Encryption In Law Enforcement

This article discussed about the technology that the police are using, even though it is helping the police to be even more efficient and predict possible crimes, it raises issues of civil liberties. Digital information that is provided by social media or the sensors of the internet of things is combined with criminal data by companies that sell this information to law enforcement agencies. The American Civil Liberties Union, based on reports, said that the Chicago Police Department are using a computer analysis to create a “heat list” that is unfairly associated with innocent people with criminal behavior. The American Civil Liberties Union also warned the police of the dangers that would come with the use of the big data. Even companies that

This article argues that any “restriction on access to and use of encryption” may violate fundamental human rights, which are codified in our nation’s and state’s laws. Moreover, the author argues that any violation of such rights must be weighed against their benefits. Amnesty International goes on to argue that setting a precedent that would provide a “backdoor” to user’s products or services, significantly interferences with a user’s privacy rights and freedom of expression. Since such “backdoors” can be applied indiscriminately, this article argues that in no world is the precedent proportional to the benefits it accrues. I will use this article to lay out my arguments relating to individuals and their rights in relation to private corporations and encryption.

There are so many hackers in the world that with the spying technology being embedded into telephones, it is so easy for hackers to break into these technologies, and it could potentially lead to more problems than necessary. With all of this technology, it is easier to have accesses to certain things, because with the right knowledge, everything is universal. With all of this technology, any criminal can gain access to the same things that the government claim that only they have access to. Some people are intelligent, and do not use their knowledge for good. It is not good that the government has all these technologies put into devices, if someone is smart enough they can steal all this information from the government and other people. They think that they are keeping people safe, but encryption is the best option to keep people's’ information safe even if the government says that the information is

One of the biggest questions being asked today is if our own government is spying on us using these new technologies. There has been though that the government has been doing so for the past decades but few years the topic has been really brought to light with all of the terrible things going on throughout the world and in our own country. One of the most popular acquisitions that the government is taking is the idea that they are engaging in economic espionage. The NSA has been accused of this and through the past year have denied the acquisitions. Though this is not invading directly on the privacy of the public people what this is saying is that there is the potential for the government to access our personal privacy in many different ways. If they are able to gain access to probably some of the most private information on other countries economics that are more than likely protected with much higher security than that of our own personal email accounts than what can they really see about us.

Government surveillance has not contributed to a decrease of percentage in crimes, but has created a controversial topic instead. Online surveillance has been an invasion of privacy, because everything the users access is seen without their consent. Due to the fact the stored data is not used, government surveillance in the united states has not been very impactful. Crimes and terrorist attacks were not stopped, and the mass storage of personal data within the last year has violated privacy laws 2,776 times (Government Surveillance 722). Surveillance online is not only unsuccessful in America, but in UK, and Canada as well. Out of every 1000 security cameras, only one camera is actually used to catch a criminal (Government Surveillance 722). However, there are several solutions that can be made to allow the usage of government surveillance without the violating the rights of Americans. Some of the solutions have already taken action, and will give users more freedom online.

Information and communication technology has brought numerous admirations to law enforcement. A variety of things such as reconstruction of crimes scenes, and the sharing of evidence between agencies has altered the way police do business. New technology that is improving consists of crime mapping, computer-assisted training, geographic profiling, compstat, etc. Each of these provide several advantages to law enforcement their for improving the work they are doing. As new technology is created law enforcements officer are improving in their work because information and communication technology is making their jobs easier. Things that officer were once not able to do they can now do within minutes even seconds. An example would be crime mapping;

Finally, the last term I will cover before answering the question of should the government being proactive in the area of data encryption is, what is the government legally allowed to do right now? This is important because we need to decide is this enough or is more required, basically do the risks outweigh the reward? To explain briefly right now the government is legally allowed to do whatever surveillance it wants if they can get a judge to sign off on, but politicians are trying to expand this as frequently as ever. Normally federal judges can only approve warrants for their jurisdiction but a new change would, "allow for judges to issue warrants for hacking and surveillance in cases where investigators don 't know the target computer 's location," according to letter sent to congress by 50 companies and tech groups. So

Should we implement backdoors in operating systems or purposefully weaken encryption systems in order to give the government easier access? This is a question sparking conversations across the nation. Terrorism is growing more common, and criminals are getting smarter about protecting their data. This has made the jobs of investigators quite difficult. The FBI argues that they should be given exclusive access to encryption systems in order to thwart the actions of these criminals. However, this has raised several concerns about the privacy of ordinary citizens.

