Chapter 6 Quiz
Chapter 6 – Quiz 6
Strong arguments can be given as to why encryption tools are needed to safeguard communications in cyberspace, yet these tools can be used by terrorists and criminals to protect their communications in cyberspace. (a) In the wake of September 11, can a case be made for not allowing ordinary users to employ strong encryption tools in Internet communications? (b) Can we still claim to live in a free society if plans for government interception of email communications, as provided for in the Homeland Security Act (http://fl1.findlaw.com/news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/hsa2002.pdf), are be implemented?
Since 9/11, a case can be made for not allowing ordinary users to employ strong encryption tools in Internet communications because national security is more important than private security. Allowing some individuals to use powerful encryption tools may result in allowing terrorists to hide another attack on the country which could be far worse than 9/11. The internet was created as a public forum, thus those who post information on the internet should be willing to allow that information to be reviewed by the government for possible threats to national security.
We can still live in a free society even with the governmental plans for interception of email communications under the Homeland Security Act for several reasons. First, the government will not want access to everyone’s emails. The emails of interest will be of those who are already suspected criminals or criminals. Second, if a person does not wish their email to be read by the government, they should send a letter. The government does not intend to invade privacy more than it intends to ensure safety. The Department of Homeland Security was developed to prevent terrorist attacks from occurring within the United States, to reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism and to lower the damage and assist in the recovery from terrorist attacks. The implementation of the Homeland Security Act and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security was not intended to remove our freedoms. Allowing for the interception of email communications is a small price to pay to avoid another attack on the United States. There must be a balance between civil liberties and homeland security .
In the discussion of Internet anonymity, some forms of anonymous behavior in cyberspace can have profound ethical implications. Imagine that there is a very close political election involving two candidates who are running for a seat in a state legislature. The weekend before citizens will cast their votes, one candidate decides to defame his opponent by using an anonymous remailer service (which strips away the original address of the sender of the email) to send a message of questionable truth to an electronic distribution list of his opponent’s supporters. The information included in this email is so defamatory that it may threaten the outcome of the election by influencing many undecided voters, as well as the libeled candidate’s regular supports, to vote against her. (a) Does the “injured” candidate in this instance have the right to demand that the identity of the person using the anonymous remailer (who she suspects for good reasons to be her opponent in this election) be revealed. (b) Why or why not?
The injured candidate in the scenario does have the right to demand that the identity of the person using the anonymous mailer be revealed. A crime has been committed and the company should be required to provide the information. There must be limits to internet anonymity. Allowing complete anonymity on the internet would lead to no accountability. Although there may be some difficulty in forcing disclosure of the anonymous mailer, it appears that the issue will eventually be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The injured candidate has this right because they have been violated both criminally and civilly. Additionally, there would be no legitimate right to privacy arguments for the anonymous mailer except that the intent was to send the mailer without being identified. When a person chooses to use an anonymous mailer to behave in unethical, immoral or illegal activities, there should be no expectation of privacy. This is a form of Information Warfare in politics that has the potential to cause harm.
References
Gilmore, Jim. GILMORE: Balancing homeland security and civil liberties. 6 March 2014. <http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/6/gilmore-balancing-homeland-security-and-civil-libe/?page=all>.
Chandler, Clay. Hearing date set on anonymous mailer. 14 September 2015. <http://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/2015/09/14/hearing-date-set-anonymous-mailer-case/72281966/>.
