Running Head: SOLUTIONS TO ONLINE PRIVACY 1

Solution to Online Privacy

ENG 102

Professor Kardell

Carlos Barajas

April 24, 2019 or May 1, 2019

SOLUTIONS FOR ONLINE PRIVACY 2

Abstract

Currently, crime control agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) and the Central

Intelligence Agency (CIA) were given the right to investigate and collect information on a

suspected target without a warrant. This allows them to gather personal information on any

individual without a probable cause. This invasion of privacy online does not uphold the Fourth

Amendment to the United States Constitution because most of the online activity is done at

home. This means that searching personal information at a home without a probable cause is

illegal, but because the search is done online authorities were given permission to do as they

please. By adding a policy that requires a warrant, it will give more respect to the laws of the

United States Constitution and the citizens. However, it may slow down the conviction process

or change the rates of crime. If urgent and important like information needed for a murder, law

enforcement is still able to gather key information for the investigation. Additionally, crime

control agents will be able to gain a better perception on legitimate reasons for a warrant and it

will increase the process for developing a warrant. This policy may also make internet users

comfortable to use the internet or without having to pay and use various forms of online activity

security. Finally, the solution can also improve the issue involving the view of law enforcement

that social media has broken down.

Key words: privacy, warrant, crime control agencies, legitimate

SOLUTIONS FOR ONLINE PRIVACY 3

Solutions for Online Privacy

There has been a history of innocent people being wrongfully convicted for crimes and

having to serve long sentences. After some time, new evidence may emerge and it is possible

that the convicted person may be found innocent, which results in their release from prison.

However, this is the only thing the innocent person is given. They cannot get back the years they

lost behind bars, the disappointment that family, friends, or the community felt, and the

possibility of getting a job is low with a felony under their title. Therefore, there needs to be a

policy that will prevent this from occurring again and again. The specific area that needs to be

serviced is the online warrantless searches that can invade anyone’s privacy if they are suspected

by the crime control agencies. In order to prevent citizens from having their privacy invaded at

any time, policy makers should make federal crime control agencies have a warrant to collect

personal information on a suspected target through online.

The issue is that crime control agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI)

and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) were given the right to investigate and collect

information on a suspected target without a warrant (Carr, 2013). They would be allowed to

gather information about the suspected target like what websites they visit and the items that they

are interested in from the websites. This even gives the crime control agencies the possibility to

seize credit card information if they find it to be a tool for the suspected target to commit

offenses. If the suspect is convicted, the credit cards or the bank accounts get frozen and it will

prevent the family from using those for bail, car payments, or even for groceries. There are other

results that can come from the actions of crime control agencies. The major one is convicting

innocent people of crimes that they did not commit. There could be someone stealing their

internet and the IP address that the crime control agencies follow would be the victims not the
SOLUTIONS FOR ONLINE PRIVACY 4

actual offender (Hennig, 2018). To prevent this type of thing from happening the policy makers

should make take away or create a law that makes the online investigations need a warrant before

collecting personal information.

The idea of having a warrant is that there is a probable cause and evidence that will likely

get the offender convicted of there crimes. Without it there is no clear understanding and

evidence that the possible offender is a criminal. The crime control agencies can create a case on

anyone and the worst part of it is that they can target those who are slandering the crime control

agencies’ reputation. By having a warrant, the crime control agencies would have legitimate

reasons for suspecting an individual and a higher-ranking officer would have agreed with the

proposal. This would also have the agents focus on collecting evidence that would convict the

possible offender and not information like they prefer green apples or the red ones. They would

be searching and collecting the important information and the case would be taken more

seriously, and even take less time to build the case. By having the warrant, it would also prevent

friends and family from having their privacy invaded. Officers would need more permission and

a legitimate reason to investigate them. These are some of the benefits that can come from

enforcing the crime control agencies to have a warrant for online investigations against the

public.

However, by making crime control agencies have a warrant for online investigations of

its citizens, there may be negative effects. Online investigators need some source of information

that a person is committing an illegal act. In order to get the proper evidence, they might have to

invade the privacy of the individual and find the legitimate reason for building a case. If they

cannot do this research because of the needed warrant, it will make it more difficult and longer to

build the case and convict. As a result, the suspected individual may continue committing
SOLUTIONS FOR ONLINE PRIVACY 5

unlawful acts and the crime control agencies cannot do anything to stop them. Even though this

can be negative reducing crime rates, it feels more comfortable to know that crime control

agencies are limited or prevented from collecting personal information for whatever they will be

doing with it. Knowing that they can find the address of a person and tricking them to gain

access to their files or computer tools is outrages and creepy. With there current power it has

citizens of various ages feeling unconfident and dependent of VPN services or others to prevent

outsiders from viewing their home location or online activity (Hennig, 2018). This is how the

policy for needed a warrant can negatively affect the conviction process.

