Sie sind auf Seite 1von 21

Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page1

CameronCozza,EliasRamirez,KarenTafolla,RivkaGarcia
CST373
ThoughtsonPrivacyPost9/11


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page2

Introduction
FollowingtheattackswhichoccurredonSeptember11,2001ourgovernmenttooka
seriesofprecautionstoensurenothinglikethatwouldhappenagain.ThePatriotActwasoneof
themanyresponsesthatoccurred.AccordingtoCNET,
Thebill,knownastheUSAPatriotAct,
givesfederalauthoritiesmuchwiderlatitudeinmonitoringInternetusageandexpandstheway
suchdataissharedamongdifferentagencies

(Olsen,2002).ThePatriotActwasanimmediate
reactiontosuchatragiceventhowever,itquicklyraisedtheissueofthebalancebetween
privacyandsafety.AccordingtoKurtThearling,Inrecentyearsprivacyconcernshavetakenon
amoresignificantroleinAmericansocietyasmerchants,insurancecompanies,andgovernment
agenciesamasswarehousescontainingpersonaldata(Thearling,1998).Aswemovetowardsa
muchmoretechnologicalera,theworldbecomesmoreconnected.Alongwithallthis
connectivity,theamountofinformationcollectedonindividualsrangingfromstatusesto
locationtophotosbecomesmuchgreaterandproportionallyincreaseswhatisatstake.This
paperwilldelveintothethetopicofprivacyfrompersonal,political,geographical,and
generationalperspectives.

PersonalPerspective
s
I,CameronCozza,believethereneedstobeabalancebetweenthecommongoodand
individualprivacy,muchlikeEtzionisaysinhisfirstofhisfoursteptheoryfordetermining
whenprivacyshouldberestricted.Asstatedinhisbook,Awellbalanced,communitarian
societywilltakestepstolimitprivacyonlyifitfacesathreattothecommongood(Etzioni,
2008).Thisislogicalandfairaspersonalprivacyisimportantasabasichumanneedandthat
shouldbepreservedasmuchaspossible.Privacyisoneofthecornerstonesoffreespeechand


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page3

freedomingeneralitallowspeoplefreedomofexpression,associationandassembly.Privacy
allowspeopletobethepersonthattheyreallyare.Studieshaveshownthatpeoplebehavemuch
differentlywhilebeingsurveyed(Doherty2016).Withoutit,weloseapieceofourhumanity.
Thisiseasilyexploited,however,andinthecaseof9/11,whichendedinsomethingtrulytragic.
Inthewakeof9/11,thereneedstobeabiasthatprotectsthecommongoodastherewasadirect
threattothewellbeingofvirtuallyeveryoneintheUSA,ifnottheworld.Theseterroriststook
awayoursenseofsecurityandassuch,personalprivacymustberestricted.Thiscouldmean
moresurveillanceoftheAmericanpeople,webtrafficmonitoring,orthroughothermeans,
whichtouchontheissueofprivacy.
I,EliasRamirez,agreewiththepositionEtzionitakeswhenhestates,Privacyistobe
treatedasavaluethatneedstobebalancedwithconcernsforthecommongood,andthequestion
ofwhichofthesetwoneedsshoringupdependsonthesociohistoricalcontext(Etzioni,p.200).
Etzionilikemyself,haswhatsuperficiallyseemstobeautilitarianviewonprivacyhowever,
articulateshispositiontonotbesomuchtowardsthegreatergood,butmoreofaperfectbalance.
Essentially,utilitarianethicsbelievethatnoactionisbadaslongasitisforthegreatergood.So
ifyoumixinEtzionispointofview,ifprivacyneedstobebreachedtofurtherensurethesafety
ofthegreatergoodthenitispermitted,butnotsofarthatprivacybecomesaluxuryandnota
right.Recently,therewasanattackonPariswhereterroristsleftatleast129peopledead,and
followingthiseventthetopicofencryptionhasbeenbroughtupagain.Essentially,theissueat
handaccordingtoAlexanderHowardis,
thatmilitantextremistsareusingencryptedappsto
communicate,makingitdifficultforlawenforcementorgovernmentstomonitorthem

