My Thoughts on the Limits of Privacy Post 9/11 Tiffanie Ly As Americans, we have the right to own our own private property, as stated in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution. It is one of America s fundamental freedoms, yet our privacy and private property are violated daily in order to protect the public or to produce money. As horrific events pass and technology advances, it becomes harder for individuals who use this technology to keep their information private. Privacy, a state in which one is not observed or disturbed by other people, is often abused, misunderstood, and overvalued. The way that some people treat this state is irrelevant when their own privacy is being violated. It is an important virtue that almost every American values, but they do not realize that privacy isn t all too important and sometimes it is necessary to have our private information and data collected to protect public health and safety. It is contradictory to demand privacy when we want to be protected by the government. The government cannot do their job to protect us without monitoring our activities, whether we are innocent or not. It is also contradictory to sign up for an online account, impulsively agreeing with the terms and conditions, and expecting that our data will not be used for the company s benefits or be sold to third parties. In this paper, I will be researching and exploring how privacy is treated within American culture and comparing it to other cultures in the world. When we view a subject from a different perspective from other cultures, we can see how privacy can be redefined in the United States. Privacy is a complex value that differs depending on how cultural groups or individuals view and treat the value. I personally believe that my privacy, my private conversations and information, should be respected and protected from people who I don t trust. With my personal property, I pick and choose who I want to share my person information or physical property with. I am accepting of bag checks at the airport because I know that it is their protocol in order to keep people safe. I also choose to release Ly 1
my personal thoughts and feelings with my friends because I know that they will keep it to themselves. Because I grew up with technology and the internet all of my life, I am very aware that my information is not safe and private due to the encounters and mistakes I ve made while using it. I am aware that some companies sell my information to third parties, but I will still continue to use these websites because I don t think companies and the government obtaining my information will directly affect me. I do, however, find it disturbing that these companies are harvesting and selling their users data and information, but the users are the ones who supply these websites with information because they are using a public website. With websites like Facebook and Google, it makes it impossible for their users to keep their personal life private. Nonetheless, I feel like no one, whether it is the government or an untrustworthy friend, should violate our private property and information because they are the things we want to keep to ourselves should remain so. The American culture that I grew up with taught me what it means to have privacy as well as the consequences of invading privacy. On September 11 th, 2001, al Qaeda, an Islamic Extremist group lead by Osama Bin Laden, hijacked 4 airliners and succeeded suicide attacks against America. The airplanes crashed into the two towers of the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., and a field in Pennsylvania. This attack costs the lives of more than 3,000 people and injured 10,000 other people because airport security carelessly let these men onto the plane even though the metal detector revealed that they had something hidden. This event occurred in retaliation of America's involvement in the Middle East, such as their support for Israel and their military presence in the Middle East. When this tragic event took place, it negatively affected how the privacy of American citizens were treated. In response, the U.S. Government is now determined to protect America from terrorist attacks at all costs by regulating air travel and surveilling phone and internet activity. More than a month after the terrorist Ly 2
attack, President George Bush signed the USA PATRIOT Act into Congress, which aims to identify and stop terrorists by using federal money. One of the things that the government is allowed to do is intercept wire, oral, and electronic communications terrorism and computer fraud and abuse (USA PATRIOT Act, 2001). The Transportation Security Administration, an agency created to protect U.S. Transportation and prevent aircraft hijacking, was also an signed into law by George Bush on November 19 th, 2001. Because of these protocols, a number of Americans believe that their rights to privacy and civil liberties are being eroded in order to protect other Americans. The Limits of Privacy, written by Amitai Etzioni in 1999, recognizes the concern that people have about their right to privacy, but also addresses how America needs a new interpretation of what privacy means and how it endangers public health and safety. In this book, Etzioni states that: Behind these observations lies the assumption that good societies carefully balance individual rights