Public Policy Debate

On the day of September 11, 2001, the United States faced one of the most massive terrorist attacks in history, and responded with immediate action. After the attack on the Twin Towers, President George W. Bush passed the Patriot Act, which gave the government more opportunities to pursue terrorists through the use of technology, such as computer-enabled device-tracking systems (“The USA Patriot…”). President Bush stated, “This legislation is essential not only to pursuing and punishing terrorists, but also preventing more atrocities in the hands of the evil ones. This government will enforce this law with all the urgency of a nation at war” (“President Bush…” 4). In America, at this time, many were traumatized by the loss of fellow Americans, and were counting on the government to reassure their safety. If Bush had not intensified cybersecurity, there is a chance that another massive terror attack could have taken place and put the lives of men, women, and children in jeopardy. Bush claims that America has “seen the horrors terrorists can inflict” and that the country “may never know what horrors our country was spared by the diligent and determined work of our police forces, the FBI, ATF agents, federal marshals, Custom officers, Secret Service, intelligence professionals and local law enforcement

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),

Technology has come a long way since the early 90’s. With modern advances, technology is just about incorporated in everything we do in our day-to-day lives. Since technology has been incorporated into our everyday lives, it may raise some concerns about what may be happening in the background. One of these concerns would be privacy, we all may take it for granted but it is our constitutional rights as Americans. But this all changed after the September 2001 attack on the twin towers.

“The Surveillance Society,” by Adam Penenburg explains the impact that the attacks on September 11th, 2001 had on usage of technological surveillance of the American people. Penenburg writes that the assault on U.S. soil caused a great shift between privacy and policy causing a bill to be signed into law granting the government easier access into our emails, web history, and even phone calls. Even with all the surveillance, Penenburg claims that people could care less because in a time of turmoil because they care deeply about safety. Surveillance can be used to convict criminals, stop car thieves, and prevent terrorism. The constant surveillance increases the amount of information available on every single person but is extremely difficult

Internet privacy is a concept that has been in the minds of many people across the globe for a long time. There are various laws passed by various governments to control as well as govern the idea of internet privacy. Technological advancements across the globe in the recent past have had a rise with the use of the internet. People have more access to gadgets with the power to navigate the internet with ease. It is also important to note that internet communication, something that used to be hard and complicated, has become a normal, everyday thing by the ease of access among most people across the globe. In short, one can argue that the internet has turned the world into a village owing to the ease of communication irrespective of the

The online world has recently changed from being able to make a phone call in privacy to having someone being able to hear your every word, without you even knowing. Our value of privacy has changed over the years as we have somewhat taken for granted the privacy we originally had. Some could even say that we have arrived back in the future in ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’, with the lack of privacy that we currently possess.

Recently the topic of privacy has been brought up in the news since President Trump signed a bill to repeal internet privacy, giving internet provider companies the right to sell your internet history (Fung, 2017). Some say this is isn’t right, and that the government has no right to delve into our business. Other people think that as long as you aren’t look at anything bad, you should have nothing to worry about. Privacy isn’t an entirely necessary thing to have, but it is a nice thing to have. And in today’s world, where technology is taking over almost every aspect of our lives, soon enough the government might be able to control us.

The principle of freedom in the United States of America has always tied with one’s private matters. But with technology advancing at such a rapid rate, the idea of privacy might soon become something from a fairytale. Especially included, is one’s online persona. The American government has begun to derestrict itself from the bounds of an individual's personal matters online. In reception, many Americans feel that their natural given rights are being exploited. They feel that the government has no justifiable reasons to be vigilating information that is not intended for anybody’s eyes except its rightful owner. However, it is truly necessary for the government to observe what citizens are doing online because it protects both the United States

Security and protection are fundamental necessities in the lives of many individuals. An individual’s privacy is vital to be sheltered, to have the privilege to security, and to completely appreciate life. An essential obligation of the United States government is to shield its people and assets from the hazard of terrorism. Americans respect their welfare and have yielded certain freedoms to ensure national security. Innovative upgrades to the conveyance of information have improved numerous lives, however at an expense. The technological frameworks that swing for proficiency and accommodation are helpless against online invasions and different demonstrations of terrorism. The practical discussion proceeds as the government endeavors to adjust

The United States is a culture of sharing. People share their personal lives on almost every aspects with social media such as Facebook and Twitter. The idea of free online services have attract people’s natural instinct to indulge themselves into these free services. What they do not know is how these “free-services” ask in return. Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat have revolutionized how people connect with one another and the way people retrieve resources, which also allows massive private information accessible to organizations. In the article called “Twitter’s Lucrative Data Mining Business” published in The Wall Street Journal, Elizabeth Dwoskin talks about Twitter’s disclosure that its company has “$47.5 million came from selling off its data to a fast-growing group of companies that analyze the data for insights into news events and trends” (Dwoskin). Although the internet has opened doors to many business opportunities and innovations, it has invaded social media users’ private information and often exposes them to unauthorized organizations such Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat for monetary gain. Legal standing has make it possible for these companies to appropriately set user’s policies regarding the disclosure of user’s privacy, but people often disregard on how companies are distributing their information that may expose their privacy to unauthorized organizations.

talks about the opinions of the public regarding the relationship between personal privacy, modern technology, and the judicial system. On page 115 of this examination, utilizing the information observed within a study, a conclusion was made which noted that people in large part expect to possess privacy but contrary to this belief do not perceive their privacy as being upheld (Smith, Madden, and Barton). People yearn for privacy but regardless of this desire, individuals continue to deal with the reality that this expectation will not be met. Hopefully as time continues to pass, the discord between the expectation and perception of privacy will become more harmonious, but until then society should strive to tack back the right that all humans share, to lead and govern their own private

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.

The concern about privacy on the Internet is increasingly becoming an issue of international dispute. ?Citizens are becoming concerned that the most intimate details of their daily lives are being monitored, searched and recorded.? (www.britannica.com) 81% of Net users are concerned about threats to their privacy while online. The greatest threat to privacy comes from the construction of e-commerce alone, and not from state agents. E-commerce is structured on the copy and trade of intimate personal information and therefore, a threat to privacy on the Internet.

Today, individuals are sacrificing privacy in order to feel safe. These sacrifices have made a significant impact on the current meaning of privacy, but may have greater consequences in the future. According to Debbie Kasper in her journal, “The Evolution (Or Devolution) of Privacy,” privacy is a struggling dilemma in America. Kasper asks, “If it is gone, when did it disappear, and why?”(Kasper 69). Our past generation has experienced the baby boom, and the world today is witnessing a technological boom. Technology is growing at an exponential rate, thus making information easier to access and share than ever before. The rapid diminishing of privacy is leaving Americans desperate for change.

The right to privacy, via electronic transmissions to include the internet, is an ever present issue that does not and most likely will not ever have a solution that will not only satisfy the wants of citizens but the security needs of the nation. When issues of privacy arise we refer to a non-evolving, interpreted document called the Constitution written over two centuries ago. In order to maintain national security, citizens must surrender some privacy for the good of the nation and themselves. If privacy takes precedent over national security, then our nation becomes susceptible to attacks both electronic and physical in nature. But if a fair and proper agreement between the need for privacy and security can be reached, then it is