"Arguing that you don't care about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don't care about free speech because you have nothing to say." Envision having the opportunity to exist in a society where all of your online actions were scrutinized. Every word you type, every website you visit, every online purchase you make, all become readily available to anybody interested. If you check your bank account online, whoever is watching immediately knows a vast amount of personally identifying information and credentials. At the beginning of this year, a bill drafted by California Senator Diane Feinstein and North Carolina Senator Richard Burr known as the Burr-Feinstein Encryption Bill came into the public domain.

citizens, for the purpose of maintaining the security of the country from criminal and terrorist attacks. The federal government’s duty is to aid the lives of citizens the best they possibly can with the resources they are given. With increased amounts of technology being invented, surveillance will become easier and quicker; and without this surveillance thieves, criminals, and terrorists could easily escape with a variety of heinous acts. In the past few years, there have been countless newsworthy stories of homicides and terrorism: the Aurora, Colorado movie theater shooting, Newtown, Connecticut school shooting, Boston marathon bombing, Los Angeles Airport shooting, Fort Hood, Texas shooting, Chattanooga shooting, Colorado Springs, San Bernardino, the list is never ending; not to mention, these occurrences are only a few handpicked incidents from the U.S. alone. These acts entail that surveillance has become a necessity to fight against these wrongdoings before they occur, no matter their magnitude. With cooperation on allowing surveillance, criminal and terrorist acts could be terminated throughout the United

Another counter argument against that claim can be seen through the progress Apple has made to ensure the consumer their encryption of data. If Apple were to allow for this back door to be enabled. Moreover, the concept and evolution the tech world has made to ensure the protection of people privacy through encryption, would be ruled obsolete especially after the fact you know you have lost your right to remain untraced. What’s the point of security at that point? We definitely would lose the ability to keep secrets, and store our commonly forgotten passwords in our notes. All leading to trust, for it’s human nature to be free rather than controlled. Thus, as a result how would we ever trust a company like Apple afterwards when pushing out new content with knowledge that the government may be injecting new vulnerabilities (Yachot, 2016). The loss of trust can make us more unenthusiastic in deciding in other

The New York Times reported, the new technology, “Going Dark”, can implant into networks around the U.S., even the whole world. The director of the FBI, James B. Comey, said that, FBI can not stop the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) to recruit people through social media, but FBI’s task is to find all kinds of clues, even these clues are increasingly invisible because of the encryption. It is true that the encrypted communication between people and ISIS is becoming very difficult to crack. However, the encryption both have the advantage and disadvantage: the advantage is that it can protect personal privacy and innovation and the disadvantage is that it may affect the ability of the government crack the encrypted information from the terrorists. In addition, there are two ethical issues in this article: 1. Should the FBI use the new technology for the

People are so quick to put personal information on the web that they do not stop to think about the potential consequences of their actions. Privacy concerns represent what individuals believe happens to their information once it becomes open to the public. People unknowingly open themselves up to being profiled online and get making online purchases, that they are getting their information and money stolen before they can even bat an eye. This does not happen in all cases, but it happens enough that we should be more careful of what we open ourselves up to.

So far throughout the paper, we have considered the chilling effect in light of technology and encryption. It is important to elaborate on why the chilling effect is different when accessing an individual’s encrypted cellphone or laptop, through a backdoor or “key,” than when

Technology has been a great contribution to our society, especially in the law enforcement. It helps and protects the citizens of the community or country in a way policeman or military people. In the middle of the 70’s one of the computers that have ever been made for the military force, they were the first to use it then in the 80’s, it was out for the public to use. As the years passed and our country, in 1969 the internet that we called today, was very different back then, the U.S Department of Defense called it “Advanced Research Project Agency Network (ARPANET)”, from there in the early 80’s computers and the internet was available to the public. As the years passed, technology advances have been advancing a lot, now we have programs to that track down any abnormality within the dark web against human trafficking, drones, body cams, programs that can hack into people personal information’s, facial recognition and also DNA, listening devices, and GPS. With all of these advances in technology, do you think law enforcement officials can abuse it as the use of forces? Can it reduce false complaints or verify anything that was wrongful? Does it help a police officer to its job the right way? With all these questions of the use of technology, we as a society have to think is it good for our community safety or do we think it’s like the book “Nineteen Eighty-Four” where big brother is watching everything.