My Support For Strong Encryption

In society today many citizens feel violated with the security methods taken by homeland security. “On September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States marked the beginning of the global war on terrorism. The methods used are justifiable as they provide protection against possible threats or attacks. This attack on U.S. soil increased surveillance of both American citizens and foreign nationals” (Andrew, C., & Walter,

Often, people get carried away with order since it is easily obtained and kept. However, for our welfare, we must give up freedom and embrace order. Since 2009, the government “captured and retained the contents of nearly all emails, text messages, telephone calls, bank statements, utility bills and credit card bills of all Americans.”(Napolitano 1) This approach helps keep our country safe and running, but we must sacrifice our privacy for it. As said by Stephen King, “No one likes to see a government folder with his name on it.” This method of protection is not ideal since there is clearly too much order involved, but it is needed since our country would not be able to function without

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

During the past decade, an issue has arisen from the minds of people, on which is more important? Privacy or national security? The problem with the privacy is that people do not feel they have enough of it and national security is increasing causing the government to be less worried about the people. National security is growing out of control which has led to the decrease in people’s privacy and has created fear in the eyes of U.S. citizens. “Twelve years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and amid a summer of revelations about the extent of the surveillance state built up to prevent others, leaders, experts and average Americans alike are searching for the right balance between security and privacy” (Noble). Americans should be able to live their daily lives without fear of an overpowered government or a “big brother” figure taking over. “According to a CBS News poll released Tuesday evening, nearly 6 in 10 Americans said they disapproved of the federal government’s collecting phone records of ordinary Americans in order to reduce terrorism” (Gonchar). While it is good to keep our country safe with security, American’s privacy should be more important because there is a substantial amount of national security, the people 's rights should matter first.

Good evening ladies and gentlemen, I stand before you urging you to oppose the CRA joint resolution to repeal the FCC's privacy rules. Twenty-two Republican senators behind the resolution have received more than $1.7 million from the telecom industry since the 2012 U.S. election, a Vocativ analysis shows. Although it may seem like a lot, $1.7 million for supporting a bill allowing the highest bidder to be able to buy your sensitive internet activity records from your broadband provider, it’s not a lot. Sensitive internet information such as your browsing history, cookies, financial information, geolocation data, health info, passwords, and even your social security number. As well as any data you enter, online videos you watch, even down to the email you write, your

Up until recently, agents of the government could generally file requests for court orders that, if approved, compel the companies to provide the requested information. Congress in the 1990s passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, to facilitate private-sector cooperation with law enforcement. This act required telecommunications companies to configure their systems in a way that would enable them to effectively respond to court orders. Five Simple Things Companies Should Do to Protect Their Computer Systems Apples’ Weakest Online Security Link: Their Encryption Code How to Get People to Take their policy Security More Seriously Encryption Uncoded: A Consumers’ Guide

robust privacy protections already in place at DHS without risking exposure of personal data by: Enhancing DHS’s already robust Privacy Office to ensure the NCCIC complies with all civilian laws that protect Americans’ privacy and civil liberties. Requiring private companies to ‘scrub’ and remove personal information

The Federal Communication Commission has a duty to promote internet security and a secure environment of communication networks, including the internet. Due to online transactions, people working from the internet and the digitalization of documents, sensitive personal information is frequently transmitted online. The order address this, “the Commission recently took enforcement action under section 222 (and section 201(b)) against two telecommunications companies that stored customers’ personal information, including social security numbers, on unprotected, unencrypted Internet servers publicly accessible using a basic Internet search” (FCC, 16). Also, the order encourages and demands broadband providers to maintain standard security protocols (FCC, 34). Furthermore, the order states that laws and regulations must be consistent, “to address the needs of emergency communications or law enforcement, public safety, or homeland or national security authorities” (FCC, 132). All of these points illustrate that security of networks, personal information and national security are top priorities of this order and that of the Federal Communication Commission. It is my belief that the commission does an effective job of address security

"As a nation under the United States Constitution, we succeed only for as long as we can maintain a healthy balance in power between our general population and our government. Like a scale, if one side has too much weight on it, then the whole system will eventually collapse. Though the government claims responsibility over our national safety and should use the necessary means to maintain our security, they should likewise exercise restraint when applied to information that could never be perceived as a threat to our safety. It lies upon the people to remind them of such; otherwise, they may take their duty to protect out of hand to unmanageable levels or use the technology meant to protect the people for their own benefit.

