The United Kingdom's Investigatory Powers Act 2016 : Case Study

In this paper, I will be arguing against the text by Lawrence Lessig by providing evidence and reasoning that proves that complete internet regulation would never be implemented on a global scale due to the privacy concerns that the United States would face while minimal internet regulation, like what Lessig suggests, would be unable to coexist with countries like China and Saudi Arabia who morally conflict with a global majority. Internet regulation will never be consistent in a global scheme and would require constant revision which makes it not provide enough utility to be considered when judging from Utilitarianism.

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

With the seemingly exponential propagation of inexpensive digital communications technologies over recent years, the general public is becoming more aware of the issues surrounding information privacy and government surveillance in the digital age. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a smart-phone has to be wary of how they use their private information for fear of that information being collected and used in a way contrary to their wishes. "Leaky" smartphone apps that transmit private information across the internet can be unethically used by government agencies. The issue of privacy is a balancing act; the public usually wants increased privacy and the government usually wants increased access.

|Bob Barr. "The Cybercrime Treaty Threatens Civil Liberties." Opposing Viewpoints: Cyber Crime. Ed. Louise Gerdes. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, |

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

With today’s technological surveillance capabilities, our actions are observable, recordable and traceable. Surveillance is more intrusive than it has been in the past. For numerous years countries such as the United State and the United Kingdom have been actively monitoring their citizens through the use of surveillance technology. This state surveillance has been increasing with each passing year, consequently invading the citizen’s fundamental constitutional right to privacy,. This has lead to the ethical issues from the use or misuse of technology, one such ethical issue is should a government have the right to use technology to monitor its citizens without their knowledge or approval? For this reason this paper will

Organizations with different offices across the world face many trials and tribulations as they try to keep their information secure: the first issue the company might face is legislation. Studies shows that different countries in the world are overseen by a specific legislation which can be conflicting with those of other countries in some way shape or form. These are some examples of legislations laws that can be conflicting with one another: privacy legislation, access and control of information legislation among other types of legislations. The legislation laws of The United

Law is the formal embodiment of rules that legislators, regulators, and judges etch into statute books, administrative manuals, and judicial decisions. It is unavoidable and desirable to see the law change as technology becomes increasingly sophisticated (Larkin 2013). The invention of telecommunications systems in 1875, created a need for a law to protect the integrity of conversations. Likewise, the invention of electronic devices such as car spotlights, electronic listening devices, global positioning systems, and thermal imaging scanners brought upon a validated reason for the public to be concerned. The concern raised was over the abuse of these devices by the government in order to acquire

In 2013, a man named Edward Snowden ignited a national debate by revealing that our National Security Agency, or the NSA, has been gathering mass amounts of phone records and other, private, data without consulting the American public. That means American emails, chats, phone calls, online transactions, web searches, or even online medical records can and have be stolen by the government without consent. Using decryption methods, court orders, supercomputers, and technical tricks, the NSA is slowly gaining ground on its war on encryption. All of these things are supposed to be defended by technology companies and Internet Service Providers, but in the article, “Revealed: How US and UK Spy Agencies Defeat Internet Privacy and Security” by James

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

Apple can face some contractual issues which may contribute to the problems they are currently facing. The first issue is that tech companies should not be required to have an entry way into their products. How can a customer trust a company that does not have their privacy as part of their contract? Customers value their privacy to the utmost fullest. Apple believes that this will weaken the security of their computer systems and consumer’s privacy protection. Next, if you are a company that is viewed as being too vocal, it can jeopardize government sales as well as relationships with law enforcement. Apple has noticed that many companies often comply with the request, but that feels this again is a violation of their rights as a company and the millions of customers they cover as a company. Will they ever be trusted? Will they continue to have the same customers or lose to their competitors? Apple also makes a lot of their money through advertising. Everyone wants to have the next and the new iPhone, but if Apple has a bad

Two types of laws are adopted by various countries to protect the sensitive information of individuals on the web. The first kind, comprehensive laws, are laws “that govern the collection, use and dissemination of personal information by both the public and private sectors”6. These general laws do not deal with individual areas like health care or educational systems. Instead, they establish standards for use of private information for all entities. Comprehensive laws are usually adopted for one of three reasons: to remedy past injustices, to promote electronic commerce or to ensure that laws are consistent with Pan-European laws7. In addition, comprehensive laws often require the establishment of an independent commissioner to oversee the enforcement of the law. Unfortunately, problems arise because either a lack of resources hinders

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.

The recent case between the FBI and Apple brought a worldwide ethical dilemma into the public eye, and it could have detrimental effects to the entire tech industry. The FBI wanted Apple to create backdoor access to encrypted data on one of San Bernardino shooter’s iPhones, and Apple refused just as many other large tech companies such as Amazon and Microsoft are doing nowadays. This situation creates the ethical dilemma of whether the government should have complete access to all encrypted data, and how consumers will react knowing their private data is not actually private.