and social responsibilities, autonomy and the common good, privacy and concerns for public safety and public health, rather than allow one value or principle to dominate. Once we accept the concept of balance, the question arises as to how we are to determine whether our polity is off balance and in what direction it needs to move, and to what extent, to restore balance (Etzioni, 1999, pg. 184). I agree with Etzioni because people tend to be egocentric rather than consider the safety of the community. We need to find a balance between our individual values, which aren t important values in other countries, and the common good. In order to do this, we need to redefine what it means to have privacy and then find out what components should be sacrificed in order to protect not only yourself, but other people as well. Ly 3
Up until the 1890s, our right to privacy was just an informal notion and there was no legal standing mentioned in the constitution. Privacy was treated like property, for example if your diary or notes were taken, you can can sue the person for damage done to that diary or the notes. However, on December 15 th, 1890, Louis Brandeis and Samuel Warren published The Right of Privacy in the Harvard Law Review defining privacy as a right to be left alone. Etzioni has same views as what was said in the essay: It would doubtless be desirable that the privacy of the individual should receive the added protection of the criminal law, but for this, legislation would be required. Perhaps it would be deemed proper to bring the criminal liability for such publication within narrower limits; but that the community has an interest in preventing such invasions of privacy, sufficiently strong to justify the introduction of such a remedy, cannot be doubted. Still, the protection of society must come mainly through a recognition of the rights of the individual. Each man is responsible for his own acts and omissions only (Brandeis & Warren, 1890). Because of this essay, the U.S. Constitution also had an informal notion in the Fourth Amendment. The Fourth Amendment states that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (U.S. Constitution). This amendment became the basis of an argument for the protection of our right to privacy against the government. With these as a foundation, we can discover a redefinition of privacy and a Ly 4
balance between privacy for individuals and the community who are affected by their privacy by observing the components described in Etzioni s book. One of the components that Amitai Etzioni discusses in The Limits of Privacy is giving a key to the authorities to decipher encrypted messages. Encrypted messages allows people to communicate with complete protection that public authority can t even crack. Drug lords, terrorists, and even pedophiles use it and if law enforcement could get a hold of the key, they can stop these criminals from doing harm to others and violating the law. However, if we just simply want our data encrypted for the sake of privacy, it is unnecessary for the government or the NSA to pry into our information. Etzioni believes that we cannot compromise when it comes to encryption because he believes that public authorities of a democracy will more than likely abuse their power and we need to stand up against abuse to those with power. I agree with Etzioni because the government and authoritative figures already have a reputation of abusing their power, so they can control us. Whenever we peacefully stand up to the government for our rights as U.S. Citizens as promised by the U.S. Constitution, it seems like not much has been done to better our society. If the government can access our encrypted data because we allow them to, who knows what they will do with that information. I believe we should invest in greater data encryption because the National Security Agency can abuse their power or create new technologies to crack our encryptions. In one instance, the NSA got a documented signed and approved by U.S. Attorney General to gather and hold encrypted information from people, whether they are foreign and American citizens, and keep that information until they can crack the encryption. According to a document posted by the Guardian, the NSA minimization procedures apply to the acquisition, retention, use, and dissemination of non publicly available information concerning unconsenting United States persons that is acquired by targeting non United States persons reasonably Ly 5
believed to be located outside the United States in accordance with section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (2013). Currently, there is no law in the United States that forces their citizens to give up their key to their encrypted data. However, in the United Kingdom, their citizens are required to give their key to encrypted information or to decrypt their information with a court order due to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Data shows that in a 2013 report of the Interception of Communications Commissioner, more than 500,000 requests were made for data to be surrendered over to the government in the UK. Compared to the United States, the most that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has requested is a little over 50,000 requests (Davis, 2014). This proves the point that we shouldn t compromise with the government because they will abuse that