Web Traffic And The Individual 's Footprint Online

One of the biggest concerns in the United States of America today is privacy. For its citizens, this concern is due mostly in part to new developments in technology and big data collection. Yes, this technology and data collection is beneficial for American citizens and is a step in the right direction for humankind, but to what extent? The CQ Researcher article titled, “Big Data and Privacy” by Tom Price answers just that question. More specifically, a monumental factor for technological advancement this article explains is the use of personal information by the producers of new technology and the collection of big data in this day in age. What makes this debate on the violation of privacy through the use personal information by businesses, as well as, the general population, is that big data collection is the staple of technological advancement and serves as a convenience for Americans. Although big data collection and technology serves as an extreme benefit in relation to convenience and societal advancement for those who use and consume it, how far will scientists, researchers, businesses, and the government push before it becomes a violation our privacy as citizens of the United States of America?

The Patriot Act was hastily passed just a month later October and it severely limited the privacy of Americans and gave unprecedented power to the government and private agencies to track innocent Americans, turning regular citizens into suspects.5 In addition, the great technological evolution and emerged of social media that occurred round the same time, and shortly thereafter, created the perfect storm for the emergence of the largely unregulated surveillance society that we live in today.6 The result is digitization of people’s personal and professional lives so that every single digital trace that people leave can be identified, stored, and aggregated to constitute a composite sketch of ourselves and its only getting worse. In 2008, passed the FISA Amendments Act, which expands the government’s authority to monitor Americans’ international communications, in addition to domestic communications.7 In short, after 9/11 the U.S is left with a national surveillance state, in which “the proliferation of government technology and bureaucracies that are able to acquire vast and detailed amounts of digital information about individuals with minimal or no judicial supervision and often in complete secrecy,” giving the government and corporations with access to the data that the government compiles the ability to single

Ever since the American public was made aware of the United States government’s surveillance policies, it has been a hotly debated issue across the nation. In 2013, it was revealed that the NSA had, for some time, been collecting data on American citizens, in terms of everything from their Internet history to their phone records. When the story broke, it was a huge talking point, not only across the country, but also throughout the world. The man who introduced Americans to this idea was Edward Snowden.

Government surveillance in the past was not a big threat due to the limitations on technology; however, in the current day, it has become an immense power for the government. Taylor, author of a book on Electronic Surveillance supports, "A generation ago, when records were tucked away on paper in manila folders, there was some assurance that such information wouldn 't be spread everywhere. Now, however, our life stories are available at the push of a button" (Taylor 111). With more and more Americans logging into social media cites and using text-messaging devices, the more providers of metadata the government has. In her journal “The Virtuous Spy: Privacy as an Ethical Limit”, Anita L. Allen, an expert on privacy law, writes, “Contemporary technologies of data collection make secret, privacy invading surveillance easy and nearly irresistible. For every technology of confidential personal communication…there are one or more counter-technologies of eavesdropping” (Allen 1). Being in the middle of the Digital Age, we have to be much more careful of the kinds of information we put in our digital devices.

“A Surveillance Society,” written by William E. Thompson and Joseph V. Hickey makes you conscious to the fact that in the society we live in today, you and your personal information are almost always being recorded, analyzed, and stored. Most people are aware of cameras in public places, but cease to see that they are being monitored in places such as banking accounts and health records. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the USA PATRIOT Act was passed to give the government permission to go increase their accessibility to citizens private records. There is many citizens that were compliant with exchanging privacy for the extra protection against terrorist and criminals. There is an abundance of citizens that are against the act as well, because

citizens in the data net. In 2013, Edward Snowden brought to light how the NSA can demand information from firms like Google and Microsoft. In addition, they can use a program called “PRISM” to collect citizen internet traffic such as email content and social media activity (The Guardian 2013). Instead of focusing on criminals, the government is slowly turning their attention to everyone. Collecting data in this way is an infringement upon rights guaranteed in the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment requires law enforcement to go to courts and show probable cause to prevent dragnet surveillance: a system of coordinated procedures for apprehending criminals or suspects; including road barricades and traffic stops, widespread DNA tests, and general increased police alertness (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). Targeted investigations help protect people from being subject to general searches by an abusive government. We do need to collect more data. We need better ways of understanding the information we

The 9/11 terrorist attacks irrevocably and dramatically transformed the landscape of national security and risk, marking the beginning of the nebulous and never-ending War on Terror. Western governments frequently cite terrorism to rationalize legislation that restricts the privacy and democratic freedoms of its citizenry as anti-terror, increasing unaccountable government power. This rhetoric includes that governments must eliminate all risk of terror, it being such an existential threat that we, as citizens, can and must do everything to fight “them”, including throwing out privacy and the freedom of the press. Our lives are both augmented and restrained by the advent of ‘big data’ that, when paired the ongoing mass, indiscriminate surveillance, strips individuals of their right to privacy. Governments have capitalized on the corporate practice of collecting massive amounts of data on individuals, which has increased in both scale and scope as surveillance technology has become more sophisticated and more difficult to evade. The result is that we live under a global Panopticon in the knowledge that at any point, our online lives and communications can be exposed and subject to scrutiny. Other democratic freedoms jettisoned in the fight include the transparency and accountability in public administration and, relatedly, a free, independent and pluralistic media. The same anti-terror rhetoric and legislation is used to spy on, prosecute, and imprison journalists and

