Current development of information sharing via the internet has brought several advantages as well as disadvantages with it. Unlike a few decades back, communication in the current age is instant, thanks to digital technology. People are no longer kept apart by bureaucratic and expensive communications. In a social sense, the whole world lives as a village. Passing of information between people and organizations is real-time. The benefits that accrue to this form of information sharing are far-reaching. The past decade has seen more companies becoming global entities than any other time in history. With these benefits comes the ugly side of digital communication. With the widespread use of instant messaging, social media emails and Business Process Outsourcing, no data is secure. There are cybercrimes involving hacking and phishing. There is controversy over whether the government should fasten its fists in ensuring the security of individual and organization data. Users of the internet and social networking sites should take a more cautious approach to the sharing of their private information online.
Earlier in 2013, a revelation of NASA’s engagement in unethical exposure of people’s personal information sent shivers of fear across the nation. There is a growing concern whether there is any hope for privacy in digital communication given that institutions bestowed with the responsibility of protecting people is doing contrary to its mandate. The National Security Agency was unprofessionally gaining personal information concerning individuals and organizations in the name of fighting terrorism. It was alleged that the agency surreptitiously collected unknown amount of information from general people’s emails, text messages, phone calls, social networking data and shared videos. The information was taken from significant telecommunication companies including Microsoft, Skype, Facebook, Twitter, Google and Apple. The exposure of private information by NASA placed worries over the government’s ability to protect the public from online fraudsters.
Despite the claims that the security agency was playing dirty games with people’s privacy, legislative measures put in place by the government are enough to assure citizens of their online security if they play their part. Stored Communication Act is legislation that addresses compelled and voluntary disclosure of electronic and wired electronic transaction and telecommunication records. These are the records stored by service providers and third party ISPs. The law came into being under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. Over the years, the act has been amended to provide comprehensive coverage of emerging issues in electronic communication. In addition, the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution protects citizens’ rights. This offers a comprehensive coverage over one’s safety of the body, papers, houses, personal affects and unreasonable seizures and searches.
Although the Fourth Amendment advocates for spatial security of the person, it implies security of information of an individual that is stored online by third party service providers. The amendment gives every person the right to be secure and protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. In this respect, the government has placed a strong mechanism to protect its citizens against exploitation by third party service providers. It is only in the event that there is a reasonable allegation against an individual that service providers may reveal communication between an individual and other parties. It is the responsibility of every individual to protect confidential information about him or her from infiltrating into the internet.
Additionally, the laws of the land state clear regulations between the third party service providers and their clients. It recognizes the reality that internet users generally entrust service providers with all their information. The Fourth Amendment’s doctrines hold that clients relinquish any expectations of privacy by trusting the internet service providers with such information.
The Third-Party Doctrines hold the views that releasing crucial and confidential information to a service provider relinquishes the protection of the Fourth Amendment in the said information. This calls for people using the internet to exercise caution with the information they share online as the law can only provide cover to particular levels. In addition, people need to be careful with what they upload over the internet since the level of permission required to provide information in the event that there is reasonable cause are minimal. Whereas the Fourth Amendment states that a probable cause and a warrant are needed to conduct seizure and search, disclosure of online information by a third party only requires a prior notice and a subpoena. These are much lower hurdles than probable cause and warranty.
Given the nature of online information, this is so far the best the Fourth Amendment can and should offer. Making conditions for seizure and search of information from a third party could curtail further gains in the fight against cybercrime. In order to execute justice to individuals and institutions that are victims of cybercrimes, the same third party providers are looked upon to provide incriminating evidence against cyber criminals. The current provisions of the law and the constitution create the best balance that ensures protection of the innocent internet users and the prosecution of cyber criminals. It is the duty of internet users to protect their confidential data. Making the Third Party Doctrine more stringent on disclosure of information would not work best for the internet users. On the contrary, such fastening of rules would only create more conducive environment for more grievous cybercrimes.
Another reason why the government may not need to change protocols that already govern sharing of information digitally is the role that encrypting and breaking codes has played in the development of the United States. Electronic eves-dropping is a phenomenon that has seen states develop from the Civil Wars of the 1880s to contemporary fighting of terrorism. It plays a core role in ensuring national security and fighting crime. Wiretapping was the first used electronic eves-dropping technique during a time that national security was a national emergency. From these times of World War 1, using electronic information trapped from electronic communication media has become an essential phenomenon in ensuring the security of the country.
The dilemma on whether to have the people becoming responsible for the information they post over the internet or having the government impose more rigid rules on disclosure of information is indeed a controversy. In the view of balancing individual freedom and national security, it is sensible to let people enjoy vast physical freedom the law provides, but exercise a little refrain about what they share online while ensuring they are safe. The intricate relationship between revelation of information by third party service providers to security agencies and security of the land supports the need to let individuals be responsible for their own data safety. The government already has enough measures to ensure people’s online security and it is up to the citizens to keep themselves safe online.
References
Retrieved Sept 21, 2013, from Education and Technology: http://www.musicincmag.com/Resources/the_ideabox/the_ideamakers/MI0906_theresa_perry.pdf
Joel, M. C. (2012, June 21). Crime and Urban Form . Retrieved September 23, 2013, from
Mapping the Spatial Influence of Crime Correlates: A Comparison of Operationalization Schemes and Implications for Crime Analysis and Criminal Justice Practice: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41426675
Mablon, V. (2011). Blackberry Company . Boston: Muffling Printers.
Shrodinger, S. (2009). computer assessment and treatment in the past century. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Tignor, S., & Hague, B. (2007). Worlds Together, Worlds Apart (Third Edition ed.).
NewYork: Norton and Company Inc.