(Howard,2015).Thiseventreallybroughtthingsintoperspectiveformeandissomethingover


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page4

theyearsIhavecometoanagreementon.Essentially,likeEtzioni,Itoobelievethereisa
reasonablebalancebetweenpublicsafetyandprivacy.
I,RivkaGarciabelievethebreachingofprivacyiswrong,nomatterthecircumstance.
Whendoesthebreachinganindividual'sprivacybecomejustifiable?Inhisbook,Etzioni
mentionsthatevenunderintensemeasuresnoteverythingisjustifiablewhenhewrites,Thefact
thatthereisasignificantdangertothepublic,however,doesnotjustifytakinganyandall
measurestoprotectit(Etzioni,2008).Thefightofthewaronterrorismhasadvocatedanew
threattopersonalprivacy,inthatgovernmenthasincreaseditssurveillance.Thenewmeasures
infightingthewaronterrorismproposesapotentialbreachingofmillionsofindividualsprivate
information.Thegovernmentorderinglargetechcompaniestoallowthemtosurfthroughany
individual'sdataisalarming.Theywillnotonlyhaveaccesstooneusersinformation,butthis
givesthemthepotentialpowerofaccessingallprivateinformation.Doesitbecomejustifiableif
thismeasureisforthegreatergood?Etzionispeaksontheimportanceofthecommongoodand
individualprivacy.Hementionsthegreaterneedforencryptionsoftware,e.g.hyper
encryption,whichisimmenselyhardtocrack,allforthesakeofprivacy.Withthegrowthof
banksandbusinessescomesaneedfortechnologytoassistinmanagingalllengthsofacompany
orbusiness.Thisleadstothegreateruseoftheinternetorinternetconnectedapplicationsthat
allowcompaniestobettermanagetheircompanies.Withtheuseoftechnologyandtheinternet
comesagreaterneedforprivacy,giventhatsensitivedataisbeingsharedacrossnetworks.
Banksandbusinesshavebeenabletosecurelyoperateandretainsensitivecustomerdatagiven
toolssuchashyperencryption.Etzioniexplainsthegreatnessofthistechnologyinthatitcreates
barriersthatpreventanymalicioususersorterroristsinretainingsensitivedata.Withtoolslike


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page5

encryptionitstruethatpublicauthoritiessuchasthegovernmenthavebecomeunabletocrack
certaincodes,andweseeithappeningintheworldtodaywiththegovernmentorderingApple
technologiestocreatedecryptiontoolstohackacellulardevicesdata.
Thegovernmentgiventheabilitytodecipherallencryptedmessagescancomeasa
threat,imposinganewriskonthebreachingofpersonalprivacy.However,Etzionibringsto
lightthenegativesideeffectsofencryption,inthatifencryptionisnotabletobedecryptedthere
areotherformsofsurveillancethatcanbeimplemented.Thisnewformofsurveillancecould
meanhiddenmicrophones,cameras,orsensors,proposingabiggerthreattoprivacy.Overall
encryptionisessentialinallaspects,especiallyingovernment,whenitcomestoensuring
personalprivacy.
Byallowingsomeprivateinformationtobeaccessed,createsadoorfora
greaterpersonalinformationtobefoundandusedbygovernment.ForthesereasonsI,Rivka
Garciadonotagreewithallowingpersonalinformationtobeaccessedbygovernmentand
believethateveryindividualreservestherighttotheirpersonalprivacy.
PoliticalPerspective
Thesecondcriterion,asEtzionialsosays,weneedtolookathowcarefullyasociety
actstocounteradangerwithout
firstresortingtomeasuresthatmightrestrictprivacy
(Etzioni,2008).Since9/11,thegovernment,underpresidentBush,immediatelyengagedinthe
globalWaronTerrorism,startingthelongestperiodofcontinuouswarinUShistory(Rowen
2012).Thiswarhasyieldingastoundinglypoorresultswithover6000USsoldierdeathsand
estimated400,000to900,000deathstociviliansinIraqandAfghanistan,createdaracialbias
thatmostMuslimsareterrorists,andahigherdegreeofresentmenttowardstheU.S.Our
politicalsystemresortedtoengaginginwarasameanstoprotectthecommongood.Thiswar


