Internet Monitoring : Control Laws

In his text, “How we sold our souls – and more – to the internet giants,” Bruce Schneier offers compelling insight into the extensive articulation of internet surveillance in the powerful corporate world. Schneier’s analysis of power relations and his claim that personal “[d]ata is power,” reflect his concern that as internet surveillance increases, the imbalance of power between individuals and internet businesses will continue to grow and deepen as well. Therefore, to avoid furthering asymmetries of power in contemporary digital society, Schneier highlights the need for regulation of data processing and urges governments to act by implementing rules and regulations that will help balance power relationships between the surveillers and the

The Internet was first used in the nineteen sixties by a small group of technology professionals. Since then the internet has become an essential part of today’s world, from communicating through texts and emails to banking, studying, and shopping, the internet has touched every aspect of our lives. With the growing use of the internet, protecting important information has become a must. While some believe they have the right to privacy, and feel that the government should not be at the center of their lives. Others feel that the Internet has evolved into a weapon for our enemies, and believe the government must take action by proactively

The internet is a vital part of our lives, but what if I said it was a completely public one? Privacy is a rare commodity in today's world. As Nicholas Carr writes about in his essay “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty,” corporations pay close attention to citizens. The most frightening part is that this practice is perfectly legal. Even recently the government stripped more of our privacy away. In the beginning of April 2017, President Trump repealed regulations by the Federal Communications Commission that would have forced internet service providers to gain consent before selling data collected from their customers. However, corporations aren't the only ones capturing data from internet users. The government is also making use of these records.

In the year of 2017, it is hard to find any person whose life does not revolve around their electronic devices. The Internet has changed the way people function, and become a crucial resource in schools, workplaces, and homes all over the world. There are people who feel they could not survive a day without it, and, of course, there are people who are wary of its dangers. Children are taught from a young age to tread carefully when using the Internet, and teenagers can recite lectures they have received from their parents time and time again: “Don’t talk to strangers,” “Be careful what you download,” and most importantly, “Never share your personal information online.” What most of these parents do not know, however, is that you do not have to share your personal information for it to be collected. Not only is your information collected without your consent—it can legally be used against you. Many statutes involving Internet surveillance were rudimentary and non-invasive at their creation, but on October 26th, 2001, everything changed. The Patriot Act was signed into law, just forty-five days after the horrifying terrorist attack on the Twin Towers. The USA PATRIOT Act, more commonly known as the Patriot Act, was not a single piece of legislature, but a package of amendments to preexisting laws. The most notable changes in the Patriot Act are the amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1968 (ECPA),

    Abstract:  This paper provides an analysis of the privacy issues associated with governmental Internet surveillance, with a focus on the recently disclosed FBI tool known as Carnivore. It concludes that, while some system of surveillance is necessary, more mechanisms to prevent abuse of privacy must exist.

For over two centuries American citizens have bided by the first 10 commandments in the United States Constitution, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights, for protection over their personal liberties from the United States government. These personal liberties include, but are not limited to: The freedom of religion, speech, and press, the protection of privacy, and the right to life, liberty, and property. These personal liberties protected by the government, from the government, have always been strictly enforced with no unknown territory. That is until approximately three decades ago when the Internet was created. Over the last twenty-seven years technology has been quickly advancing creating an unknown world of the Internet and

Imagine that every search, post, ping, or tweet was tracked by a big corporation or even the government. This is a scary though but in reality, the search history of the American people is a high commodity for big business and the government alike. The purpose of this essay will be to examine the article titled “The Internet is a Surveillance State” by Bruce Schneier. This essay will examine Schneier’s credibility towards the source, the importance of when the article was written, and the ideals Schneier had towards the topic of internet surveillance.

" The founding fathers created the government to unite, and protect The United States. The government must also be able to protect citizens basic rights. These rights are written as amendments to our constitution. Our government has a duty to protect United States citizens, and with new technology this need for protection has extended to the internet. Federal, state, and local governments have a duty to protect their people, and to do this minimal forms of internet monitoring are needed.