Although, the process for conviction and the crime rate may be changed because of the

policy for needing a warrant is passed. It will provide more morally good acts for the public.

Crime control agencies will not be invading the privacy of citizens that they were granted by the

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This may decrease the amount of money

spent or time trying to protect their devices and the online activity on it. As a result, parents

would be able to focus on teaching their children on how to use the technology properly, which

is a skill that many jobs like office work, Best Buy, or other technological companies want.

Crime control agencies will also be better at spotting legitimate reasons for building a case of the

suspected victim. Additionally, if the cause is important and urgent like they know who the

murderer is but need to track their IP address to find their home, this is going to going to be

allowed because murder is the worst crime to be committed. Not only will this policy help to

push for more respect of human rights online it will also bring law enforcement and the

community closer together. The public may have a little bit more respect for its crime control

agencies knowing that they are respecting their privacy (Jiang, Tsai, Cotten, Rifon, LaRose, &

Alhabash, 2016). This would build a healthier relationship with the community and their
SOLUTIONS FOR ONLINE PRIVACY 6

reputation won’t be known as bad as social media portrays them to be, which will improve the

current issue that law enforcement faces in this time period.

SOLUTIONS FOR ONLINE PRIVACY 7

References

Balfe, M., Gallagher, B., Masson, H., Balfe, S., Brugha, R., & Hackett, S. (2015). Internet Child

Sex Offenders’ Concerns about Online Security and their Use of Identity Protection

Technologies: A Review. Child Abuse Review, 24(6), 427–439. https://doi-

org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1002/car.2308

Cath, C., & Floridi, L. (2017). The Design of the Internet’s Architecture by the Internet

Engineering Task Force (IETF) and Human Rights. Science & Engineering Ethics, 23(2),

449–468. https://doi-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1007/s11948-016-9793-y

Carr, M. (2013). Internet freedom, human rights and power. Australian Journal of International

Affairs, 67(5), 621–637. https://doi-

org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1080/10357718.2013.817525

Clinton, H. R. (2012). Internet Freedom and Human Rights. Issues in Science &

Technology, 28(3), 45–52. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7

4617918&site=ehost-live

Cooper, M. (2012). Internet freedom: Not a foreign-policy issue. Issues in Science &

Technology, 28(4), 18–20. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7

8223817&site=ehost-live

De Minico, G. (2013). New Social Rights and Internet: Which Policies Combine

Them? International Community Law Review, 15(3), 261–286. https://doi-

org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1163/18719732-12341253
SOLUTIONS FOR ONLINE PRIVACY 8

Freiwald, S., & Smith, S. W. (2018). The Carpenter Chronicle: A Near-Perfect

Surveillance. Harvard Law Review, 132(1), 205–235. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1

33133111&site=ehost-live

Goldsborough, R. (2016). The Freedom of Free Speech Online. Teacher Librarian, 43(3), 62–63.

Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1

13222025&site=ehost-live

Hennig, N. (2018). Privacy and Security Online: Best Practices for Cybersecurity. Library

Technology Reports, 54(3), 1–37. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1

28707555&site=ehost-live

Jiang, M., Tsai, H. S., Cotten, S. R., Rifon, N. J., LaRose, R., & Alhabash, S. (2016).

Generational differences in online safety perceptions, knowledge, and

practices. Educational Gerontology, 42(9), 621–634. https://doi-

org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1080/03601277.2016.1205408

Martin, K. (2016). Data aggregators, consumer data, and responsibility online: Who is tracking

consumers online and should they stop? Information Society, 32(1), 51–63. https://doi-

org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1080/01972243.2015.1107166

Levinson-Waldman, R. (2017). Hiding in Plain Sight: A Fourth Amendment Framework for

Analyzing Government Surveillance in Public. Emory Law Journal, 66(3), 527–615.

Retrieved from
SOLUTIONS FOR ONLINE PRIVACY 9

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1

21933702&site=ehost-live

Standing -- Challenges to Government Surveillance -- Clapper v. Amnesty International USA.

(2013). Harvard Law Review, 127(1), 298–307. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9

2509439&site=ehost-live

Suski, E. F. (2014). Beyond the Schoolhouse Gates: The Unprecedented Expansion of School

Surveillance Authority under Cyberbullying Laws. Case Western Reserve Law

Review, 65(1), 63–119. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1

01203781&site=ehost-live

Tortell, D. M. (2017). Surfing the Surveillance Wave: Online Privacy, Freedom of Expression

and the Threat of National Security. Review of Constitutional Studies, 22(2), 211–238.

Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1

26190514&site=ehost-live