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page6

didnotinfringeonourprivacy,sothatprobablymadepeoplehappy,butthemeansarehardly
justifiablebytheresults.Wecangoasfarastosaythatthelivesofthousandsofinnocentpeople
havebeenessentiallysacrificedinordertoretainourprivacy.Obviouslythismethodwillnot
work,soperhapsamoreprivacyintrusivemethodisneeded.
Thethirdcriterion,...totheextentthatprivacycurbingmeasuresmustbeintroduced,a
communitariansocietymakesthemas
minimallyintrusive
aspossible(Etzioni,2008).Because
warwontsolvethisproblem,surveillancetosomedegreemightbeneeded.Obviously,Big
Brotherisnotanoptionasthistypeofapproachdirectlywatcheseveryoneallthetime.Notonly
isthatimpractical,butseriouslyviolatespeoplesprivacy.
Withnearly3000peoplekilledinthe9/11attacks,thereisanobviousneedtoimprove
nationalsecurity,evenatthecostofpersonalprivacy,becauseifthesepeoplewereproperly
monitored,thiseventmightnothaveoccurred.SpecificmonitorizationiswarrantedasIbelieve
thevalueoflifeishigherthanthatofpersonalprivacy.Itshardtoimaginedyingforthesakeof
privacy,despiteitsimportance.It'smuchmoreconcerningthatpeoplearedyinginmassesby
thehandsofcriminalsthanwhatagovernmentbodyknowsaboutitspeople.Thereare
technologiesthatexistthatcouldreallyincreasetheeffectivenessofcounterterrorism,via
communicationstechnology,thatalsoalignwithEtzioniscriteria.
AsShamsiandAbdoexplain,thegovernmenthas,inthepast,madearrangementswith
telecommunicationscompaniestomonitorlocationsofrobberysuspects(Shamsi,Abdo).
Combinethiswithmessagingtrackingtechnology,suchasCarnivore,softwarethat
anonymouslyscansmessagessentovertheinternetforcriminalrelatedkeywords,andaviable
waytosloworstopviolentcrimesemerges.But,thisalonedoesntwarrantarrest,sobycross


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page7

referencingthisdatawithsearchhistorypatternsusingtechniquesthatTancerdescribedinhis
book,wecouldmakemoreaccuratemonitoringofpotentialcriminalsandinvadeinnocent
peoplesprivacyless(Tancer,2008).Forexample,anintelligenceagencyssoftwarereturns
somesuspiciousmessagesorsearchhistory.Thesuspectthenhasalloftheiractivitymonitored.
If,overtime,thispersonshowsseriousterroristliketendencies,suchasspeakingormessaging
incode,suspicioussearchtermsorsites,orotherwise,thispersoncouldthenbeinvestigated
moreclosely.Ifwarranted,usinglocationandpersonaldatacapturingtechnologiescouldbe
usedtofindthepersonandbetakeninforquestioning.Whenenoughevidenceisfound,a
warrantforarrestwouldbemadeandthenthelegalsystemtakesover.ThefinalEtzioni
criterion,...measuresthat
treatundesirablesideeffects
ofneededprivacydiminishingmeasures
aretobepreferredoverthosethatignoretheseeffects(Etzioni2008).isstillintactasusingthe
formertechnologywillkeeppeoplesidentityanonymousuntilactualsuspectsaretraced.
Withterrorismaside,I,Cameron,dontreallyliketheideaofputtingintimate
informationaboutmyselfontheinternet,publicallyorprivately,soIamverymuchinfavorof
monitoringthistypeofinformationtohelppreventterrorism.Ibelievethatgivingupapieceof
myfreedomisworththepotentialextensionofmanylives.
Global/GenerationalPerspective
Whilereadingchapterfourofthebook
LimitsofPrivacy,
thebenefitsofthebiometric
identifiersseemtooutweighsthepossibleflaws
thatthistechnologycouldhave.Forexample,
Etzionimentionsthatthistechnologywillhelp


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page8

findcriminalfugitiveswhichwilllessenthenumberofchildabuseandsexoffenders.Itwillalso
makesureparentsdonotavoidtheirfinancialobligationsofpayingforchildsupport,andwith
biometriccardsidentitytheftandwelfarefraudwillbeathingofthepast.NorthAmericawould
notallowfortheirpeopletohavethistechnologybecausethepersonalprivacyoftheuseris
valuedabovethepossiblesolutionstosomesocialproblemsinthiscountry.
Onthecontrary,
biometrictechnologyhasbeenmorereadilyacceptedincountrieslike
JapanandSouthKorea(Gold,2011).Thetechnologyhasincreased,fingerprint,facial,
IRIS/Retina,PalmScanner/VeinScanner,andvoicearebecomingmorepopularintheAsian
Pacificregion.ItwasinterestingtoreadthattheindividualsintheAsianPacificregionsarenot
concernedwiththeamountofinformationthebiometricveinscannerhas,rathertheyaremore
concernedabouttouchingascannerthathadbeentouchedbyanumberofotherindividuals
(Gold,2011).Thisiswhythecontactlesspalmveinbiometricsarebecomingmorepopular.
In1996,theKoreangovernmentproposedtoimplementtheIDcardsforalltheircitizens
tohave.AlthoughthebiometrictechnologyishighlyacceptedinNorthKorea,itisnot
mandatorytohavetheidentificationcard.Theelectroniccardwouldsubstitutetheirprevious
paperbackIDcardbecausetheelectroniccardwillhavetheabilitytoupdatetheinformationas
thepersonchangestheirpersonalbackground.Thenewcardwillhaveachipthatwillholda
largeamountofpersonaldataandwouldbeaccessedthroughdatabases.Someofthisdata
includesname,residentregistrationnumber,address,picture,driver'slicense,licenseplate
number,medicalinsurance,nationalpension,andfingerprintamongotherpersonalinformation.
Atthetime,thereactionfromthecitizenshadnobacklashduetotechnological,
economic,social,cultural,andpoliticalbackground.SouthKoreascollectivisttraditions


