Privacy and Technology

     As I look back on the posts in this blog I am beginning to realize how much we value our privacy and how quickly it is being taken away. With each new generation, new technologies are created that decrease our amount of privacy. Spyware is littering our computers, tracking our internet usage and reporting the statistics back to advertising firms. Identity theft is becoming easier and easier to commit because of the internet and society’s lack of knowledge of internet safety. The world of video surveillance boomed a while back and now we can hardly go anywhere without being watched. Even if you are not around a camera you could be getting your picture taken by a satellite camera in space above you. And now the files we keep on our computers are not safe. Industries and corporations are spying on our computers, making sure we don’t have anything they don’t approve of. To make matters worse, the government passes the USA PATRIOT Act, eliminating even more privacy.

     But as more of our privacy is eliminated, more and more people are getting frustrated. Privacy used to be a subject that nobody thought too much about. Now it is a hot topic. People are concerned for their privacy. I hope that as people realize how much they miss their privacy actions will be taken to restore it. Economics would suggest this to be the case. As more and more people demand privacy, firms will begin to think of ways to sell privacy. Right now the security agency is booming, but maybe one day a privacy agency will take its place.

As I reflect back on the previous issues the group has discussed, I realize how valuable one's privacy truly is. In the world today, privacy is being invaded by everything from Spyware to the Patriot Acts. Video surveillance has hit an all-time high with the implementation of camera phones, which are often being used as a spy method for Peeping Toms. While not a lot can be done about many of these issues, citizens can be educated on their rights and privacy, and how to protect both. I agree with Freddy when he called this a "mock ethics review." That is what most of this boils down to... ethics. The breakdown of the ethical foundation of the United States has led residents to live more public lives as a result of their lack of privacy.

More and more people are beginning weblogs, similar to this one, and posting some of their most intimate thoughts, feelings, and events on the Internet, for others to read. Privacy is declining at a rapid rate in the 21st century, yet the fire is being fueled by the public's willingness to lead such open lives. In total, the boundary separating private and public aspects of people's lives is quickly diminishing. Eventually, it will become taboo to live a private life.

     Less than seven weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism” (USA PATRIOT Act) was passed in the Senate by a 98-1 vote. It was an easy law to get passed given that Nationalism was at an all-time high. But since its passing the law has become one of the most controversial items of Bush’s presidency. The opinions are heated on both sides of the debate, and no one side dominates the other. Many Americans feel safer under the PATRIOT Act and wish to even extend the power of it, while others feel less safe and believe the government could abuse its power and they want to abolish them. The opposition also believes that the PATRIOT act is unconstitutional and that it violates the Bill of Rights.

     I am of the opinion that the PATRIOT Act is wrong. I believe it’s unconstitutional, I believe it encroaches on liberty, freedom, and privacy and I believe the powers could be abused by the government unless kept in check. The act allows the government to get around a lot of protection that used to be in place for citizens of this country. The act gives the government power to wiretap phones without a warrant or a subpoena, confiscate property of suspected terrorists, spy on citizens without judicial review, conduct secret searches, access library records, and many others. I don’t want the government to have so much power. The act goes against the very principles our country was founded on; freedom, liberty, and justice to name a few. All I can hope for is that when the PATRIOT Act goes up for review next it will not pass again. It is a danger to America.

The basic gist of the Patriot Acts is to "give federal officials greater authority to track and intercept communications, both for law enforcement and foreign intelligence gathering purposes," according to The CRS Report for Congress. These were implemented in order to protect American citizens from terrorists and corruption. I believe that while these acts are beneficial overall, it is still a slight concern that this is intruding too far on citizen's privacy. For instance, the acts allow for regulated (and approved) government electronic surveillance. I believe that this technology is very useful, yet the fact that it exists is somewhat scary. I do however, believe that it is necessary for the United States government to have. While some may argue that it is an invasion of privacy, if someone is doing something that is malignant to the United States, he or she deserves to be caught and put into jail. These acts are designed to protect the United States, yet are devised in such a way to not intrude on the privacy of innocent citizens in a similar fashion as warrants are issued. I think that these acts are a good addition to the US government as long as they are only used as described.

Another aspect of society that has been implemented into the Internet realm is that of crime fighting and prevention. As more internet crimes are committed (see previous posts), the need for internet police also grows. The tasks of these investigators (sample site here) include computer forensics, stopping pedophiles, and policing file sharing. To what degree are these men and women a necessity though?

