Richard Ciampa, Brandan Lockwood, Daniel Wilson & JD Young

CST 373 Kevin Cahill

10/06/2116

Group Post-9/11 Privacy Paper

The right to privacy is an intrinsic human right, for many irrevocable, despite acts against
the common good of a population or individuals. These rights of privacy include the right to
move in and around communities in which someone works and lives without being tracked by
cameras or being followed by government agencies. The right to have personal space, whether
owned or rented, from view of others including the government as so long as someone is not
infringing on others rights or the common good of a population. In the late 1700s, The
Constitution of the United States established fundamental rights to privacy. These are most
outwardly expressed in the fourth and fifth amendments and were written from the perspective of
controlling an overbearing government.
Privacy to many is an intangible property or attribute of life. Until privacy is breached or
taken away entirely, there exists no way to quantify it. Modern digital communications
technology has transformed the attributes of privacy from an intangible concept and way of life
into a commodity. Many people are unaware that their privacy has been commoditized until
tangible proof appears. While the people are still concerned with governments cataloging and
tracking of individuals, as the status quo it is corporations that now hold a nucleus of information
that include some of our most intimate thoughts and behavioral patterns.
As governments seek to assess the possible threats from high-tech digital communication
devices and software, especially where cryptography is utilized, privacy is perceived as a
revocable privilege rather than an irrevocable right. When extreme pressure is applied, such as
after a terrorist attack, the citizens of a country are more easily persuaded to give up such
valuable rights as these. Techniques such as requiring the adoption of mandatory ID cards, the

use of biometrics, and even data mining become acceptable means to prevent such events from
happening in the future.
The United States government, long before the terrorist attack on the World Trade
Towers, grappled with threats to national security such as allowing high-strength cryptography
software as a commodity, and the problem of tracking individuals that were perceived as threats.
After the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Towers in New York and the Pentagon, the United
States Congress and then current President, George W. Bush, enacted a law entitled Uniting and
Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism Act of 2001 also known as the Patriot Act. This law allows and solidifies the United
States government to view privacy as a revocable privilege, it does so by eliminating or lowering
long standing requirements of evidence to initiate surveillance, including digital eavesdropping.
With the Patriot Act the government in essence set the foundation for what could later be used as
building blocks for the erosion of many fundamental liberties.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither
liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin (Inscribed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty).
In the wake of the 9\11 one the most dramatic events in Americas history. The Patriot
Act was signed by President Bush to fight terrorism. This came at the expense of civil liberties
being lost. As Whitehead Aden points out the Patriot Act gives the CIA the power to once again,
spy on Americans which was transferred to Justice Department due to CIAs abuse of the power
in the Cold War (Whitehead & Aden). This is just one of the few powers that were given by the
Patriot Act that basically destroy the 4th Amendment in its entirety.

The Patriot Act redefines the term terrorists as any person or people that try to to
intimidate or coerce a civilian population (Whitehead & Aden). The redefinition of the term
terrorists gives a broad definition and can be applied to groups such as PETA. Once a person
or group is marked as a terrorist all privacy is lost, and governmental officials are essentially able
to do what they want without much push back from other branches. One of the unprecedented
powers given to CIA and the FBI is the power to monitor Internet sites visited by the subject of
a search, in the absence of a showing of probable cause or even reasonable suspicion
(Whitehead & Aden). There are some people who believe the Patriot Act is necessary in order
for electronic surveillance laws to be up to date with todays technology. One of these people is
Kerr, who believes the Patriot Act made minor amendments to electronic surveillance laws
(Kerr). Though he does agree the vagueness of some of the amendments allows for more fear, he
sees it necessary in order for topics such as the Wiretap Act to be interpreted for the Internet. He
sees these amendments as just needing revision to know in what scope they apply. However as
shown above, the Patriot Act has given the unprecedented power to the government to trample
on citizen's rights to privacy given in the Constitution.
In the aftermath of such an impactful event as a terrorist attack, the discussion of how to
better account for a nations citizens occurs. One such mechanism that on the surface, easily
facilitates the positive identification of a person is an ID card. But the notion of an ID card can
provoke diverse reactions. In some countries, identity cards are seen as uncontroversial, even
boring documents. While in others, the cards can arouse heated controversy (Jerzak, 2015a).
The idea of an identification card can be traced back to 1803, when following the French
revolution, Napoleon introduced a system of internal identification documents for workers. But