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page9

prioritizethegroupgoalsandvisionsovertheindividual'sselfinterest.Thiscouldbedueto
theirawarenessofnationalsecurityduetothesharpmilitaryconfrontationbetweenNorthand
SouthKorea(Kim,2004).Theyhaveastrongtechnologicalandindustrialbackgroundthat
supportsthecreationoftheelectroniccardandthepoliciesthatfallbehindthem.
Theagedividetowardstheviewpointsofprivacyisthesameindifferentcountries.For
example,studiesfoundthatbothFranceandGreecehaveasimilaragegroupthatismost
concernedwithprivacythanotheragegroupseventhoughbothcountrieshavedifferent
percentageofinternetusers:Greecehas31%andFrancehas62%(Miltgen,2014).Eventhough
theusageoftheInternetisgreatlydifferentbetweenthesetwocountries,theconcernsandissues
ofprivacybetweentheusersofGreeceandFranceareentirelythesame.Mostpeoplewhowere
bornintotechnologyanddonothavethesameconceptsofprivacyduetoeventssuchas9/11.
Inhisbook,Etzionimentionsthatthebestwaytocurtailtheneedforgovernmental
protectionandintrusionistohavelessprivacy(p213).Privacyisaconceptthatisdifferentnot
justamongdifferentculturesbutamongdifferentagegroups.Forexample,theadult
perspectiveassociatestheneedforprivacywiththepotentialfordangersofexternalorigin
whereforyoungeragegroups,privacyismoreoftenaboutseparationfromtheauthorityfigures
whoareinapositiontojudgethemorlimittheirpersonalchoices(Harris,2010).Theirprivacy
tendstobemoreonavoidingembarrassmentfromtheirpeersandarenotbotheredbysharingall
theirpersonalinformationwiththepublic.Asapersonalexample,I,KarenTafolla,knowthat
myparentsarefarmoreconcernedabouttheironlineprivacythanmysiblings.Mymomis
afraidofhersafetyandthesafetyofherchildrenanddecidestostayawayfromtheinternet.She
doesnotbuyanythingonlineanddoesnotusethecomputerunlesssomeoneiswithher.Onthe


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page10

otherhand,mybrotherisconstantlyusingtheinternetespeciallysocialmediasites.He
constantlysendssnapchatsaboutthethingsheiseating,orthelocationsheisvisiting.I
personallydonotmindhavingdifferentcorporationsorcompaniesknowwhoIamifitmeansI
willhavefreeservicessuchagoogledocs,googlesearch,yahoomail,andshoppingsiteslike
ebay.
CollectivelyfromdifferentEuropeancountries,middleagepeoplefromtheageof4560
yearshaverathernegativeviewsaboutdatadisclosureanduse,perceivingmanyrisksthatare
difficulttoprevent(Miltgen,2014).Thisisbecausetheinformationcollectedhasrevealedthat
adultsinthatagearenotasconfidentinattemptingtohidetheirpersonalinformationunlikethe
youngeragegroupstudied.Theolderagegroupknowsthattheirinformationissharedtowards
millionsofotherusers,sotheywouldrathersharelittleinformationaboutthemselveswhenever
theyhaveto.TheyoungeragegroupintheEuropeanresearch,ontheotherhand,hasopposite
views.TheyoungeragegroupinEuroperangesfrom1924yearolds,andaccordingtothe
researchmade,thisagegroupacknowledgesthatpersonaldatacouldgetmisused.Accordingto
oneofthepeopleinthisagegroup,whenapersonusestheinternet,theyknowperfectlywell
everybodyisgoingtohaveaccesstowhat[they]do,theyhaveaccesstowhatotherpeople
do,andthattheyabidebytherulesdespitebeingthewayitis(Miltgen,2014).Theyounger
generationisnotafraidofutilizingtheresourcesgiventothem,andasaresult,theyaremore
willingtouploadinformationaboutthemselveswhetherifitistheirlocationorfavoritefoods.
However,thereisanexceptiontothis.Althoughthesameagegroupismorewillingto
placeinformationontheInternet,theyfeelmoreresponsibleofsharingtheirinformationto
everyone.Infact,nineteentotwentyfouryearoldsaremorewillingtopostfalseinformationon