Personally, I think that it is great that policemen and women are catching Internet predators by posing as young children in chat rooms... except for the whole "entrapment" thing. I'm not sure how far the law was stretched in these instances, but the acts are removing pedophiles from the streets, which makes the community better to live in. Clearly if these men and women are preying on younger children they meet in chat rooms and often inviting them to meet in person, they should be punished in some manner. On the issues of file sharing though, I disagree with the need of policing with this matter. I believe that people should be able to freely exchange information on the Internet, that's its purpose. While I understand that musicians and software companies need to make a living, I think that upwards of $15 a pop for a CD is ridiculous, especially because it costs fractions of that to produce. I'm not the only one who feels this way, John and Ben Snyder do as well.

In conclusion, I believe that police are necessary on the Internet, for certain crimes. I view that police should be used to capture the true criminals, such as pedophiles, not pimple-covered teenagers attempting to figure out what Frank Sinatra sounded like. Internet crime is a problem, file sharing is not.

     In the past few years the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has waged an expensive and, for the most part, unsuccessful war against file-sharing. I say unsuccessful because I have seen not a decline in the amount of file-sharing but an increase. But in other ways it can be viewed as successful for them. They have taken many individuals and corporations to court and won. Recently, the RIAA added new tactics to their attack on file-sharing.

     This article discusses how the RIAA recently began targeting college and university campuses. The only problem with this is that “While the RIAA is well armed with its arsenal of lawyers, it lacks the technical expertise to implement its policies.” As a result the industry has placed the burden of policing file-sharers to the administrators of the networks. A computer administrator at Dartmouth explained that “‘what the industry has done with DMCA [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] is shifted a lot of the policing to people like me.’” This is unfair to the network administrators. It is not part of their job to police their networks for the RIAA. If the RIAA wants them to do this they should pay them something for it. But the only incentive they give is the threat of legal action against the administrators, the university and the students involved in sharing files. They find people on the networks sharing files and then they tell the administrators to deal with it. These network administrators are losing time they could spend doing their jobs because the RIAA can’t deal with the problem.

     Another problem with this system is the possibility that it violates the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). This act states that “school officials are permitted to access student records but outside organizations like RIAA would need ‘to comply with a judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena.’” If IP addresses and ISP records are considered student records than the RIAA is in violation of FERPA.

     I was searching around on the internet when I found this website on Closed Circuit Television (CCTV), also known as video surveillance. It is a page of FAQ’s about CCTV. The page discussed how CCTV has been used effectively to reduce crime and ‘anti-social behavior’. The technology has reduced major felonies such as burglary and assault as well as minor ones such as littering and traffic violations. Everywhere we go we see this technology in place, or don’t see it. If you step into a store you are likely being watched by a camera, either openly or hidden. In some parts of Atlanta if you run a red light a camera will snap a picture of your license plate, and a ticket will be mailed to your house.

     Despite these positive aspects, the public is still troubled by the technology. One of the questions was “What does the public think of CCTV?” I thought it was interesting to note that most people believe that neither the government nor private security firms should be allowed to install CCTV in public places, and the primary reason for this concern is that “these cameras could be abused and used by the wrong people”. This shows that most people would still rather have more privacy in their lives than an increase in safety. Most people regard privacy as a right, while thinking of safety as a privilege. Privacy gives us the freedom to do anything without the fear of being watched and recorded. Even law-abiding citizens want privacy. Cameras make people nervous. They make people conscientious of their actions. And, thus, citizens don’t want them everywhere.

     Personally, I fall into the above-mentioned category of the public. If I know that I’m being watched, no matter who is doing the watching, I get edgy and nervous. I don’t like to know that my actions are being recorded. Also, I feel like it is my right to have privacy. I don’t like the idea that nowhere I go is completely secure. Recently, a friend of mine showed me this. It is satellite photography taken of the entire world by the US government. When we used it we zoomed in until we found our dormitory, and then I found my house. The technology is really impressive, and very fun to play around with, but at the same time kind of frightening. I could make out the trampoline in the back of my house quite clearly; it was about the size of a quarter. If you don’t want to check it out yourself, here is a picture of the Skiles building.

With all the new technology that is being developed, it is very useful for places such as department stores and grocers to use video surveillance and cameras to prevent from shoplifting. However, the addition of the devices not only in stores, but also now available in phone form (camera phones), may also add more issues relating to people's privacy. Is it possible that while attempting to instill good values, these appliances are also causing harm to citizen's personal lives.

