Do you think your Facebook profile, your Verizon text messages, and your Google searches are private? If your answer is yes…think again. In the first half of 2010, Google received 4,200 requests for customer data from law enforcement agencies. Verizon received 90,000 requests in 2007. In 2009, Facebook received 10 to 20 subpoenas and other orders daily. So, I have come to the conclusion that it does not matter how “private” I make my Facebook page because the government can request access to it. However, I’m sure law enforcers are far more interested in finding the members of the antisecrecy group, WikiLeaks than looking at my Facebook profile.
As a result of Internet advancements enabling people to store e-mails, photos, and documents, a recent New York Times article alluded to federal law enforcement officials’ plans to request new regulations. These regulations would allow law enforcers to perform legal wiretaps of various Internet communications more easily. As Lawrence Lessig discussed in Open Code and Open Societies, “though nations like the U.S. will sing about the importance of free speech in cyberspace, and about keeping cyberspace free, when it comes to issues of national security – as all things copyright are – values fall away” (12). As companies like Google, Facebook, and Twitter continue to be bombarded with data requests, they may be forced to comply. If there is a security concern, should companies give law enforcers customer data or protect privacy? If a member of Al-Queda is tweeting about his plan to bomb the Pentagon, then yes, law enforcement officials should have access to customer data. In an effort to fight terrorism and crime, I can understand law enforcement officials desire to obtain certain private information on the Internet. The question becomes: are companies like Twitter and Google responsible for informing their customers that the government wants to access their information? In terms of Twitter, when the government wanted information about WikiLeaks members, Twitter notified its customers. However, most companies are not required to notify their customers if the law enforcement wants access to customer data.
After reading Open Code and Open Societies as well as the New York Times article, I have realized no information you divulge about yourself on the Internet is private. Once I hit send on an e-mail, it is in cyberspace and there is no un-send button. It is important to think twice before tweeting or uploading a photo because information on the Internet is oftentimes, available to anyone.
You make a scary and unfortunately true point that nothing is private on the Internet. Not only can the government access information, other people can hack into it as well. It is also important to remember that it is just as easy for someone on the receiving end of a "private" email or text message to forward it to other people. Our lack of privacy is shocking.
ReplyDeleteYou say that "it is important to think twice before tweeting or uploading a photo because information on the Internet is oftentimes available to anyone." Therefore the information people post on the Internet is information they do not care who sees. If this is the case, then why do people care if the government sees? The general public can view it, so why care if the government, who is trying to protect the public, views it as well?
ReplyDeleteMichael's claim, "therefore the information people post on the Internet is information they do not care who sees,” suggests that content itself should be open. If we define an "open" Internet as one that that does not restrict access to ANY content, consequently, we change the very nature of the Internet. All Internet activity that involves closing off content to a single user or group of users would no longer exist. Email, which restricts message content to the recipient, Facebook, which restricts profile content to a group of friends, and online banking, which restricts account content to the accountholder, would be counter to the idea of unrestricted content.
ReplyDeleteWhile Wu advocates openness, this definition of open Internet is detrimental to the Internet’s capabilities. People must not feel that their private information is public; if a perception develops that privacy does not exist, email, online transactions, and many other activities will simply not be used.
Thus some information posted on the Internet is private and people do care who sees. Government, ISP, and Google’s monitoring and infringing upon users’ privacy creates a climate of paranoid Internet users whose use of email and search engines, for example, will diminish for fear of being monitored.
In theory, nothing is private online. But users need rights about how private data marked "private" should be.
ReplyDeleteI may be old fashioned here. When a government has fears, they should request a warrant. In an emergency, a Federal or State judge can produce one quickly.
And in the worst of emergencies, the government may have to ask our forgivenss, not our permission. I'm comfortable with that compromise as long as this is the exception. It was the rule, apparently, for several years after 9/11.
By the way, class: EXCELLENT set of responses to Maddy's post. Keep up the good work!