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page11

theInternetinordertoprotecttheirpersonalprivacyfromstrangers.Oneoftheparticipantsof
theresearchspeaksfortheyoungeragegroupandstates,wegiveourpersonaldetails,butonly
thosewhichweconsenttoreveal(Miltgen,2014).Thispersonlaterstatesthathe/shewould
thenlaterrevealtheirpersonalinformationiftheywouldfeelreadytoopenupandconnectwith
others.Althoughtheyoungergenerationsviewpointsaboutprivacyisshowntobedifferent
frommiddleageadults,thereasoningbehindyoungadultsintentionsofcreatingafakeprofile
sharesthesamereasonswhyolderadultsdonotfeelcomfortableusingtheInternet.Theywant
tomakesuretheyaresafefrompeoplewhotheyhavenevermetbefore.Untiltheyearneda
senseoftrustandcomfortwithcertainpeopleonline,thiscategoryofyoungadultswouldstill
feelthesenseofmistrustanddangerandkeepthefakeinformationonline.I,Karenfallunder
thisagegroupandbehaveinasimilarmannertothewaythepeopleintheresearch.Ihavemy
Facebookonprivatesettingsallowingalimitedamountofpeopletoviewmyinformation.This
iseventhoughIknowthattherearethirdpartycompaniesthataretrackingmyinformationin
ordertosellmeproducts.
Continuingonthetopicaboutageandhowitaffectsanindividual'ssenseofprivacy,
manyoftheyoungergenerationwhogrewupwithtechnologydontrealizehowmuchoftheir
ownprivacytheysacrifice.Eveninoldergenerations,individualsusetechnologyknowingthe
risksofprivacythatsurroundit.Theyoungergenerationhasyettounderstandthevalueoftheir
privacy,butthenwhydoestheoldergenerationcontinue,whileknowingtherisks?Ana
VecianaSuarez,awriterfortheMiamiHeraldhadsomethingtosayaboutthecontinueduseof
technology,Weretoblameformuchofthis,asconveniencehastrumpedwarningsfrom
privacyadvocates(MiamiHerald,2016).Thereasonspeoplecontinuetousetechnologyis


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page12

convenience,weasindividualsareawareoftherisks,butarehoweverwillingtopayasmall
price,ourprivacy.AtoolsuchasOkGoogleisaprettybiginvasionofprivacy,butwhenit
comesinhandyallconceptsofprivacygooutthewindow.Thistoollistensforthekeyphrase
OkGoogletocompleteanaction,butotherwiseisjustlisteningtoeverything,almostasa
recorder(TechRepublic,2015).Themoreefficientwayofdoingthings,orthemore
convenientwayofdoingthingsisashortcutandwithshortcutsthereisalwaysaprice,inthis
caseitsprivacy.
Besidesage,countriesthemselveshavedifferentviewstowardscertainaspectsof
privacy.InJanuaryof2016,anorganizationbythenameofFSecure,conductedasurveyonthe
concernsofonlineprivacyandsecurity.Elevendifferentcountries,includingtheUnitedStates,
theUnitedKingdom,Germany,France,andSweden

withnearly9,000differentrespondents
participatedinthesurvey(FSecure,2016).Theresultsofthesurveyfindsthatmostofthe
countriesrespondentslistedhassomeconcernintherelationshipbetweenprivacyand
technology.ForAmerica,thesurveyshowsthatfiftyfivepercentofAmericanschangedtheir
behavioronlineinordertohavemoreonlineprivacy,andfiftyninepercentoftherespondents
arewillingtochangewebbrowsersiftheyallowmoreprivateoptions.WebbrowsersinAmerica
areoneofthemostpopularwaysofutilizingtheInternetinAmerica(FSecure,2016).Thereare
otherwaysforpeopletoaccessandsendinformation.ThemostrecenttrendisInternetofThings
(IoT)technologythatallowsfordifferentdevicestocommunicatewithoneanother.Someofthe
IoTdevicesincludeitemssuchashomes,homesecurity,refrigerators,cars,orwatches,thathave
Internetconnection.IothasnotbecometoocommonamongAmericanhomessincetheyhave


