Big Brother
A Q&A on Privacy Concerns:
An Opinion Piece
An Opinion Piece
Terrorist organizations around the world have capitalized on the Internet, web, and social media to recruit new members, train members, and organize members into action. Should the U.S. government spy on these types of on-line activities, and investigate U.S. citizens that associate themselves with these groups on-line? Why or why not?
Absolutely. The notion of privacy in a public forum such as the internet probably stems from the fact that people believe that because they are able to access the internet from their living room, no one should be able to look in and see what they are doing. They want to “draw the curtains” and conduct their internet business in private. The problem is that the internet is NOT private and everything that you do online is trackable and frankly, it’s absurd to think that you aren’t being watched. For the same reason that my mailbox is filled with circulars, coupons and catalogues from places I’ve never been, we are being tracked everywhere. No one seems to care about tracking when it comes to their grocery shopping; what do you think tells the machine to spit out that coupon for $3 off Metamucil? Safeway knows you need more fiber in your diet. Where is the outrage? If we are already being tracked, watched, and gently reminded to send flowers to our moms on Mother’s Day, why not keep track of illegal activities while they’re at it? Seems like a better use of resources to me.
What, if any, evidence should be required for the U.S. government to "listen in" on phone calls, text messages, email messages, and social media interactions of suspected terrorists?
None. Let them listen. They probably already are. (Psst… NSA, check out my resumes.) Again, people get all up in arms over privacy. “I’m on my phone… no one should be listening!” The only thing that is truly private are your own thoughts. Once those leave your head and spill out of your mouth or onto a computer screen, they are out there in the world, clanging around, ready to stir things up. Imagine the backlash if the government didn’t do these things. Let’s say suspected terrorist Craig Johnson just spent the day picking up fertilizer, Drano and Dawn dish soap (Note: I have no idea what’s in explosive devices and I’m afraid to Google, because, well… you know) and texting his buddy Jack. Jack is also collecting pipes, pressure cookers and Elmer’s Glue (?). The government has been given quite a few tips on Craig and Jack. What should they do? You can believe that if Craig and Jack go on to build a Drano-Glue bomb that wipes out the Golden Gate Bridge, people are going to be pretty hot that Uncle Sam wasn’t listening into their phone conversations that day.
Terrorists have been known to utilize encrypted on-line communications to orchestrate horrendous acts of terror. In an effort to strike back, the U.S. government has all but shut down services that offer strong encryption for email. Should anyone be allowed to encrypt their communications? Why or why not?
Allowed is such a pesky word. If you find that someone has encrypted something that even the best minds can’t break, hire that person! You totally want them on your side. Unless they’re a terrorist… then totally don’t hire them. But how can you tell? Disallowing encryption just creates a new stronger breed of terrorism. If you make it so that only the most dangerously intelligent people can be secretive, you’re certainly crippling yourself. You can shut down all of the services you want and new ones will pop up. Harder, better, faster, stronger…
Terrorists are utilizing cyber-attacks to strike at critical resources such as hospitals, electric utilities, water facilities, banks, nuclear power plants, and transportation control systems. How should the U.S. government defend against such attacks? Should it be empowered to utilize the same types of attacks against its enemies?
The same types of attacks? You mean like they bomb a hospital, we bomb a hospital? Yeah, totally. Wait, no. No, that’s bad. Let’s go back to Craig and Jack, who blew up the Golden Gate Bridge with a Drano-Glue bomb. We find out that they originally come from Newark, NJ… Do we take out the airport there in retaliation? Wait, you just meant foreign terrorists… Okay, Craig and Jack originally come from London… Do we take out The Royal London Hospital in retaliation? Wait, you just mean the bad foreigners… Kind of a slippery slope, huh?
Absolutely. The notion of privacy in a public forum such as the internet probably stems from the fact that people believe that because they are able to access the internet from their living room, no one should be able to look in and see what they are doing. They want to “draw the curtains” and conduct their internet business in private. The problem is that the internet is NOT private and everything that you do online is trackable and frankly, it’s absurd to think that you aren’t being watched. For the same reason that my mailbox is filled with circulars, coupons and catalogues from places I’ve never been, we are being tracked everywhere. No one seems to care about tracking when it comes to their grocery shopping; what do you think tells the machine to spit out that coupon for $3 off Metamucil? Safeway knows you need more fiber in your diet. Where is the outrage? If we are already being tracked, watched, and gently reminded to send flowers to our moms on Mother’s Day, why not keep track of illegal activities while they’re at it? Seems like a better use of resources to me.
What, if any, evidence should be required for the U.S. government to "listen in" on phone calls, text messages, email messages, and social media interactions of suspected terrorists?
None. Let them listen. They probably already are. (Psst… NSA, check out my resumes.) Again, people get all up in arms over privacy. “I’m on my phone… no one should be listening!” The only thing that is truly private are your own thoughts. Once those leave your head and spill out of your mouth or onto a computer screen, they are out there in the world, clanging around, ready to stir things up. Imagine the backlash if the government didn’t do these things. Let’s say suspected terrorist Craig Johnson just spent the day picking up fertilizer, Drano and Dawn dish soap (Note: I have no idea what’s in explosive devices and I’m afraid to Google, because, well… you know) and texting his buddy Jack. Jack is also collecting pipes, pressure cookers and Elmer’s Glue (?). The government has been given quite a few tips on Craig and Jack. What should they do? You can believe that if Craig and Jack go on to build a Drano-Glue bomb that wipes out the Golden Gate Bridge, people are going to be pretty hot that Uncle Sam wasn’t listening into their phone conversations that day.
Terrorists have been known to utilize encrypted on-line communications to orchestrate horrendous acts of terror. In an effort to strike back, the U.S. government has all but shut down services that offer strong encryption for email. Should anyone be allowed to encrypt their communications? Why or why not?
Allowed is such a pesky word. If you find that someone has encrypted something that even the best minds can’t break, hire that person! You totally want them on your side. Unless they’re a terrorist… then totally don’t hire them. But how can you tell? Disallowing encryption just creates a new stronger breed of terrorism. If you make it so that only the most dangerously intelligent people can be secretive, you’re certainly crippling yourself. You can shut down all of the services you want and new ones will pop up. Harder, better, faster, stronger…
Terrorists are utilizing cyber-attacks to strike at critical resources such as hospitals, electric utilities, water facilities, banks, nuclear power plants, and transportation control systems. How should the U.S. government defend against such attacks? Should it be empowered to utilize the same types of attacks against its enemies?
The same types of attacks? You mean like they bomb a hospital, we bomb a hospital? Yeah, totally. Wait, no. No, that’s bad. Let’s go back to Craig and Jack, who blew up the Golden Gate Bridge with a Drano-Glue bomb. We find out that they originally come from Newark, NJ… Do we take out the airport there in retaliation? Wait, you just meant foreign terrorists… Okay, Craig and Jack originally come from London… Do we take out The Royal London Hospital in retaliation? Wait, you just mean the bad foreigners… Kind of a slippery slope, huh?