Fatin Ishteaaque, Period 1, 5/4/2022

Everyday some new form or instance of technology harming the world seems to arise. A common theme found among them would be the aspect of privacy and personal security. There is always some breach of privacy caused by technology, whether the NSA is spying on you through your cameras, or the world getting all your information from your social media. Consensually or not, the formally private information of the populace is being stored, tracked, and quite possibly sold for reasons that could be legal, but also might not be. Although there are many concerns about this in our world, the general public doesn’t seem all too worried about it. Does this mean that it’s nothing to be concerned about, or does it just mean that the people are ill-informed? Technology grows faster than people, and hasn’t been slowing down all too much. Because of that, our laws can’t move fast enough to keep up, therefore I suggest an adaptation to an existing law, and adaptation that would keep privacy laws related to technology flexible, and susceptible to change as needed by the times. I recommend you take a seat, because I have almost 8 pages to explain myself and my policy suggestions.


What is privacy exactly? Traditionally, the word is directly defined as a restriction on access to information or a limited amount of control. This definition implies that privacy is when some people have access to something and others don’t, meaning someone could prevent others from gaining access to information if they wanted. While others might disagree, I believe that it is reasonable to expect this privacy in the context of technology as well. In order to defend their security, individuals must have a freedom of “limited control” in order to ensure their private data can stay that way and restrict access as they see fit. The full meaning behind this definition is important to understand because technology and media is commonly seen as a trade off between privacy and convenience, however if a user lacks ownership of private information then they have nothing to truly trade. The control that user has when a website or app asks for permission could very well be naught but an illusion. The commonly used browser known as “Google” is one of such softwares and in turn corporations that take advantage of people and disregard their rights to privacy.


Have you ever noted that google maps remembers where you’ve been, or that google can always guess what you’re going to say next? It’s because they’re always tracking and paying attention to where we go and what we do online. The storing of information from corporations, like Google or Amazon or Apple, is an undeniable fact. Many may find it harmless and a bit convenient at times, however it can be truly scary when you consider what they might be trying to hide from you. Even when you’re not talking to them, or even when they’re off the new home assistant devices seem to always be listening to you. Is this simply a risk of upgrading your house, or is it something more? The same can be asked about social media applications like facebook and instagram that are commonly used by people and children.


The recent concern people have been displaying—in reference to the consciousness they show through their digital presence—is the collective result of the progression of cataclysms in the informational and online world. “Nearly 2 billion consumer records were stolen or accidentally exposed in the United States last year” (Kennerly). A significant part of the spilled data prompted difficulties in the security and well-being of people’s lives, such as identity theft. Many large companies have experienced data breaches before, such as Equifax, eBay, and Yahoo, all of which led to severe impact on people’s lives and an increase in people’s personal dangers. In the wake of acknowledging exactly the number of hacks and information penetrations that have been happening, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved more restrictions and regulations on how companies can obtain,use, and sell the data that their consumers provide them. However, the Trump administration disposed of these standards on the grounds that numerous organizations complained that they were“too restrictive”. Due to the extremely high number of lawsuits that are being filed against major companies for failure to protect private data, administrators are attempting to push for new enactment that will cause these organizations to be more straightforward in their employment of buyer information and their entitlement to limit its deal or use. Of course a new enactment will only be able to do so much against the criminal, cunning, and unstoppable force that is known as humanity. With the constant progression, a new enactment will only last a few years, if at all seeing as it takes around that long to pass laws anyways. What the law, government, and corporations really need are flexible regulations holding them back, and what better way to display one than by adapting an existing legal act?


Any service that is offered for free is likely relying on you as the “product”. The time and information you give companies, are what make them money. Many businesses innocently mine data from users to record consumer trends. They use programs to offer small rewards in exchange for information from consumers. Most companies are willing to do this because the information they get from the responses is much more valuable than what they lose from the customers’ savings. These data surveys request your age, gender, and similar information to gain a demographic from you, as they also record your purchases and items you may have shown interest in. They connect these pieces of information and gain insight on what certain types of people are interested in seeing, and then use this information to manipulate what consumers see online. This is a case where technology taking our information can prove beneficial to us, which is why many don’t like to see it as such a big deal. However the real fears don’t fall in the idea of companies listening to us, the main fear stems from distrust and lies with the government.