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page13

accesstoinformationinportabledeviceslikelaptopsormorecommonly,cellphoneshowever,
thistechnologyhasgainedawarenessinFrance.
InFrance,seventytwopercentoftherespondentsagreedthatIoTpresentsathreatto
theirprivacy(FSecure,2016).Theresidentsaremostlikelyconcernedofhowthesedevices
havethecapabilityoftrackingapersonslocationatalltimes.Asaresult,sixtythreepercentof
therespondentsmentionthattheywouldavoidusingpublicwifi(FSecure,2016).Germanyhas
asimilaritytowardsthelikelihoodofbeingtracked.Accordingtotheresearch,sixtyseven
percentofGermanrespondentswereworriedaboutsurveillanceforintelligenceorganizations
(FSecure,2016).Sweden,however,hadtheleastamountofpercentagewiththesameconcerns
involvingwebbrowsers,InternetofThings,andsurveillance.MikaelAlbrecht,aFSecureLabs
researcher,hasdeductedreasonsbehindthelowamountofconcerntowardswhatAmericans,
Germans,andtheFrenchfearmostbehindonlineprivacy.AlbrechtstateshowtheSwedes
perceivetheircountryassafeandstable,especiallywhencomparedtocountrieslikeUK,USA
andFrance,whichhaveincreasednetworksurveillanceaggressively,andhealsomentionsthat
eventhoughSwedenandtheNordiccountrieslikelivingunderrelativelysecureenvironments,
theyarenottooconfidentthattheirpersonalinformationwouldremainprivateonline(FSecure,
2016).AlbrechtsreasonsbehindSwedenssmallamountofconcerntowardsprivacyand
securitycouldalsocorrelatewith
Etzionisviews.TheSwedesarewillingtosharetheirpersonal
datatothepublicsincethecitizensfeelcomfortablewithpublicpeeringattheirinformation,and
thiscouldbetheidealvisionthatEtzionihas.Forexample,ifAmericansweretosacrificetheir
personalinformationtosharewiththeoverallpublic,thentheUnitedStatescouldreformways


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page14

oflookingatinformation,andsincethosewhousetheinformationforbadwouldgetpunished,
makingthecountryfeelingmoresecureexchangingdata.

Conclusion
Inconclusion,Etzionispositionisonethatthemajorityofusagreewith.Hispolitical
stanceisonethatreallyspeakstousinthesensethathedoesnothaveafullutilitarianethical
belief,butastancethatalmostperfectlybalancestheissueofpublicsafetyandprivacy.
Exploringdifferentnationshasopenedupdifferentwaysofhowpeopleviewprivacyin
comparisonwithAmitai
Etzioni
.Whileindividualsofthecountriesmentioned,suchasthe
Americans,British,Germans,andFrench,haveconcernswithtechnologyaccessingtheir
personalinformation,thereevidencethatshowhowsomenationsarewillingtogiveupformsof
privacyfortheoverallpublic.KoreasimplementationofelectronicIDcardsthatrecordsand
showstheircitizensname,residentregistrationnumber,address,andphotoisanexample.The
approvalofthistechnologySouthKoreahasdemonstratedhowtheircitizensarewillingto
revealtheirinformationforeveryone'swellbeing.Agehasalsoillustratedhowtheconceptsof
privacycandifferamongstpeople.Thosewhoarebecomingyoungadultsfeelmoreconfidentin
utilizingtechnologythatrevealstheirinformationunlikemiddleageadults.AccordingtoPRC,

Whilesuchasystemismostlikelytobedevelopedbythecommercialsectorforusein
financialtransactions,governmentandlawenforcementauthoritieswouldlikelywanttotake
advantageofthesemassivedatabasesforotherpurposes,especiallyifweweretoenteratimeof
socialunrest.Indeed,governmentagenciesandlawenforcementarethetopsubscriberstothe


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page15

manydatabasescompiledbyprivatesectorinformationbrokers.(PRC,2016)Essentially,
despitetheseveraltoolsandtechnologiesthatcanensureoursafety,ourprivacyismoreatrisk.
Onethingthathasbecomeveryapparentisthattheissueofprivacyisonethatdiffersamong
differentculturesandages,butonethingforsureisthataswemoveforwardandmoreintothis
technologicalera,moreandmorebecomesatstakebothintermsofsafetyandprivacy.We
believethatthebalanceEtzioniprovidesisastepintherightdirection.