I scored a 5 on the quiz which placed me right around civil activist. I was very intrigued by the articles, “Bowling Alone” and “Still bowling alone: The Post 9/11 Split” which discussed how the degree engagement in civil activities in the United States has greatly decreased (Putnam, 1995). After reading those articles and reflecting upon my score, I realized how although I engage in civil activities to a degree, I am not as active as I should be. I think that the points Putnam touch upon make a lot of sense and are in my opinion reflective of the changes in society that have occurred over the years such as dependence on technology and the common mindset that we should only worry about ourselves and things that affect us and our lives. I believe

Digital privacy concerns, which have been a major issue in our country since 2001, increasingly violate our basic human rights as global citizens. The growing amount of government surveillance has manifested in the enactment of acts such as SOPA and CISPA. Although their intent on stopping digital piracy and attacks were clear, both were immediately met with harsh criticism; they allowed big corporations to violate our privacy rights by sharing our personal information with both other companies and the government. Our President, although publicly expressing his acknowledgement of the issue, failed to discuss an array of other pressing dilemmas regulated by the recently exposed National Security Agency (NSA), especially those involving

Because it was futile, Mr. Edward Snowden's attempt was negative. There was nothing that could actually change society. Now, to be able to be effective with a peaceful protest against a law, one must be able to wake people up. Make them a bit uncomfortable. Give them something that doesn't sit right in their souls. Rev Dr. Martin Luther King Jr was a pro at that. I'll expand on Mr. King's ways of persuasion with a quick anecdote. There was a man who established something in the business world as the golden standard for selling something to someone. Usually everyone asks what someone needs, tells the person that they are trying to sell a specific product to what said product can do for them, and then what their business is about. However, this man said, lets change that way of thinking. instead of what, how and why, lets go why, how what. Simon Sinek was the man who thought of this Idea, but Steve Jobs is the man who made a killing off of it. King did the exact thing. Show people why they should care, how were needed, and what needed to be done; King made a lot of change because of it. Now, in the beginning of my essay, I talked about tools and

Because this is a “free” society, one should be able to disobey the law if it is morally unjust, despite the potential consequences. This holds true for the controversial case of Edward Snowden, a former CIA agent who was nearly arrested for leaking federal information. Despite not being authorized to do so, he informed the public that the federal government kept tabs on everyone, including those not linked with terrorism, and data-based companies were used to help collect information. This gave the impression of “Big Brother,” from George Orwell’s 1984, in which the government is always inspecting society. So, did this action of civil disobedience ultimately benefit society? Evidently, yes, as it raised awareness to Americans. Some, like John Cassidy, a legal analyst, believe, “… Snowden has performed a great public service that outweighs the breach of trust he committed…” Others believe all laws should be obeyed, and those who defy them should be sentenced to jail. In Snowden's case, the greater good overlooks the bad. According to Jeffery Toobin, Cassidy’s rival, “Any government employee is warned repeatedly regarding disclosure of classified information…” Even still, laws can only be taken so far, until it begins to infringe on the rights and privacy of citizens! So, there is a point when one should stand up for their individual rights being violated. As a result, it is a wise choice to protest when one’s rights are threatened, which raises awareness and helps

Thesis Statement: “Citizens of this country should value the national security more than their privacy since it is concerned with a much larger group of people in order to protect our country from invaders, to maintain the survival of our country and to prevent airing of criticism of government.”

The tension between national security and individual privacy has long existed even before the development of digitized information. Recently, two main forces have advanced the debate over this balance to the forefront of the public eye: 1) the proliferation of data by private sector companies and 2) the heightened need for homeland security and public defense. With the rapid evolution of technology, companies have aggregated pools of consumer data to improve upon internal decision making. In some cases, however, this data can be leveraged to ensure national security and public safety. This juxtaposition of enterprise and security results in a blurring of the line dividing public and private sector responsibilities. The question becomes an issue of moral obligation versus legal responsibility. What are we as consumers and citizens willing to sacrifice in exchange for safety? And does the private sector inevitably succumb to obligations originating from the public sector?