contemporary ID cards would not become widely accepted until 1938 in the lead up to World
War 2. At that time the United Kingdom (UK), passed the National Registry Act, which
mandated that all residents possess identity cards. The same year the German government also
introduced ID cards, although these cards also contained information regarding residents
religion for discriminatory purposes. These introductions were quickly adopted by France,
Greece, and Poland in 1940, and by the 1960s ID cards were present in Hong Kong, Taiwan,
Singapore, and South Korea (Jerzak, 2015b).
Following the September 11th attacks the intense debate over ID cards was reignited. In
2006, the UK passed the (since repealed) Identity Cards Act, and Canadian government
considered similar legislation (Jerzak, 2015c). Here in the United States however, the most
ferocious debate over the use of ID cards as a single identifier still continues where the line is
distinctly drawn between communitarians and libertarians. ID cards are viewed by Americans as
major tools of oppressive governments; indeed these cards are so alien to Americans that ID
cards are not considered fit for discussion. As a rule, think tanks do not study them, nor are they
a subject of public policy debates. A few advocates of ID cards have faced such strong criticism
that they stopped writing about their merits (Etzioni,1999a).
There must however be some benefit to such a widely adopted technology. While
libertarians point out that ID cards constitute a form of suspicionless search, a lack of such an
identifier allows unrestrained tracking of individuals who may potentially pose a threat to
society. In 1990 six states identified more than 6,200 individuals convicted of serious criminal
offenses, child abuse, violent crimes, and felony drug charges who were seeking jobs as child

care providers (Etzioni,1999b). While it is true that ID cards would not prevent the determined
individual from circumventing the system, surely it would deter even a percentage.
The bottom line is that while the overwhelming majority of Americans see ID cards as an
incomprehensible invasion of privacy. They potentially give up much more information in the
form of what Etzioni calls semi-voluntary identifiers. These are widely accepted specific forms
of individual identification, such as drivers licenses, student and employer IDs, social security
cards, credit cards, and passports. The reason he coins them semi-voluntary is that as a matter of
fact, most people have no choice but to use them. Anybody who has tried to fly in the United
States since the beginning of 1997 and tried to do so without a drivers license or some other
form of reliable identification has quickly discovered that he or she really has no say in the
matter (Etzioni,1199c). A further argument from communitarians, as a counter to the belief that
ID cards are a tool of oppressive governments states that if a totalitarian regime were to arise.
Even with no universal identification in place, the new secret police would have only to
consolidate existing private databases and add existing public ones (those maintained by the IRS,
INS, FBI, SSA, among others) to have a very elaborate description of most Americans
(Etzioni,1999d).
The public forum will no doubt continue to swing back and forth with regards to the
adoption of ID cards. In the end concern over attacks on sovereign soil will dictate whether we
push this technology on the masses. But quietly in the private sector ID cards continue to be the
benchmark. Beginning in 2015, many federal facilities now require a Real ID for entry where
identification is required. The Real ID Act of 2005 was appended to a bill providing tsunami
relief and military appropriations, and passed with little debate and no hearings. It creates a de

facto national identification card. Electronic privacy information center states while ostensibly
voluntary, it strives to become mandatory and those without the card would face suspicion and
increased scrutiny (EPIC).
As with ID cards, the increase in the use of biometrics in our society is going to be an
interesting debate of privacy ideals. The idea of using biometrics would allow people to be able
to have personalized passwords and security based on their DNA and other personal features that
can not be duplicated. The use of biometrics have been seen in movies where the evil scientist
will have their retina scanned to open the top secret vault. While this technology is available, the
question is the cost and benefits of biometric technology and the security it could be providing
and the cost of this information.
With biometrics every person would be able to provide a unique identification that is
based on their DNA, retinas, or any other form of biometrics that someone would want to
provide. Currently only snippets of DNA are kept on file, but as more and more information is
gathered and what is done with this information can cause issues. The legal status of most types
of biometric data is unclear. No court has addressed whether law enforcement can collect can
collect biometric data without a persons knowledge, and case law says nothing about facial
recognition (Editors, 2014). Potentially having this type of data around could cause major
issues. It would allow people the ability to have unprecedented privacy that is catered to the
unique structure of their DNA, but also this information is available.
Once you have somebody's DNA, you have all sorts of very personal info (Editors,
2014). Once information is stored, if someone really wants it, they can get it. The potential of
having access to someones DNA could bring identity theft to a new level. Having facial scans,