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page16

References
Doherty,R.(2016)Whyprivacyisimportant,andhaving"nothingtohide"isirrelevant.
Retrievedfromhttps://robindoherty.com/2016/01/06/nothingtohide.html
Abriefexplanationonwhylossofprivacyleadstolossoffreedom.Freedomrequires
privacyandvisversa.
Etzioni,Amitai.
Thelimitsofprivacy
.NewYork:BasicBook,1960.Web.
Thisbooktouchesbaseswithhowmuchpersonalprivacyisinvadedwiththeuseof
technology.Itmentionsthenegativeandpositiveeffectsoftechnologyonprivacy.Also
mentioningcaseswheretechnologyisneededandthesmallinvasionofprivacyisforthe
greatergoodaswellasifanyinvasionofprivacyisjustifiable.

FSecureSurveyChartsPrivacyConcernsinDifferentCountries.(2016).Retrievedfrom
https://www.fsecure.com/en/web/press_global/news/newsarchive//journal_content/56/
1075444/1512418?p_p_auth=bKsgv4Yv&refererPlid=1081937
FSecuresurveyedover9,000peoplefromelevendifferentcountriesfromdifferentage
groups.Thesurveyresultsshowedthatthereisasimilarpatterntothebehaviorbetween
differentagegroupsaroundtheInternet.WiththeexceptionofSwedes,mostagegroups
arenotconcernedabouttheirprivacybecausetheybelievetheircountryisthemostsafe
outofalltheneighboringcounties.Theconcernofonlineprivacyhasgottothepointof
notaccessingpublicwifi.
Gold,S.(2011).Biometricsaglobalreview.
BiometricTechnologyToday,
2011(4),58.


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page17

Theglobalreviewarticleanalyzesonbiometrictechnologyaroundtheworld.Someof
thebiometrictechnologyincludesfingerprint,palm,andvoicescanners.Thearticle
focusesitsfindingsinregionssuchasIndia,Australia,Brazil,amongstotherregions.The
articlementionsthatPacificAsiahadthebiggesttrendinbiometrictechnology.
Harris,F.(2010).Teensandprivacy:Mythsandrealities.KnowledgeQuest,39(1),74.
Harris,mentionsthatonlineprivacyisanissuethatisnotmostcommonlylookedonby
theelderlypopulation,ratheritisaproblemthatmanyteensarefacing.Thearticle
mentionstopicsaboutcyberbullyingandotherproblemsteensarefacingduetothelack
ofprivacyintheInternet.Thearticleiswrittentoprovideawarenessofthe
cybercitizenshipmovementinschools.Thatwaystudentsknowonhowtokeeptheir
informationsafeandrecognizecybermisbehaviour.
Howard,A.(2015,November11).AfterParis,WhatWereGettingWrongInPrivacy
vs.SecurityDebate.Retrievedfrom
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/parisattacksprivacyvssecurity_us_5649d222e4b
045bf3defcd0e
ThisarticlediscussesthetopicoftheterroristsattacksthatoccurredinParisin2015.It
bringsuptheuseofencryptedmessagingservicesthatmakeitextremelydifficultforlaw
enforcementtointerceptandpreventeventslikethisfromoccuring.
Kim,M.(2004).Surveillancetechnology,privacyandsocialcontrol:Withreferencetothecase
ofnationalidentificationwithcardSouthKorea.InternationalSociology,19(2),
193213.


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page18

Kimdidhisresearchonsurveillancetechnology,privacyandsocialcontrolinSouth
Korea.Whenthenationbroughtuptheideaofwantingtobuildanationalidentification
cardwithpersonalinformation,thepublicwasnotoutragedbytheidea.Someofthe
informationthatwouldbestoredincludestheirsocialsecurity,birthdate,driver'slicence,
andmedicalinsurance.Kimmentionsthatduetodifferentcultureandtheawarenessof
nationalsecurityplaysafactorintotheirdecisionssincetheyhavehadadifficultmilitary
confrontationduetotheirneighborsinNorthKorea.
Miltgen,C.,&Peyratguillard,D.(2014).Culturalandgenerationalinfluencesonprivacy
concerns:Aqualitativestudyinseveneuropeancountries.
EuropeanJournalof
InformationSystems
,
23
(2),103.
ThisresearchfocusesonhowEuropeancountriesdecidetodisclosetheirpersonal
informationanddifferentprivacypointsofviewamongsttheEuropeancitizens.The
researchissplitintotwoagegroups,theyoungergenerationsagesfifteentotwentyfour
andtheolderagegroupsagestwentyfourtoseventy.Theresultssuggestthatsimilarage
groupshavethesamemindsetonthistechnologytheviewpointstendtochangemore
betweenregions.Forexample,althoughSwedenandFrancehavesimilarpopulationsthe
waybothareastreattheironlineprivacyisdifferent.
Olsen,S.(2002)PatriotActdrawsprivacyconcerns.RetrievedApril01,2016,from
http://www.cnet.com/news/patriotactdrawsprivacyconcerns/
ThisarticleintroducesthePatriotActandexplainssomeoftheconcernsbeingraised
sinceithasbeenimplemented.Theinformationisgoesovermostofthepublics


