Chapter 5 Quiz
Chapter 5 – Quiz 5
2. In the days and weeks immediately following the tragic events of September 11, 2001, some political leaders claimed that “extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures”; in times of war, basic civil liberties and freedoms, such as privacy, need to be severely restricted for the sake of national security and safety. Perhaps, as a nation, the value that we have traditionally attached to privacy has diminished significantly since then. Consider that the majority of American citizens strongly supported the USA (United and Strengthening America) PATRIOT (Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act, which passed by an overwhelming margin in both houses of Congress and was enacted into law on October 21, 2001. Privacy advocates have since expressed their concerns about this act, noting that it might have gone too far in eroding basic civil liberties. Some critics also fear that certain provisions included in the act could easily be abused; for example, those in power could use those provisions to achieve controversial political ends under the convenient guise of national defense. Examine some of the details of USA PATRIOT Act (go to http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html). (a) Determine whether its measures are as extreme as its critics suggest. (b) Are those measures consistent with the value of privacy, which Americans claim to embrace? (c) Do privacy interests need to be reassessed, and possibly recalibrated, in light of recent attacks by and ongoing threats from terrorists? (d) What similar acts or laws exist in the United Kingdom?
The measures of the United States Patriot Act are not as extreme as critics suggest because they are aimed to protect United States citizens and our country from terrorism, not to invade privacy. As citizens of a free country, we must be willing to make concessions. The change of priorities in America after 9/11 made it necessary to balance our interests and priorities concerning protection and security. It is not likely that the majority of Americans are even aware of, or effected by, any provisions of the United States Patriot Act. The current issue concerning Apple and the iPhone of the California terrorist raises the issue of privacy and terrorist, and where the line should be drawn. I do believe that Apple allow the government access to the iPhone as it is a matter of national security. I do not think it would set precedent for anyone to get access anytime they want.
The measures within the Patriot Act may not be consistent with America’s value for privacy; however, the provisions are necessary in order to ensure the security of America and its citizens. When weighing security against privacy, security must take precedence. Without security and protection, there would be no need for privacy. Also, the fear of abuse of power under the Patriot Act may be realistic; however, in our democratic form of government which provides for a separation of powers and a system of checks and balances, there will likely not be any abuse of power that would produce immediate harm to American citizens.
Privacy interests do not need to be recalibrated due to terrorist threats because the United States Patriot Act has sufficiently addressed the issues that have arisen thus far. Our sense of privacy should be reevaluated and adjusted to meet the world in which we live in today.
The United Kingdom enacted the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act which allows for similar measures that are permitted in the United States Patriot Act for governmental agencies.
3. Through the use of currently available online tools and techniques, ordinary users can easily acquire personal information about others. In fact, anyone who has Internet access can find information about us that we ourselves might have had no idea is publicly available there. Recall the cyberstalking case involving Amy Boyer, described in Chapter 1. One of the questions considered there was whether Boyer’s privacy was violated while she was being stalked. We saw that Boyer’s stalker was able to take advantage of Internet search facilities to acquire much of the information he needed to track down his victim. (a) Is it true that individual privacy is threatened by the use of search engines? (b) How? (c) Are there similar cyberstalking cases in other countries.
Individual privacy is not threatened by the use of search engines because information is not put out on the internet by anyone other than the individual user. Personal information can be kept off the internet if a person does not choose to put personal information on the internet. This is a choice. Information that is posted by other entities is a threat to privacy especially considering the amount, speed, duration and type of information that is exposed. Since we do not have the ability to control or restrict this type of information, it does threaten our privacy in the sense that privacy means our right to keep our personal information personal.
Individual privacy is not threatened by search engines. An individual exposes himself when he puts the personal information on the internet and when he chooses to perform a search on the internet. Individuals need to be more careful and their privacy would not be invaded. Search engines only gather information that is accessible. Although Google and other companies gather and store user searches, and the user history can be obtained by police in an investigation, I would still argue that it is not a privacy invasion because it is conducted on the very public internet.
There are similar cyberstalking cases in other countries. Canada and Great Britain have well known cyberstalking cases. In Canada in 2006, a cyber stalker received a sentence of one year when convicted of criminal harassment . In Great Britain, cyber stalking is common and punishment for the crime is consistent. In a 2014 news article, it was reported that at least ten facing individuals face charges of stalking on a weekly basis .
Reference
Hong, Nicole and Pervaiz Shallwani. Apple Privacy Fight Stirs up State and Local Cases. 18 February 2016. <http://www.nasdaq.com/article/apple-privacy-fight-stirs-up-state-and-local-cases-20160218-01362>.
Chorley, Matt. Daily Mail. 21 February 2014. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2563967/10-stalkers-court-week-new-laws-passed-campaigners-warn-just-tip-iceberg.html>.