fingerprints, retina scans could provide infinite information on a person, but at the same time,
this specific information could provide untold security for an individual person.
In the advent of the personal computer there has become an escape to a world where
many people lose themselves, this world is called the Internet. It is a place where people ask for
advice or tell their secrets. Most people use search engines like Google, Bing, or Ask even
though these companies all sell the data searches to companies such as Hitwise that use the data
to predict current and future trends to companies. This process of analyzing data is called data
mining. In the book Click: What millions of people are doing and why it matters Tancer shows
just how powerful data mining can be.
Tancer is a data miner and works for company called Hitwise. He explains that the data
he goes through daily is anatomized, but it can still tell a lot about a persons personal
preferences. In his daily life Tancer is able to use the information provided by clickstreams data
to tell a users political leaning and shopping habits (Tancer pg.41). As Tancer explains
throughout the book the data given to him by Hitwise can be used to predict the next American
Idol, before a vote is even in. What is scarier is that as Tancer develops these predictions, he
creates personas, which means starting from peoples actual profiles.
In the chapter named the Prom Dress Tancer explains how he makes these personas
from a question like when is prom dress season? Then he does quick search into database to find
out which demographic has the highest concentration of prom dresses search(Tancer pg.55). He
continues to research, by visiting the students Myspace pages with which will create this
persona (Tancer pg.55). This is equivalent of profiling someone when the FBI is during

investigation, but Tanner sees it as business and is passionate about it. The data may be
anatomized, but they can still give insight into people's lives.
A company called Doubleclick in 2000 promoted itself by saying it would be able to
target potential customers by name with highly personalized adsand all without their
permission (None of your business). This is the best example of how data can be used to go
against user privacy.
Today companies are both selling individual profiles and developing marketing lists that
are sorted according to dimensions such as political affiliations, medical conditions, body
weight, ethnic groups, or religious beliefs (Schwartz). This is direct abuse of privacy and the
current laws are not able to keep up with technology. As Schwartz explains there are few legal
restrictions existing on the collection and sale of personal data by Web sites or cyber-data
(Schwartz). Even if the data is anatomized it can still breach user privacy. A paper details that
query logs provide no guarantee of absolute anonymity, as the combination of modified data
may disclose enough information to to re identify some users (Pmies-Estrems). The article
later explains a situation that happened to AOL where query logs were de-identified, but users
identity and other personal information was still able to be leaked. These are just few examples
of why data mining infringes on our fourth amendment right to privacy.
The 4th amendment guarantees United States citizens the right to privacy. It explicitly
states
[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against
unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue,

but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (By using an NSL)

Even though we have this fundamental right to privacy the current laws that allow us to
keep our privacy are not up to date. An article by Wilson explains that agency officials and
lawmakers agree that current privacy laws are not strict enough to protect against powerful
analytical tools that scan personal information (Dizard). Furthermore the current Privacy Act
does not allow government officials to disclose information from a system of records without
written consent (Privacy Act of 1974). Yet it seems the government is doing this anyways and
not abiding with rules which are present in this Act. As Wilson explains government agencies are
moving data around to other agencies and implementing analytics on data such as credit reports,
credit card transactions, student loan application data, bank account numbers and taxpayer
identification numbers (Dizard). As represented above we have the fundamental right to
privacy, which in todays age of the Internet is being hampered on with the use of analytics and
data mining.
Prior to the terrorist attacks on September 11th 2001, the Unites States government was
concerned about the widespread use of cryptography products that enables secure
communication over the Internet between two or more parties. Communication could happen in
the form of email, files, instant messaging and other forms. As of September 1997, Trusted
Information Systems, a Maryland based company identified over 1600 encryption products
developed by 941 companies in 68 countries (Etzioni, 1999) More than half of the cryptographic
products were developed within the United States. The Unites States main concern was that the

10

products were becoming more and more easy to use and seamlessly integrated into common
desktop software packages.
In 1998, The United States Congress, after much research from Central Intelligence
Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA), could not reach a decision about how to
implement laws to control the development, distribution and usage of cryptography products.
The debate in U.S. Congress triggered a $5 billion Washington scuttlebutt in that the National
Security Agency (NSA) attempted to build a system on Supercomputers and developed advanced
software for the sole purpose of deciphering some of the strongest encryption known at the time
and failed to do so (Etzioni, 1999a). The National Security Agency determined that the only way
to guaranty that encrypted digital communications could be deciphered was through obtaining
the private keys from encryption software.
The failure of the National Security Agency caused the U.S. Congress to turn to the
Whitehouse for help dealing with developers and companies creating software. The White
House, under the leadership of then Vice President Al Gore and Ira Magaziner attempted to
negotiate a key disclosure strategy from developers of encryption software --to no avail (Ezioni,
1999a). The question raised from the attempt was should laws be created specifically for this
issue. Should public authorities have access to encrypted messages? Would national security and
public safety be seriously hampered? Developers and companies that funded development of
encryption software started raising fourth and fifth amendment issues around the government's
requests. It was made clear to the United States Congress and the White House by the National
Security Agency that further development with what were then theoretical algorithms in
cryptology would lead to impenetrable digital communications.