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page19

concernslikehowthebillwhichissupposedtotargetterroristactivityonly,canbeused
againstorganizationswhoaredoinglawfulthings.
PrivacyToday:AReviewofCurrentIssues.(2001,March1).RetrievedApril01,2016,from
https://www.privacyrights.org/ar/PrivacyIssuesList.htm
Thispagecontainsacollectionofmostcommonlyusedtechnologiesthatpeopleargue
arehugeinvasionsofprivacy.Someofthetopicsincludebiometricsystems,workplace
monitoring,videosurveillanceandmore.
Rowen,B.(2012)Post9/11ChangesBytheU.S.Government.retrievedfrom
www.infoplease.com/us/history/911anniversarygovernmentchanges.html.
ThisarticletalksaboutthechangesthattheUSgovernmentwentthroughafterthe
bombingson9/11,thetreatmentofterroristsbythegovt,andgeneralchangesthat
occurredaftertheattacks.
Shah,A.(2013)WarOnTerror.retreivedfromwww.globalissues.org/issue/245/waronterror.
Thisarticletalksabouttheparticularsofthe9/11attacks.Thereisinformationregarding
thedeathcountsresultingfromthebombings,thesubsequentwars,militaryexpenditure
andhasatonethatexpressesthegeneralpoornatureoftheviolenceandwastefulnessof
thewaronterror.
Shamsi,H.,Abdo,A.(daten.a.)PrivacyandSurveillancePost9/11.retrievedfrom
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/huma
N_rights_vol38_2011/human_rights_winter2011/privacy_and_surveillance
_post_911.html


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page20

Thisarticlesomeoftheimplicationsofrestrictingprivacyandintroducingsurveillance
intosociety.ItmakesconnectionsbetweentechnologicaladvancementsinGPS
technologyanditsfeasibilityintrackingindividualpeopleasabreachofprivacy.
Tancer,Bill.
Click:WhatMillionsofPeopleAreDoingOnlineandWhyItMatters
.NewYork:
Hyperion,2008.Web.
Thisbookspeaksontheroletechnologyplaysinanindividual'sdailylifeaswellas
everythingsurroundingthem.Itgoesintodetailabouthowtechnologyoffersa
widespreadofinformationandadvertisementsthatisusedasadvantageforbusinessesto
succeedandgrowallthemore.
Thearling,K.(1998).DataMiningandPrivacy:Aconflictinthemaking?Retrievedfrom
http://www.thearling.com/text/dsstar/privacy.htm
Thisarticleessentiallybrieflyexplainsthetopicofprivacyfromtheperspectiveofdata
mining.Italsointroducestheideaof
"fairinformationpractice"principleswhichareused
whendecidingwhetheracompanyisintheirreasonablejurisdictionwhencollectingyour
data.
VecianaSuarez,Ana(2016)Thelossofprivacyisthepricewepayforconvenience.retrieved
fromhttp://www.miamiherald.com/living/livcolumnsblogs/anaveciana
suarez/article57332268.html

Thisarticlementionsanindividual'sawarenessoftheinvasionofprivacywhichcomes
withtheuseoftechnology.Itidentifiestherealreasonwhypeoplecontinuewithsocial


Cozza,Garcia,Ramirez,Tafolla,Page21

mediaanditisbecauseitisconvenientforauser.Technologyisabigaidnowadaysand
peopleareokaywithriskingsomeoftheirprivacy.
Wallen
,
Jack
(2015)
Islessprivacyworththepriceofconvenience?.retrievedfrom
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/islessprivacyworththepriceofconvenience/
Thisarticletalksabouthowapplicationsinvadepersonalprivacy,morespecifically,Ok
Google.Thisisatoolthatlistensinthebackgroundwhileactivated,onceausersays
OkGoogleitcontinuestoperformanactionmuchlikeSiri.Ittouchesbasesonhow
convenientthistoolcouldactuallybeifitimposesaninvasionofpersonalprivacy.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen