me. Especially if such monitoring does stop some tragedy from taking place.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed our discussion on cryptography as well. It is hard for me to believe that the government has enough time and resources to read each and every email sent by everyone in the United States in hopes of finding something that may threaten our safety. I do, however, think that we have a right to privacy, and I would definitely not support any legislation that would effectively make every email I send public, for all to see. I really don’t have anything to hide, but I typically send emails under the premise that they are meant to be shared only by myself and whomever I may be sending them to. That being said, if some governmental official happens to read any of my emails without my knowledge, for the sake of national security, I cannot say that I would have a problem with that as long as nothing comes of it. If, however, the government were to take something out of context and start accusing me of something disastrous, I would begin to feel differently.
ReplyDeleteLast class I mentioned how I am almost constantly being “randomly” selected for extensive screening when I go through airport security. I have never really had a problem with this, I do not have anything to hide, and I appreciate their efforts to make airports safer. However, if they were to ever refuse to allow me to fly because of something they may have considered suspicious, I would have to reevaluate how I feel about these checks. For example, freshman year someone had spilled nitric acid down the side of the supply bottle in my quant lab, so when I went to grab the bottle, I got nitric acid all over my hand. My fingerprints were pretty much gone, and my skin remained hard and yellow where I had grabbed the acid for a couple of weeks until the new skin was able to regrow. Anyway, I remember going to Florida for spring break right after that had happened, and as always, as I was going through TSA I got pulled aside for extra screening. They swabbed my hands and ran the sample through a machine, and I remember being terrified waiting for results. I passed, it turns out they were only checking for explosive residue. However, that got me thinking, what if they had seen the acid burn and assumed I was making a bomb, and refused to let me fly? Alternatively, what if I had been hunting and the test would have come back positive? Would TSA have the authority to refuse to let me fly?
On the one hand, if there was to be a terrorist attack and looking back investigators found that the terrorist went through extensive screening at the airport and was found to have suspicious burns on his hands and traces of explosive residue, I am sure that the media would complain and wonder why he had not been stopped right there. However, at the same time, they cannot stop everyone who has a burn on their hand from flying. There really is no right answer to this debate, but I definitely think it is something that we need to think about before it gets out of hand.
TSA has there own way of selecting people which will remain unknown to me. But I just find it so interesting how Erin told the story of her dad having fireworks in his pocket and easily going through security but Erin had to go into secondary screening for bomb residue when she had nothing. While it is necessary to have a monitoring system and yes some people will have to go through secondary checking it is crazy when you think of just how much that has gotten through. There needs to be some better system. I have no idea what is but something to make sure people who are actually a threat are caught. I think the body scans, especially for those who fly infrequently are a good plan. This allows TSA to ensure that things like fireworks are not left in pockets. It also alerts TSA to "randomly" do secondary checking.
ReplyDeleteMy dad travels frequently for work and he told me about the new Global Entry program United and possibly other airlines are working on. It allows you to enter the country by scanning your finger tips and also allows you faster security in the airports. This program requires extensive background checks and an interview with a U.S. Customs and Border Protection officer. It is an interesting idea and I wonder how affective it will end up being. Here is a link to United's description of it: http://www.united.com/web/en-US/content/travel/destination/international/globalentry.aspx
There needs to be a balance with personal rights and safety of our country. I believe while it is fine at the level it is at currently, if it were to progress to a, we can accuse you of being a terrorist from one email, situation that would cross the line. We just need to be able to be ensured that the government will not abuse the power it has.
I totally agree with Rachel. I don't mind giving up a small amount of my privacy for some safety in return. I have also been tested for explosives residue every time I get a pat down. I actually opt out of those giant machines which expose your body on a screen for them to see. That really bothers me, primarily because I don't like to think someone else has any sort of right to see my naked rendering on a computer screen. That's just awkward! I actually tested positive for explosive residue the first time I did, and I still have no idea why that happened. I was taken into a small room where they did the whole thing over again in private which REALLY bothered me. Apparently it was just their machine not having enough action, since when they switched machines it was negative. Nearly missed my flight that time... It's also a bit disturbing to me that google keeps every query searched in its archives. The only thing that comforts my nerves is that I am only one in a billion google users, and my queries are only a few per gazillion+... I would not like it if I found out the government had been reading my emails, or even my texts etc, but I don't have anything to hide. I send so few emails anyway. I do agree that the government should not be allowed to abuse the power.
ReplyDeleteThe role of the government in Americans personal security walks a fine line with our personal privacy. Though it may not have seemed like it, I currently agree with much of what Zach said in class when applied to America today. As long as the government can be semi-trustworthy, then the gain in safety clearly outweighs the loss in personal privacy.
ReplyDeleteThe point that I was attempting to make in class is that though it may not always be lawful (as some of the readings pointed out), the precedent is being set that the government can have access to your online information when desired. In today's America and in the near future America I do not see this being a problem. As long as you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry.
But as I said in class, this government is made up of infallible people as well who are subject to their own desires (and for some those can be power, money, personal vindication). As Dr. Dugan pointed out, McCarthy's red scare was a program that altered some innocent people's live based on prior kosher information. It was a product of the times. All it takes is one event or sometimes a small group of people to alter the way government interprets your online information as legal or illegal.
While the number may not be a lot, imagine if you were the one person who was taken from their family, job, and friends because of something you posted online or in an email that was perfectly fine at the time. Some type of precedent needs to be put in place to safeguard the online content of innocent people from governmental fads and ideologies.