|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
Sharping the New Perimeter of Digital Privacy
-- By WanTingHuang - 11 Mar 2021
1. The expectation of Privacy and The Risk of Sharing Information
As technology has developed, many people couldn't live without digital devices, and often share their personal information to exchange for "convenience." However, when a person shares his/her information with another individual or company, does he/she really know where will the information be distributed? Does this person understand the risk of sharing information? And let's look at another perspective: does this person know his/her information being collected? Could a person distinguish the private from the public after sharing information?
2. The Fourth Amendment: A Powerful Weapon?
In the United States, people’s right to privacy is protected under the Fourth Amendment, and police officers need a warrant to search legally. If the government entities want to search without legal authorization, the third-party doctrine is the best way to circumvent the requirement.
Even though in Carpenter, the Supreme Court found how the new technology changes the way in which privacy should be protected, and held that enforcement acquisition of CSLI requires a warrant. But as a user consent and shares information with a third-party company, this person gives up the expectation of privacy. And at this moment, the company, which is the third party, will not claim the Fourth Amendment rights because the information does not belong to them. Therefore, government entities including police have found a new way of collecting information: asking a third-party to provide information. What’s more, maybe they will also make an agreement and purchase information from a third-party. In this case, notwithstanding how powerful the Fourth Amendment is, it is no longer a knight for individuals, because the individual has surrendered and given out his/her weapon, and government entities can get whatever information they want without a warrant or physically trespassing onto people’s property.
3. The Problem of automatic recognition cameras
In another perspective, the cameras on the roads and streets have raised huge concerns as well. Take cameras of automatic number-plate recognition systems for example. This system can be used for the detection of average speeds and help to decrease the traffic accident rate -- which alleged by the government as the purpose of setting up this system. Nevertheless, the problem of average speed cameras is not on who drives over-speed but on those who do not drive overs-peed. Through this system, the government can establish mass surveillance of vehicle movements. Once governments profess to have public interest, they can access every camera that automatically captures every number-plate and even driver's face, even if innocent drivers.
The facial recognition cameras are more horrible. When those cameras exist at every station, gate and corner, and even in the offices and classrooms, identifying who you are, analyzing your facial movements, predicting your next-step movements, and you are no longer a freeman.
4. The Triangle of Regulation, Education, and Technology
As technology evolves rapidly and more and more data are generated in new ways, it is impossible that the legislation could run ahead of technology. Although many people believe that government entities will always follow the law, the reality is cruel.
People should not rely on the legislation only. Instead, the legislation, technology and education shall be a triangle. And the triangle shall pull each other arm-in-arm, rather than fighting with each other. When people understand the risk of technology devices and the potential danger of sharing information, they will get a better chance to defend against the violation of the right to privacy themselves.
5. Privacy Protection: Fade or Reemerge
Nowadays, advanced technology has forced people to rethink the distinction between public and private. As data flows around and gets linked to other data, it erases the boundaries of private and public and has redefined our privacy laws. The line between public and private is no longer be the same as the first time we learn their difference decades ago. Moreover, technology changes so quickly that the legislation could not catch up on time every moment. Hence, emphasizing something as a legal requirement also will not automatically reduce the risk efficiently and effectively.
Rather than saying technology is a bad thing, I will say that technology could eliminate anonymity easily if people did not knowingly protect their information. And the fact is that, when people consent to be collected by the technology devices, they make themselves in the possibility of being surveillance by the government, and thus they could not assert they are “freemen” anymore.
Decades ago, rarely can people imagined a community in which a phone goes wherever its owner goes, transmitting comprehensive and detailed information to third-party companies, and the third-party companies provide, exchange or sell clients' information to another company or government department.
Nonetheless, people have the right to pursue and obtain safety, anonymity, and privacy. If people were uneducated and unequipped to fight against the violation of the right to privacy, a nightmare in a novel would become the reality in the near future. Even though the enforcement agency or other governmental department would argue that what they do is to protect the security of the nation and public interest, but still, we are and should have the right to be freemen with the right to privacy, anonymity. As technology evolves, the protection of privacy should also evolve.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|