power. Another component that Amitai Etzioni discusses is the use of identification cards in the United States. Etzioni believes that if individuals were accurately identified, public safely could notably enhanced and social and economic costs would be reduced. The costs of not having ID cards would be significant high due to some scenarios like sexual offenders and child abusers being able to get hired by nurseries and schools. Income tax fraud also is affected by this and costs the nation $1 billion to $5 billion a year (Etzioni, 1999, pg 105). I find this surprising that having identification cards could help lower the costs of social and economic costs due to situations like identity fraud. I can see where Etzioni is coming from though because it is so easy to steal someone s identity, especially with the new technological inventions that can print brand new identification and credit cards for you. I have only ever viewed identification cards as is: a piece of plastic used to identify who you are by police, renters, and employers. I have only ever used my ID card to purchase video games, fly to other states, purchase alcohol, and show my ID card to police officers who think that I am 12 years old. However, not all Ly 6
countries have identification cards and they don t all utilize it for the same purposes. For instance, the citizens in the Philippines do not have an identification card to show proof of identity. In 2010, the Philippines adopted the Unified Multi Purpose ID (UMID), which is primarily used for the Social Security System, Government Service Insurance System, Philippine Health Insurance Corporation, and the Pag IBIG Fund. This has helped the Philippines by reducing frustration, long lines, and delays in processing of documents and transactions due to the inability to prove one s identity. The Republic of the Philippines recognized the issues and how other Asian countries have dealt with the situation by issuing identification cards to its citizens (Biazon, 2004). The Unified Multi Purpose IDs have proven to reduce the strain on the Philippines and it has proven that with accurate identification, it greatly improves the social and economic costs. The last component that Etzioni discusses that should be greatly considered when it s comes to redefining and balancing privacy are the privacy of medical records. Information like women who have had abortions and men who bought antidepressants are freely traded because it is not protected by federal law. When someone authorizes their information to be released to the insurance company, they are not aware of what the insurance company will do with it. Similarly, now a days users will sign up to websites like OkCupid, for example, skim through the terms and conditions and accept them impulsively. The users unknowingly authorized OkCupid to use the data however they choose and what OkCupid has done in recent years is experiment with the data to observe how users interact with each other. Due to the advancement of technology, our health care providers and insurance companies are able to store our medical records electronically on the internet. This raises concerns about privacy because any doctor authorized on this network can access your information, although it is helpful because it reduces time wasted and repeats the tests over again. It makes the whole process of visiting a Ly 7
doctor a lot more convenient and quicker, whether it is the same doctor someone normally sees or a brand new doctor across the blog. However, as privacy is being questioned in this method of sharing private information, this prevents patients from seeing their doctors because they do not want their private information about their sex life, health, and issues shared to other doctors. According to a Wall Street Journalist, Deborah Peel, in 2005, a California Healthcare Foundation poll found that one in eight Americans avoided seeing a regular doctor, asked a doctor to alter a diagnosis, paid privately for a test, or avoided tests altogether due to privacy concerns (2010). Australians are also concerned about their right to privacy when it comes to medical records. A survey was conducted concerning health and if people were accepting of their doctors sharing their information with other health professionals. 31% of Australians believe that their information should always require consent, while 44% of them believes that it s only okay for doctors to share information depending on the situation. The rest of the 25% are more than happy for their doctors to share their information with other health professionals (Academic OneFile, 2013). This survey shows that a lot of people in Australia feel the same way that Americans do about their privacy, however, the percentage of Australians who were fine with their information being shared was significantly high. Nevertheless, I believe that when it comes to medical records, there needs to be new technologies and laws that can be used to protect a patient s personal health records and require consent prior to the information being given away. Privacy, redefined by me, would just mean having the privilege to be left alone without anyone stealing any valuable information or tangible items away from you. There are some private information that can be given up in order to prove that there isn t anything bad that you are hiding. There are private things like your thoughts and information that you want to keep to yourself or within a small community because you choose to do so. You cannot have complete privacy from the world and especially in a Ly 8