11

As hard as it is to come to a shared view of what constitutes privacy as a nation. The

problem of a definition of privacy becomes far greater when we try to expand it to a global scale.
Differences in what is socially acceptable, and the subtle inner workings that make up a society
and define their culture make it impossible to form any broad sweeping international standard.
Activities that are accepted as ordinary and commonplace to Americans are taken as offensive by
individuals from other nations. Even Western European countries whom we most strongly
identify with are taken back by the nature of trivial conversation topics for the average
American. It is normal in America, an Internet site informs German tourists, for your host at
dinner to ask not just how much you earn, but even what your net worth is (Whitman,2004a).
But the complication of privacy definitions goes far beyond colloquial differences. European law
is avidly protective of many kinds of privacy in many realms of life, whether the issue is
consumer data, credit reporting, workplace privacy, discovery in civil litigation, the
dissemination of nude images on the internet, or shielding criminal offenders from public
exposure (Whitman,2004b).
It is not only for Europeans, to look aghast at the way in which we handle domestic
affairs. In France and Germany, inspectors may arrive at your door to investigate whether you
have an unlicensed television. According to a 2003 report, telephones are tapped at ten to thirty
times the rate they are tapped in the United Statesand in the Netherlands and Italy, at 130 to 150
times the rate (Whitman,2004c).
Clearly if the definitions of privacy are so divided between cultures that so closely
identify with one another, the the problem can only become more substantial when we widen the
scope to include cultures with whom we see little in common. Furthermore, when countries

12

begin to enact laws locally with regards to technology that is accessed globally, what impact will
it have on the worlds technology resources as a whole. We are currently watching an example of
this unfold as the European Union takes Google to court in a second antitrust investigation,
furthering their quest to control what content is returned via the companys search algorithm. In a
move that has received little press, French regulators have pushed Google to restrict search
results all over the world to comply with their right to be forgotten privacy laws. At their
request, Google is in the process of implementing geo-blocking technology to control what
European users can see. Previously, users could circumvent the access to banned search results
by simply navigating to the companys .com domain instead of more local .fr, or .de ones
(Brown,Keller,2016a).
While creating contained rulesets for the Internet may solve immediate problems for local
authorities, even those of longstanding democratic nations. Actions like these lend legitimacy to
countries like China, Turkey, and Iran that control and monitor actions and information that their
citizens view online (Brown,Keller,2016b). While applying privacy to the Internet is a real issue,
applying those national laws to it should be handled with more nuance and concern. Standards of
privacy should not only be driven by privacy regulators, but as a joint effort involving State
departments, trade and justice ministries and service providers, and free-expression advocates
(Brown,Keller,2016c).
With the attacks on the United States on September 11th, 2001, a new world was created.
A world of fear. Not since the Red Scare in the 1950s, have the mass majority of citizens been
this paralyzed to say or do anything that might cause an uproar. The governments of the United
States and many European countries, seized an opportunity to place a long lasting fear into their

13

citizens. This fear to step out of line and be an individual has kept the masses in check. The fear
of being singled out and the chaos in ones life that this would cause has kept people from
educating themselves and blindly believing the information presented to them. This is
self-censorship.
Glenn Greenwald, best known for his public speeches and articles regarding the United
States and British global surveillance programs, states that [a] 2015 study examined Google
search data and demonstrated that, post-Snowden, users were less likely to search terms that
they believed might get them in trouble with the U.S. government and that these results suggest
that there is a chilling effect on search behavior from government surveillance on the internet.
(Greenwald, 2016).
The masses are afraid to educate themselves on what is going on because of the invasion
of privacy. Even journalists are afraid to report the news. A study from PEN America writers
found that 1 in 6 writers had curbed their content out of fear of surveillance (Greenwald, 2016).
If writers are frightened to report on issues of privacy, and civil liberty abuses, and people are
too scared to search for answers, the government will control the message that goes out. They
can portray any individual or group in any light they see fit, and control the information that is
available to the public, knowing that the majority will accept it at face value. This is created from
the fear that the government has carefully installed by chipping away at peoples rights.
Perhaps the Internet has helped bolster this perception. In the 18th century, English
philosopher and social theorist Jeremy Bentham designed an institutional building known as the
Panopticon. Its purpose was to allow a single watchman in a central tower to observe all of the
inmates cells at once. The watch tower was constructed so that the inmates were never sure if

14

they were being observed or not. Although it would be impossible for the watchman to observe
all cells at the same time, the construction succeeded in forcing the inmates to act as though they
were being watched at any given moment. Bentham himself described the Panopticon as a new
mode of obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example (Roth, 33).
The Internet is in essence, under the threat of constant monitoring, and therefore transformed into
a Panopticon. Where citizens afraid of being monitored, modify their behavior for fear of
repercussion.
The quest for control of the masses began before the attacks on September 11th, and most
likely will continue on into the future as a tug of war between current government, and civil
rights groups. In a future where devices connect our every waking minute, it seems that misuse
of technology will only expedite the quelling of dissidence if allowed.

15

References
Brown,B,Keller,D. (April 25 2016a). Europes web privacy rules:bad for google, bad for
everyone. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/opinion/europes-web-privacy-rules-bad-for-goo
gle-bad-for-everyone.html?_r=0
This New York Times article summarizes current lawsuits against Google by the
European Union, and in particular France and Germany. It discusses tactics that
Google has tried to appease these governments requests in users ability to remove
data from their search engine results, and the implications this has on a globally
linked database of information.
This article was very useful in giving a comparison of the differences in the way
that countries other than the United States handle web related privacy.
Brown,B,Keller,D. (April 25 2016b). Europes web privacy rules:bad for google, bad for
everyone. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/opinion/europes-web-privacy-rules-bad-for-goo
gle-bad-for-everyone.html?_r=0
This New York Times article summarizes current lawsuits against Google by the
European Union, and in particular France and Germany. It discusses tactics that
Google has tried to appease these governments requests in users ability to remove
data from their search engine results, and the implications this has on a globally
linked database of information.

16

This article was very useful in giving a comparison of the differences in the way
that countries other than the United States handle web related privacy.
Brown,B,Keller,D. (April 25 2016c). Europes web privacy rules:bad for google, bad for
everyone. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/25/opinion/europes-web-privacy-rules-bad-for-goo
gle-bad-for-everyone.html?_r=0
This New York Times article summarizes current lawsuits against Google by the
European Union, and in particular France and Germany. It discusses tactics that
Google has tried to appease these governments requests in users ability to remove
data from their search engine results, and the implications this has on a globally
linked database of information.
This article was very useful in giving a comparison of the differences in the way
that countries other than the United States handle web related privacy.
By using an NSL, an agency has no responsibility to first obtain a warrant or court order
before conducting its search of records. .(n.d.). Fourth Amendment. Retrieved
October 09, 2016, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment.
This article is an expanded definition of the the Fourth Amendment. It discusses
the spirit and the letter of the law. It provides some examples of implementation and
the Justice systems use. Sections of the amendment relative to our research are,
Electronic Surveillance, Search and Seizure, Warrant Requirements and The
PATRIOT Act.

17

Dizard, W. , & Dizard, . (2004). Data use vs. privacy: Growth of mining techniques raises
concerns on protections. Government Computer News, 23(13), 1.
Editors. (Jan 1, 2014). Biometric security poses huge privacy risks. Retrieved from
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/biometric-security-poses-huge-privacy-ris
ks/
Scientific America article discusses the current state of biometric
identification systems. The coverage of current systems in place in New York,
Manhattan area and their usage. The article covers a broad array of United States
agencies that are interested in retina based identification systems and the future of the
technology. Carnegie Mellon University is developing a in-crowd retina scanner
system that will not only allow the identification of individuals via retina scans but is
also capable of capturing database quality images of retinas in a crowd from distances
of ten meters.
Epic.org. (nd). National id and the real id act. Retrieved from
https://epic.org/privacy/id_cards/
EPIC.org is a website run by the electronic privacy information center in
Washinton DC. It was established in 19194 to focus public attention on emerging
privacy and civil liberties issues and to protect privacy, freedom of expression, and
democratic values in the information age. The information on the page dedicated to
national ID cards was useful and extremely relevant to addressing the consideration
of adopting national ID cards in the United States, and steps already taken by the
government.

18

Etzioni, A. (1999a). Big brother or big benefits? Id cards and biometric identifiers. The limits
of privacy (pp.103). New York, NY: Basic Books.
In The Limits of Privacy, Etzioni presents a history and overview of how different
privacy issues have been handled. Etzioni is the leader of an intellectual movement
called communitarianism, and in the book presents his opinions along with counter
arguments on such topics as Megans Law, HIV testing of infants, encryption, ID
cards, biometrics, and medical records.
The sections regarding ID cards was relevant to this paper and how libertarians,
and communitarians approach the idea of privacy related to ID cards differently and
in showing the overall stigma attached to such items.
Etzioni, A. (1999b). Big brother or big benefits? Id cards and biometric identifiers. The limits
of privacy (pp.105). New York, NY: Basic Books.
In The Limits of Privacy, Etzioni presents a history and overview of how different
privacy issues have been handled. Etzioni is the leader of an intellectual movement
called communitarianism, and in the book presents his opinions along with counter
arguments on such topics as Megans Law, HIV testing of infants, encryption, ID
cards, biometrics, and medical records.
The sections regarding ID cards was relevant to this paper and how libertarians,
and communitarians approach the idea of privacy related to ID cards differently and
in showing the overall stigma attached to such items.
Etzioni, A. (1999c). Big brother or big benefits? Id cards and biometric identifiers. The limits
of privacy (pp.112). New York, NY: Basic Books.

19

In The Limits of Privacy, Etzioni presents a history and overview of how different
privacy issues have been handled. Etzioni is the leader of an intellectual movement
called communitarianism, and in the book presents his opinions along with counter
arguments on such topics as Megans Law, HIV testing of infants, encryption, ID
cards, biometrics, and medical records.
The sections regarding ID cards was relevant to this paper and how libertarians,
and communitarians approach the idea of privacy related to ID cards differently and
in showing the overall stigma attached to such items.
Etzioni, A. (1999d). Big brother or big benefits? Id cards and biometric identifiers. The limits
of privacy (pp.130). New York, NY: Basic Books.
In The Limits of Privacy, Etzioni presents a history and overview of how different
privacy issues have been handled. Etzioni is the leader of an intellectual movement
called communitarianism, and in the book presents his opinions along with counter
arguments on such topics as Megans Law, HIV testing of infants, encryption, ID
cards, biometrics, and medical records.
The sections regarding ID cards was relevant to this paper and how libertarians,
and communitarians approach the idea of privacy related to ID cards differently and
in showing the overall stigma attached to such items.
Etzioni, A. (1999a). Deciphering Encrypted Messages: A Prolonged Deadlock and an Unholy
War. The limits of privacy (pp.76). New York, NY: Basic Books.
In The Limits of Privacy, Etzioni presents a history and overview of how different
privacy issues have been handled. Etzioni is the leader of an intellectual movement

20

called communitarianism, and in the book presents his opinions along with counter
arguments on such topics as Megans Law, HIV testing of infants, encryption, ID
cards, biometrics, and medical records.
The sections regarding encryption was relevant to this paper and how libertarians,
and communitarians approach the idea of privacy related to encryption differently and
the challenges associated with maintaining the integrity of data during transmission.
Etzioni, A. (1999a). Deciphering Encrypted Messages: A Prolonged Deadlock and an Unholy
War. The limits of privacy (pp.76-77). New York, NY: Basic Books.
In The Limits of Privacy, Etzioni presents a history and overview of how different
privacy issues have been handled. Etzioni is the leader of an intellectual movement
called communitarianism, and in the book presents his opinions along with counter
arguments on such topics as Megans Law, HIV testing of infants, encryption, ID
cards, biometrics, and medical records.
The sections regarding encryption was relevant to this paper and how libertarians,
and communitarians approach the idea of privacy related to encryption differently and
the challenges associated with maintaining the integrity of data during transmission.
Etzioni, A. (1999a). Deciphering Encrypted Messages: A Prolonged Deadlock and an Unholy
War. The limits of privacy (pp.77). New York, NY: Basic Books.
In The Limits of Privacy, Etzioni presents a history and overview of how different
privacy issues have been handled. Etzioni is the leader of an intellectual movement
called communitarianism, and in the book presents his opinions along with counter