The public’s distrust in the government’s respect of privacy can be specified to that of the National Security Agency (NSA). As part of the government, they aren’t trying to make any money off of the public’s information in a major way. The primary focus of the NSA, for all intents and purposes is to protect America from outside threats, which is what they generally do with the information they gather, which is fairly significant. While many people think the NSA overreach with their methods, supporters say the NSA is “serving as a key bulwark against foreign terrorists and that it would be reckless to constrain the agency's mission” (Gorman 2008). While people like the fact that fairly potential terrorist attacks are being stopped, in actuality, many are still upset that the NSA is collecting and storing our information through nearly every form of communication imaginable, including phone calls and emails. On June 7th, 2013, James Clapper - the Director of the NSA at the time - released a statement claiming that the NSA had been collecting and storing information on American citizens via the media, big corpa, and the tech we see in public everyday. When this was revealed a study exposed that 59% of Americans expressed disapproval towards the US government for secretly collecting phone records. Some people just like to be able to maintain their privacy, while others think farther and fear what may happen if their information is ever put in the wrong hands by a hacker or a federal official, a fear proven rational by Edward Snowden.


The NSA has always fallen behind the Patriot Act when addressed about their surveillance and breaches of privacy. The US Patriot Act is meant to protect american citizens from terrorist threats by deterring or punishing anyone who may commit them. It was passed on October 26th 2001 in response to the 9/11 attack, and has been standing strong as a line of domestic and foreign defense. Despite the political and social acceptance of this act, it’s consequences directly contradict the Privacy Act of 1974. This act “establishes a code of fair information practices that governs the collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information about individuals that is maintained in systems of records by federal agencies.” This means - in layman's terms - that the government’s use of power to access your information is limited and kept in balance by the law. However the NSA’s access to our technology and ability to take what they want under the US Patriot Act is a very thin and fragile wall protecting them from the privacy act. Many can also argue that the access to our information allows the government permission to access our data as so to protect the greater safety of American citizens. However, as a counter argument, the government also misuse and abuse this access, by unnecessarily or personally granting themselves introduction in our lives, as made clear by the acts of Edward Snowden and the whistleblowers who came after him.


The age of technology and the internet is growing too much and too fast for laws to readily be able to keep up with them. The Privacy Act was a great start for the time, but people are good at finding loopholes, and technology has changed a lot since then. If we can’t stop the NSA from having access to our information through legal means, we can at least stop the private corporations from having access to us. Your phone and devices constantly have mics on (yes even if they are off) to listen for when you talk to them. Although many don’t find this to be a big problem, it most definitely could be one day. A possible solution to this would be an extension and update to the Privacy Act. Laws are always constituted to change if the time allows it. The best thing to do in such a scenario is to extend the Privacy Act of 1974 to not only balance the government’s holds over our privacy, but also to limit private corporation’s access to our technology and information. Many would support this, however the issue would be End User License Agreements. The main claim companies and corporations take is that they push EULA’s and Privacy Policy updates on their consumers that apparently describe everything they will do, including rights to private information. These are known as “Terms and Conditions”(TaC) and are made to be extremely long and difficult to read on purpose, to deter many from reading them in full. In the past I have taken the time to read an entire TaC contract, and it actually gave me helpful pieces of insight that impacted how I used the laptop. By filling the contract with legal jargon and complex sentences, companies essentially defend themselves from lawsuits and defamation, as no one would be able to tell if what they claim is really viable or not. The best way to counter this, would be to make the privacy act also force companies to include a clear summary of the TaC on the contract so that the consumer can understand what they are signing up for. This new policy would not only help the public from being caught in contract traps, but will also limit the movements of corporations and will hopefully be vague enough to keep loopholes closed and still be flexible enough to change as time passes.


The new privacy act would hold the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers as a monopoly to be the organization that controls what goes into the rules this act supports. This would be because the IEEE has already compiled a list of guidelines which they think should be followed universally to ensure a user-friendly and transparent experience with data collection. Some of the main points are that “users must be able to obtain complete disclosure of the information that is retained about them”, and that users should be able to know what information is being collected, have the ability to stop this collection, and delete any identifiable information about them (Isaak and Hannah). General rules like these will set foundations for users to notice, understand, and control what information they provide to companies. These rules should obviously also be applied to scientific studies that require collection of personal data, as well.


In conclusion, since many do not like being watched, manipulated, and sold out, they are pushing for legislation to prevent these things from happening. Most proposed laws on this topic go along the lines of making data collection transparent and easy for users to manage. “California is taking the lead in the US by advancing a privacy bill to the State Legislature that would grant its citizens data privacy rights” (Isaak and Hannah). The law will add more limits to data collection for users above 16 years old, and will not allow companies to block services to those who opt out of data collection contracts. These laws will only get stricter and more extensive over time, and will eventually apply to advertisers and social media. However as these laws are passed technology will change and more loopholes will be found. The best way to counter these types of illegal yet legal events, would be to make a vague and flexible law that is constantly susceptible to change over time and can grow with the times, essentially taking that limits the public works so hard to keep on the government, and extending them to the private companies that steal and use or sell our information.