Often these surveillance devices are used to catch criminals, whether it be shoplifters or rioters (as was the case with the recent NCAA Championship win by UConn). Such devices have also been used to invade others privacy as well. For instance, when reading one of my favorite news websites, I stumbled across this website, Phonepiks(possibly NSFW), which was advertised as having cool pictures taken by people with camera phones. I was intrigued by the link and was appalled that one of the featured categories contains pictures of women, mostly taken of women off the street without their consent. I am for one insulted by this blatant disrespect of privacy.

While video surveillance can be used for beneficial means, in some cases it most certainly is not. I feel that the use of this new technology is great when used properly and with respect to all those involved. Of course, this can never be assured.

     Before I came to Tech I didn’t really have any personal experiences with identity theft. I don’t own a credit card, so I was never worried about someone stealing my number. I have a check card, but I rarely use it. If I make any online purchases, it’s only from respectable companies, which makes it a lot less likely for theft. But several weeks after moving into my dorm room I got a strange phone call.

     When I looked at the caller ID it said Parkland, Fl. 954-345-2343. I didn’t recognize the number, but I picked it up anyway. There was a man’s voice on the other end, and he told me he was with the Georgia Tech Department of Housing. He told me that students were required to make a final authorization by phone, affirming that they were living on-campus. I thought that it sounded sketchy since I had not heard about anything like this, but I stayed on the line. He started asking me questions. His initial questions were very general, for example “What is your full name?” “What is your date of birth?” and stuff like that. I answered those because it was information that I let people know all the time. But then he asked me my social security number, and that’s when I got very suspicious. I told him that I wasn’t going to give him my social security number. He told me that he needed it in order to confirm that I was indeed Andrew Marshall. I then told him that Georgia Tech switched over to a new system that used a 9-digit number called your GT-ID# in place of using Social Security Numbers. He insisted that he needed my social security number. At that point I told him once again that I wouldn’t give him my social security number, and I hung up the phone.

     When my roommate got back from classes that day I told him what had happened. I still wasn’t sure if it was a scam or not, but he agreed that it was wise not to give them my number. Later that day our phone rang again, and it was the same number on the caller ID. Derek, my roommate, picked up the phone this time. When he answered it the person on the other end was a woman and she asked for Derek. She told him that she was with VISA, and she had a great deal on a student credit card. Derek then asked her if she was with VISA then why had someone called from the same number earlier claiming to be with the Georgia Tech Department of Housing. She claimed that she didn’t know what he was talking about and that nobody had called earlier. Derek hung up the phone. For a couple weeks we received calls from this number, and each time they had a different story.

     It kind of scared me that somebody had tried to steal my social security number. I had never had anyone try to steal my identity before. It made me aware that it could happen to me or anyone. It became even more real to me when I was talking with other people in my dorm about it. After I described what happened somebody realized that the same thing had happened to him, but he had given his social security number. He said that they had called him at 8 am on a Saturday, and he was barely awake. He hasn’t mentioned anything about it since, so I assume that the people didn’t do anything with his number or were unsuccessful when they tried to use it. But it is still a scary idea. I would’ve been terrified if I had been in his place. And if these people called a lot of students then they probably were able to trick a fair number of them. The only thing that can stop this type of identity theft is knowledge and carefulness. There is no security or protection against this other than awareness of the threat.

Freddy and I have something very much in common: when we first thought of the subject of identity theft, we thought of the Citibank credit card commercials. While these commercials are humorous, they also prove a point. Almost anyone with some technological expertise can hack into certain databases, and steal your credit card numbers, Social Security number, and other vital information that can be used by others. Not only can anyone steal this, anyone can be a victim of it as well. Unfortunately, this statement includes my parents, who were victims of identity theft, although it did not relate to technology.

The problem with identity theft is that so much information is being processed on the internet these days, it is somewhat easily accessible by others. No matter how secure a server or database is, as technology improves, so do its hackers. This is similar to the bacteria strains that gain resistance to antibiotics after time. It is very difficult to create software and other items to prevent identity theft. While often this secure technology often works for a while, it is often not very long before someone figures out how to crack it. Hackers, especially the extremely experienced ones, can break into sites such as Ebay, Amazon, bank websites, etc and steal various information from innocent people. The amount of information being exchanged on the internet, and the number of products being purchased, makes citizens very vulnerable to identity theft.

As Freddy has stated, there is a lot that companies are doing to prevent identity theft. No matter what though, the most important thing that someone can do is be careful about who or what they give there personal information to on the internet. While the statistics for identity theft are somewhat low, the number of instances may be minimized by being careful with your information.