“How much freedom should Americans be willing to sacrifice in the name of National Security?” (CITE). Privacy rights have been a topic of discussion with the American government since “World War II concerning the issue of Communists and German Spies being present in the United States of America (USA),” (CITE). However, ever since the attacks on the USA on September 11th, 2001, the “sacrifice Americans had to make of their basic liberties has increased,” (CITE). It all began with the USA Patriot Act of 2001; this act takes “privacy depleting measures” and “uses National Security letters to demand information about anyone the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) finds suspicious in terms of terrorism,” (CITE). This act serves as a problem to

As American citizens we want to live in a country where privacy and protection can live in harmony. This is the political dispute surrounding mass surveillance technology, because the reality is that perfect harmony isn’t possible at this time. Social groups in conflict over this issue are divided into two categories; government agencies such as the FBI, CIA, and most prominently the NSA versus civil society groups like American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), as well as powerful people like Edward Snowden, and technology companies including Microsoft, Apple, Twitter, and Google (Nakashima 2015).

Millions of Americans, whether they want it or not, whether they know it or not, are having their personal data left behind on the web collected and watched by the federal government. Although some people believe that the government is in the right to track its people, the truth is that allowing any form of government, including our own to watch the people under the guise of safety is absurd, unethical, invasive, and will take the country down a darker path in which the people will slowly lose their rights in sugar coated comfort of letting the government do everything for them.

Although we have access to the world-wide web, people logging online place their private information at risk. A TED Talk video called “Tracking our Online Trackers” gives a presentation by Gary Kovacs about online privacy. Through installing a Firefox add-on called Collusion, Kovacs experiments with it to view who is watching him online. In a matter of a 24-hour day and visiting a few sites, an exponential growth of unknown sites with unauthorized permission was watching him. A conversational topic today is whether it’s time for society to start tracking their internet trackers. Kovacs says commercial tracking is a danger to our privacy and abuses personal data to help their websites stay in business.

George Orwell wouldn’t believe his eyes if he saw the many ways data is stored, used, and reused. (Kosciejew 32) Not only is the collection and storage of data dangerous, but so are the potentials of data used for tracking purposes. People are under surveillance almost every second of their lives due to big data. (Kosciejew 32) Predictive policing also plays a heavy role in demonstrating the need for stricter laws on data privacy. People are now judged based on predictions of potential actions due to big data analysis. (Kosciejew 33) While data is already held to privacy laws, these laws need to be more strict because predictive policing imperils personal freedom, data tracking means people are under constant surveillance, and data leaks lead to the loss of private

As we live our everyday lives day to day, data is being gathered from each and every one of us; often without our consent or realization. Data is being gathered constantly when we subscribe to magazines, when we use coupons, when we use our credit cards and when we browse the Internet. Following the 9/11 attacks, the government and law enforcement proposed to develop an airline traveler screening program that would consolidate these pieces of consumer data information. It was not implemented due to its controversial nature. However, privacy and civil liberty advocates are constantly questioned, “What are you afraid of? What do you have to hide? If you haven 't done anything wrong, what 's there to worry about?". They insinuate that data is harmless, but according to law professor, Jeffrey Rosen’s book The Unwanted Gaze, you are not your profile. These datasets can contain errors. Furthermore, data misuse and the revelation of information to strangers can lead to misjudgment, wrong conclusions and violations of privacy rights. Therefore, I will look at the topic of data mining, “a set of methodologies for extracting knowledge from datasets” (Robinson, 2015) as it relates to the balance of public interest and privacy rights. Thus, this paper will analyze the arguments of Kaplan, Al-Saggaf & Islam, Bahamonde et al., McCaul & Meehan and Robinson as they relate to the problem of unregulated data mining. The first

In the history of terrorist attacks, the most recent ones were in Paris and San Bernardino. On November 13, 2015, shooting and bombings in the city of Paris left 129 dead (Prial). This immediately began to reverberate on Europe’s vexed migration debate and prompted criticism of its policies in the Middle East (Foy and Hille). Less than a month later on December 2nd, Tashfeen Malik helped kill 14 people at a holiday party in San Bernardino. She was born in Pakistan, and gained legal permanent resident status last year after she married Syed Rizwan Farook, her co-conspirator in the deadly shooting (Linthicum and Carcamo). This attack brought new attention to the previously obscure K1 visa program, with some advocates for stricter immigration enforcement calling for investigations into the nation’s visa screening process and calling for the U.S. to halt its Syrian refugee program (Linthicum and Carcamo). Last year, the State Department approved about

Terrorist attacks like 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombing, and most recently the San Bernadino shooting has shocked the American public, forcing them to place greater pressure on the country’s security measures, predominantly in the area regarding information collecting. However, the government’s recent role in information collecting created an inevitable conflict affecting both the public’s personal confidentiality and privacy, and the nation’s safety. Thus, these fluctuating variables has forced the public to review and reconsider how well the government should protect them and what they are willing to sacrifice for their safety. The dilemma lies in deciding what action should be taken against terrorism through information collecting but also the extent to which it is administered. Should the American public risk give up its civil freedoms and individual privacy for the sake of safeguarding the nation or are the government’s actions too invasive and a pointless means of violating the public’s justified privacy?