country that is paranoid about terrorist attacks, you cannot hide everything from the government. You have to balance between what you think is personal information and what can be shared to the public for public health and safety, but can privacy coincide with the laws that government proposes? Will it be able to be protected from new technologies threatening our privacy? Can we compromise between our personal values and the social virtues of the community? Due to the research that I have and the foundation provided to me by The Limits of Privacy, I believe that with a solid agreement between the government and its citizens, we can find a way that is operable for both parties. The government has to understand that there are laws written specifically to protect its citizens and that they should not violate these laws by abusing their power. The American citizens also have to realize that they have more power than they think they have. If the government or law enforcement are abusing their power, the citizens should be the ones who will stand up for their rights and believes in order to protect everyone else. Therefore, I believe that privacy and the laws that government propose can coincide as long as neither one of the parties abuse their powers. As technology advances, we need to be wary of our actions, whether it be on the internet or how we use these new inventions. New inventions will be created everyday and sometimes the purpose is to invade someone s privacy. I don t think our right to privacy will be able to catch up and be protected by new technologies, unless individuals decide to speak to no one and do nothing in public for the rest of their lives. Lastly, I think that we can compromise between our personal values and the social virtues of the community because if this compromise benefits the community, that settlement is already benefiting and affecting the individual. There are a lot of irrelevant components to certain rights that can be sacrificed in order to protect the citizens individually without affecting their everyday life and the rest of the American citizens in the country. Ly 9
We have every right to autonomy, to have a curtain cover our actions without allowing others to see, but we also have a choice to provide or not to provide our personal information to certain parties. As technology advances, we need to be attentive to the terms and conditions and what these corporations can do with our information. These corporations are keeping track of what their users do and will be able to do anything from experiments to making money off of it. When it comes to the government, we have to realize that when they are only doing what they think is appropriate to protect its citizens from harm, whether it be from drug rings, pedophiles, or terrorists. Overall, privacy and the common good are recognized and cherished. A person s personal information or private conversations over the phone should not be unreasonably violated, but instead there should be a probable cause and a warrant for privacy to be investigated. We need to find a way to compromise with present issues and as time passes and changes occur, we learn how to deal with issues of privacy that will present themselves in the future. Ly 10
Bibliography Academic OneFile Privacy concerns over medical records. (2013). Australian Nursing & Midwifery Journal, 21(5), 17. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=gale%7ca352491917&v=2.1&u=csumb_main&it=r& p=aone&sw=w&asid=919bcb7cf09d9ca8f01015da0abf727b Biazon, H. (2004). AN ACT ESTABLISHING A MECHANISM FOR THE NATIONAL IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES, PROVIDING FOR BENEFITS AND RIGHTS AND CORRESPONDING OBLIGATIONS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. House Bill No. 217. Retrieved from http://philippines.ahrchk.net/pdf/16national_id_sys.pdf Brandeis, L.D., Warren, S.D. (1890). The Right to Privacy. Harvard Law Review, V. IV, No. 5. Retrieved from http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/brandeisprivacy.htm Davis, D. (2014). This data law has nothing to do with catching terrorists and everything to do with a lust for power: Top tory's devastating attack on our loss of privacy [scot region]. Mail on Sunday, 27. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/1544567695?pq origsite=summon Etzioni, A. (1999). The Limits of Privacy. New York: Basic Books. The Guardian. (2013). Procedures used by NSA to minimize data collection from US persons: Exhibit B full document. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit b nsa procedures documen t Peel, D. (2010). Your Medical Records Aren't Secure. Wall Street Journal, A.17. Retrieved from http://online.wsj.com/articles/sb10001424052748703580904575132111888664060 Tancer, B. (2008). Click: What Millions of People Are Doing Online and Why it Matters. New York: Hyperion. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107 56. 115 Stat. 272 (2001). Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/plaw 107publ56/pdf/PLAW 107publ56.pdf Ly 11
U.S. Constitution, Amendment 4 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1321160 http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=5462173&tag=1 Ly 12