21

arguments on such topics as Megans Law, HIV testing of infants, encryption, ID

cards, biometrics, and medical records.
The sections regarding encryption was relevant to this paper and how libertarians,
and communitarians approach the idea of privacy related to encryption differently and
the challenges associated with maintaining the integrity of data during transmission.
Etzioni, A. (1999a). Deciphering Encrypted Messages: A Prolonged Deadlock and an Unholy
War. The limits of privacy (pp.78). New York, NY: Basic Books.
In The Limits of Privacy, Etzioni presents a history and overview of how different
privacy issues have been handled. Etzioni is the leader of an intellectual movement
called communitarianism, and in the book presents his opinions along with counter
arguments on such topics as Megans Law, HIV testing of infants, encryption, ID
cards, biometrics, and medical records.
The sections regarding encryption was relevant to this paper and how libertarians,
and communitarians approach the idea of privacy related to encryption differently and
the challenges associated with maintaining the integrity of data during transmission.
Greenwald, G. (2016, April 28). New Study Shows Mass Surveillance Breeds Meekness,
Fear and Self-Censorship. Retrieved October 12, 2016, from
https://theintercept.com/2016/04/28/new-study-shows-mass-surveillance-breeds-mee
kness-fear-and-self-censorship/
The article summarizes a recent study by Jon Penney of Oxford University, and
the studied findings with regards to behavioral modification when people are subject
to monitoring. The study revealed that we are starting to see the detrimental effects of

22

governmental policy with regards to online monitoring for terrorist activity. That
being the unwillingness of citizens to pursue information or endeavors that may be
interpreted as terrorist behavior by authorities.
The article by Glenn Greenwald, was helpful in the conclusion section of the
paper when discussing future implications of sacrificed privacy, and the overall
detrimental effects it can impose on a society.
Jerzak, C. (November 11, 2015a). A brief history of national id cards. Retrieved from
https://fxb.harvard.edu/a-brief-history-of-national-id-cards/
The article posted on Harvard Universitys FXB center for health and human
rights, summarized the global attitude towards national ID cards. In particular it stated
the distinct difference between the United States, and other countries around the
world, many of whom have had national ID cards in place for years and see them as a
convenience instead of a threat to privacy.
The article served as a relevant supporting argument to the two sides of libertarian
versus communitarian points of view as put forth by Etzioni in his book, The Limits
of Privacy.
Jerzak, C. (November 11, 2015b). A brief history of national id cards. Retrieved from
https://fxb.harvard.edu/a-brief-history-of-national-id-cards/
The article posted on Harvard Universitys FXB center for health and human
rights, summarized the global attitude towards national ID cards. In particular it stated
the distinct difference between the United States, and other countries around the

23

world, many of whom have had national ID cards in place for years and see them as a
convenience instead of a threat to privacy.
The article served as a relevant supporting argument to the two sides of libertarian
versus communitarian points of view as put forth by Etzioni in his book, The Limits
of Privacy.
Jerzak, C. (November 11, 2015c). A brief history of national id cards. Retrieved from
https://fxb.harvard.edu/a-brief-history-of-national-id-cards/
The article posted on Harvard Universitys FXB center for health and human
rights, summarized the global attitude towards national ID cards. In particular it stated
the distinct difference between the United States, and other countries around the
world, many of whom have had national ID cards in place for years and see them as a
convenience instead of a threat to privacy.
The article served as a relevant supporting argument to the two sides of libertarian
versus communitarian points of view as put forth by Etzioni in his book, The Limits
of Privacy.
Kerr, O. S. (n.d.). Internet Surveillance Law After the USA Patriot Act: The Big Brother
That Isn't. SSRN Electronic Journal SSRN Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.317501
This is a scholarly paper examining the changes from the Patriot Act. The
author Kerr comes from the perspective that the Patriot Act brought a much needed
update to privacy laws dealing with internet and other technologies. He argues that
the Patriot Act can lead to more concrete privacy laws due to the controversies that
are outlined in the Patriot Act.

