The Internet has always been free and relatively unrestricted, compared to our daily lives which are penned in with rules and regulations. It is no secret that the Internet has become a hive of illegal activity, ranging from unlicensed music downloads to identity theft and child pornography. Soon, in the United States at least, this might be about to change. Several new bills have recently been proposed, in order to “crack down on the…Web”. One of these bills, “The Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011”, was just approved by the House Judiciary Committee.
This bill requires, among other things, that ISPs (Internet Service Providers) keep a record of every customer’s activity for 18 months, and retain customer names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card information, bank account numbers and IP addresses, and keep them available for government access. While the bill refers to pornography in its title, access to these records is not restricted to legal situations involving pornography---this has, of course, prompted fierce debate about whether this bill should be considered acceptable. Additionally, the motives behind the bill have been called into question by many, raising further discussion.
Clearly, there are many relevant questions to ask about this bill. What is its stated purpose? Does the title of this bill accurately reflect on the stipulations laid down inside, and if not, does that matter? This bill attempts to sacrifice a certain amount of the average US citizen's privacy, in return for an increase in the safety of children---does it accomplish this? Perhaps most importantly, what difference will this bill ultimately make?
This topic involves two primary areas of knowledge: ethics, and human sciences. For one, is it worth trading in the privacy of US citizens for the safety of children online? On the one hand, for Americans the right to privacy is ingrained in their legal philosophy, and makes for a large part of the Bill of Rights. On the other hand, child pornography is so socially unacceptable that to many, the loss of privacy is acceptable when placed in perspective.
Opponents of the bill cite various concerns for the ongoing privacy of US citizens. A particular point often cited is that the bill does not require that access is restricted to cases involving child pornography, and the name of the bill could therefore be misleading and inaccurate. One representative, Rep John Conyers of Michigan, said that “This is not protecting children from Internet pornography … It’s creating a database for everybody in this country for a lot of other purposes.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a prevalent group that promotes freedom and individuals’ rights on the internet, called the bill a “direct assault on the privacy of Internet users.”
Proponents of the new bill, however, suggest that every little shred of evidence that is lost might be a vital clue, and that it is better to preserve a carbon copy of all internet activity, on the off chance that it should be needed: “Every piece of prematurely discarded information could be the footprint of a child predator. This bill ensures that the online footprints of predators are not erased.”[1]
Ultimately, the answer depends on whether or not the bill would lead to more criminals involved with child pornography being arrested, and more children protected, and whether this compensates for the loss in privacy. Considering the limitations of the bill, the protective potential is doubtful---due to the large number of Internet users, any critical data would be extremely hard to separate from a vast pool of irrelevant clutter. Additionally, public Internet access points, such as those at Starbucks coffee shops and McDonald’s stores, are not covered by the terms of the bill, providing an easy mechanism for criminals to avoid data retention. A related situation is that of phone-lines in the US; levels of government access similar to those proposed for the Internet are already in place, and have been since the Bush administration allowed warrantless wiretapping. If one extends this removal of privacy from phones to the internet, what will be next? Where does one draw the line? Will this same constant monitoring be extended to aspects of one's daily life, such as catching the bus, or eating at a restaurant? It is therefore very important to consider the possible effect of such a precedent, not just in the US, but around the world.
References:
[1] Chairman Smith, http://judiciary.house.gov/news/07282011.html, 2011
This is really similar to the Blacklist Bill that was release on October 26. The Blacklist Bill allows the US government to remove any websites that violate copyright infringement. This means sites like YouTube, Twitter and many other social networking sites could be potentially shut down due to this bill.
ReplyDeleteWhile internet safety is important and allowing the bill could allow children to stay away from pornographic sites, I think the bill itself violates the constitution that addresses our freedom of press (even though it is pornography). The fact that the government will track down customer name, address, bank account and credit card information is definitely a scary thought.
In my opinion I definitely think that while protecting children is important, it is worse to take away our privacy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe "free and relatively unrestricted" (Protecting children vs. protecting privacy in the US) Internet has also posed another similar dilemma: When vaccines were first accused of being linked to autism by celebrities such as former Playboy Magazine nude model and girlfriend to Jim Carrey, Jenny McCarthy, articles were posted everywhere on the web and in news articles. When her interview was broadcast on television, many scientists argued that her opinion on vaccinations should not have been aired as it was false information. However, they could find no legal premises to ban her interview from airing. Like Aidan's blog on the censorship of pornography in order to protect children, the case on vaccination demonstrates how media can argue that its use is "as a medium for providing various means of communication", and in this case--the global community with "opinions". However, to offset this reason, the potential harm it may cause future generations is given the spotlight. In the case of vaccinations, after being accused of causing autism, many parents refused to vaccinate their children (out of fear that it might make them autistic). This lead to increased infections and deaths that very same year...in other words, devastating impact on future generations. The claim was given more media with the Wakefield dilemma, where a British surgeon had created fraudulent 1998 research papers in support of that claim for monetary gain. Granted, the Internet may seem the perfect place to abuse our freedom, but freedom has always, ironically, come with its limitations. Though many may argue (like in the time of uncertainty with vaccinations) that if the media were to be censored by the government, people would believe that they were living a misconception and that all the information they received was filtered, where would it not be? Anything anyone is ever told is filtered, and no matter how many people they ask or books they read, they will eventually filter it themselves and pass it on to others to filter. Personally, the past centuries found pornography to be appalling and inappropriate, and if so many hundreds of years could live without such a thing, then, like major stores keeping tracks of "new" purchases, choosing to possess pornography should also be noted. The blog does, however, present a false dichotomy: "is it worth trading in the privacy of US citizens for the safety of children online"? Fortunately, this isn't the case. On the other hand, such action may very well encourage an active social life to those faced with this false sense of absolutes!
ReplyDeleteFor further information: http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/09/07/p.autism.vaccine.debate/index.html
I feel that this topic is very terrifying to think about, as it is a complete invasion of privacy, although I think that in some cases it may be necessary to go to this extent. I think that each generation is becoming more and more technology focused, and children using the internet are getting younger and younger each year. Because of the vulnerability of children, it may make it easier for child predators to use online websites to their advantage and manipulate these children on the somewhat open environment of our internet. Therefore, in this situation I would be supporting this bill. However, I also think that the parents of the children are also responsible to prevent this by happening with either a parental lock, or by using parental supervision when their children are accessing the internet. This would protect their children while still giving others their privacy on the internet.
ReplyDeleteI think that this article is similar to the case of Apple products keeping a log of the user’s location. This allowed Apple to keep records of everyone wherever they go as long as they had an Apple product with them. This eventually caused them to be sued for violating privacy laws and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as they were unable to disable the feature. Although this case is not as invasive of privacy as the bill, it is similar in the violation of privacy. I feel that the government should not be allowed to invade into the privacy of its citizens. Although it is alright for a certain amount of control, there is no need to go to the extent where the government is able to track all the personal details of everyone. Therefore, in my opinion, I feel that the government should not be able to take away all our privacy from us and that this bill should not be passed.
ReplyDelete