Since the beginning of the Internet’s birth as ARPANET in 1969, communication has improved massively. As with all great wonders there comes a cost-the Internet is slowly becoming much more regulated and observed. With the Internet, the government, whether it be local or national, is slowly progressing towards an Orwellian future. It is extremely difficult to situate borders for privacy, and that brings multiple questions to the table. Is it moral to allow people like white supremacists an unchecked platform to offer their ideas? Is it okay for the government to censor content it deems immoral? Will observing and profiling people actually help counter any threat of terrorism? In order for such significant issues to be dealt with, we the people must learn to adapt.

"Americans are unique due to our technological advancement, which means we set the precedent of how this new technology is to be controlled. The internet is an invention that raises new questions everyday. One controversial issue is wether or not the government_Ñés interference online is necessary. On one hand, the internet is a place where people speak up and speak out, even if it is against the government. Should the government be able to spy on this? If we let them take control of the internet, is that the same thing as limiting our freedom of speech? On the other hand, the internet is the prime location for criminal activity that goes far beyond simple teasing. Do we need government interference in order to protect us from criminals who hide behind the keyboard? Would monitoring the internet actually help prevent criminal activity such as terrorist attacks?

Another Important milestone in the new privacy paradigm was the revelation of the NSA’s surveillance program, PRISM. On June 5th, 2013, Edward Snowden leaked documents that revealed the National Security Agency’s surveillance program. The documents revealed that the NSA was tracking information from nine major Internet companies, including Facebook, Google, Yahoo, Microsoft and Apple. PRISM could collect about 600 million communications a day and store them for up to 30 days. Through the use of various methods, the NSA was able to intercept communications in real time (“Edward Snowden Leaks” 2014). With the implementation of PRISM, the United States government was able to covertly monitor information. The program was used to collect information from the Internet, but it was also used to obtain information from allies. One of the major issues with this program was the ability to monitor citizens without them ever becoming aware of the intrusion. PRISM was a drastic shift from the policies implemented in the eighties. Certain companies were cooperating with the NSA, many willingly handed over records. While these programs were implemented over a decade ago they have shaped the way the government views privacy. New policies are implemented which extend the government’s ability to gain access to information. This increase in power is problematic to the Internet user because it has restricted the rights of people. Internet privacy has been limited under the new paradigm in order

The Internet’s continuous advancement has produced the need for an on-going debate on whether or not the government should have the power to control the Internet. The idea of the government having control over what each country’s citizens can see on the Internet is also called Internet Censorship. Internet Censorship “is the control or suppression of the publishing of, or access to information on the Internet.” Internet Censorship varies from country to country depending on each country’s current usage and philosophy of how it should be used. (toptenreviews.com) Currently, there are ten countries including

The U.S. Government has turned the Internet into something it was never intended to be: a system for spying on us in our most private moments. Out of control government

The words, “Arguing that you don’t care about 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” were said by Edward Snowden who is a computer professional in America. Similarly, the essays “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty,” “Web Users Get as Much as They Give,” and “Facebook Is Using You” from Nicholas Carr, Jim Harper, and Lori Andrews respectively points out that the internet privacy is good and bad. However, the articles by Carr and Andrews are based on the negative side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is not good. On the other hand, Harper’s article is based on the positive side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is good and scary, but people need to be careful of their own information and browsing histories, and websites. Jim Harper’s essay is more relevant and reasonable than the Nicholas Carr and Lori Andrews’s essays. However, Harper seems more persuasive to readers because he believes that the internet is good if people use it in a right way, whereas Carr and Andrews believe that the internet is not good at all.

These days the internet has become an essential part to living for almost everyone but one of the controversial topics that people bring up is that whether or not the government should regulate information on the internet. Both sides have valid points which form a reasonable argument. Some people would say that they need to because of the dangers lurking around in the cyber world but the reasons for why the government shouldn’t regulate the Internet outnumber the reasons for why they should. The federal government should not regulate or censor information on the internet because doing so violates the first amendment and citizen’s right to privacy, degrades the educational value of the web, prevents the promotion and facilitation of