24

The article served to show a different perspective of the Patriot Act one that
argues that Patriot Act was necessary increase privacy inside todays security age
None of your business.(privacy concerns impact internet stocks)(industry trend or event).
(2000). Business Week, 78.
This article was in a Buiness Week article detailed how companies such as
DoubleClick were announcing they could target customers by name. The article
highlights the scare of Americans which led to possible legislature against online ad
companies.
This article was chosen, because it showed how online data can lead back to a
person by name.
Pmies-Estrems, D. , Castell-Roca, J. , & Viejo, A. (2016). Working at the web search
engine side to generate privacy-preserving user profiles. Expert Systems with
Applications, 64, 523-535.
This is a scholarly research done by Pmies to optimize anonymity data
algorithms to decrease the chance data being back track to the original owner. The
article details the different items tested when an anonymity data algorithm is being
researched.
This article was chosen because it is written by an expert in the field of
anonymity algorithms.
Privacy Act of 1974. (n.d.). Retrieved October 09, 2016, from
https://www.justice.gov/opcl/privacy-act-1974

25

The reference page details the definition of the Privacy Act of 1974 section U.S.C
552a. The section of the act specifies how the United States government is collect,
maintain and disseminate information about individuals.
Roth, M. (2006). Bermuda. Prisons and prison systems: a global encyclopedia (pp.33).
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
The section of Roths book talks about Jeremy Bentham, who as a Utilitarian
strove to improve the criminal justice system in Britain. Towards the end of the 18th
century Bentham designed the Panopticon, an institutional architectural feature which
allowed a central body to observe many surrounding individuals.
This reference was chosen due to the similar nature of internet surveillance and
the all seeing central observation station of the Panopticon.
Schwartz, P. M. (n.d.). Internet Privacy and the State. SSRN Electronic Journal SSRN
Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.22901
This is a scholarly review of current privacy laws and seeing if Americans
know what laws a currently implemented in the United States. The article found that
many Americans believe that they have more privacy online. The article explained
that there is misperception when it comes to amount of privacy that is available from
current laws.
This reference was chosen because of its explanation of how little protection
Americans have from data mining online.
Tancer, Bill. (2008). Click: What millions of people are doing online and why it matters
(Kindle ed.). Hyperion Books.

26

This book is by Tancer who talks about his daily life as a data miner. Tancer
explains the daily challenges he has to face data mining as well as the different
techniques he takes to have an accurate prediction. He explains that data can tell a lot
about society from their fears to what currently trending. He believes the data will be
helpful in improving society.
This reference shows what possible implications can be made from data
mining. It also shows a good outlook on people's data being collected and analyzed.
Whitehead, J. , & Aden, S. (2002). Forfeiting "enduring freedom" for "homeland security:
: A constitutional analysis of the usa patriot act and the justice department's
anti-terrorism initiatives. American University Law Review, 51(6), 1081-1133.
This is a scholarly law review of the Patriot Act arguing that the Patriot Act
has caused an imbalance of power between federal courts, CIA, and FBI. Whitehead
and Aden come from the perspective that because of the Patriot Act that United States
has lost privacy. He points to the controversial laws were implemented under this
system.
This reference was used to show the perspective of how the Patriot Act has
affected the Fourth Amendment rights of the United States citizens.
Whitman, J. (2004a). The two western cultures of privacy:dignity versus liberty
113(1155).Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1647&context=fss_p
apers

27

Whitmans entry in the Yale Law Journal summarizes the drastically different
views and perceptions of privacy between what would be considered very aligned
western cultures. Although many Western European countries are remarkably similar
in a variety of ways, and in many cases strive to emulate one another. Subtle
differences in their cultures make for very different interpretations of social ethics and
values.
Observations documented in Two Western Cultures of Privacy, helped to
reinforce key points in the section regarding the differences in global interpretations
of privacy.
Whitman, J. (2004b). The two western cultures of privacy:dignity versus liberty
113(1156).Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1647&context=fss_p
apers
Whitmans entry in the Yale Law Journal summarizes the drastically different
views and perceptions of privacy between what would be considered very aligned
western cultures. Although many Western European countries are remarkably similar
in a variety of ways, and in many cases strive to emulate one another. Subtle
differences in their cultures make for very different interpretations of social ethics and
values.
Observations documented in Two Western Cultures of Privacy, helped to
reinforce key points in the section regarding the differences in global interpretations
of privacy.

28

Whitman, J. (2004c). The two western cultures of privacy:dignity versus liberty

113(1159).Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1647&context=fss_p
apers
Whitmans entry in the Yale Law Journal summarizes the drastically different
views and perceptions of privacy between what would be considered very aligned
western cultures. Although many Western European countries are remarkably similar
in a variety of ways, and in many cases strive to emulate one another. Subtle
differences in their cultures make for very different interpretations of social ethics and
values.
Observations documented in Two Western Cultures of Privacy, helped to
reinforce key points in the section regarding the differences in global interpretations
of privacy.