Johnson 1

Justin Johnson
CST 300
October 08 2021

Privacy vs. Security in the Modern World

Technology has changed and improved drastically over the last 75 years. A transistor,

arguably the most important invention to this day, is a fundamental building block of computer

circuitry that allows or prevents current from flowing through. Without the invention of a

transistor, old outdated technology such as vacuum tubes would still be the primary source of

computing electricity and the way we experience technology today would be completely

different. According to Wired.com, the transistor has been titled “the most important invention of

the 20th century” (wired, 2009) and its invention led the way for commercially sold laptops,

desktops, mobile phones, smart TVs, gaming consoles, MP3s and every other computing product

you can think of. Due to the explosion of the technology market, new technologies and products

became commercially available to the public, which in turn led to a lot of individuals trusting

and relying on technology throughout daily life. A lot of personal information such as location,

search history, financial information, biometrics, residential address, work and school address,

and who individuals communicate with, go into daily usage of technology and for a long time the

general public believed they were able to maintain privacy while storing their information in

technology.

Forty-five days after the terrorist attack on September 11, 2011 the Bush administration

signed a bill into effect called the USA Patriot Act which “expanded the application of tools

already being used against drug dealers and organized crime.” (history.com, 2018) This new bill

stretched the government's ability to surveille the citizens of the United States of America, which

previously existed in forms such as wiretaps and spyware and the idea behind this was to be able
 Johnson 2

to deter possible terrorist threats and attacks before they happened. In 2007, the USA Patriot Act

added Section 215 which “authorizes the collection of data for investigations of international

terrorism, counterespionage, or foreign intelligence investigation." (Jolt Digest, 2019) Within

this section existed a secret program named PRISM which would “capture the private data of

citizens who are not suspected of any connection to terrorism or any wrongdoing.”

(Theverge.com) PRISM would allow the U.S government to ask companies such as Google,

Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft for their user data from services like Gmail, Facebook, Outlook,

and SMS messaging without reasonable suspicion while also creating spyware to implement into

a company's products and servers. To this day we still do not know how much information was

gathered and processed as 6 years worth of bytes of user data was turned over by companies to

the NSA.

In 2013, an infrastructure analyst contracted by the NSA named Edward Snowden leaked

classified documents, some of which included PRISM, proving that the U.S government has

been spying on its own people. “leaks revealed that the NSA had created spyware targeted at the

iPhone, which would have given intelligence services access to SMS messages, on-board data,

live microphone feeds, and positioning information.” (appleinsider.com, 2015) With all this

leaked information now accessible to the public, pressures started mounting as citizens believed

they should have the right to privacy and protection, privacy advocates like the ACLU sued the

government, and foreign politicians threatened to cut partnership ties with the U.S all over the

this program which they believe allowed “..unchecked government power to rifle through

individuals'...internet usage, travel patterns, or any other activity that leaves a record.” (aclu.org,

2016)
 Johnson 3

Throughout the years there came two main arguments for this bill, one side argues that

the Patriot Act has actually helped stop terrorism through proper surveillance and this

information should be readily available to the U.S government in order to keep the American

public safe. The individuals within this group also believe that we currently live “In a world

where so many threats exist, it is necessary for the NSA to do the work it does in order to defend

the security of the American public.” (sites.psu.edu, 2014). The other side to this argument

believes that the USA Patriot Act has not had a large effect and is actually a violation of several

amendments including privacy against unreasonable searches and seizures. From these two

schools of thought come more complex questions: do our freedoms need to be untouched and our

information out of reach from government eyes? Or do we need to be surveilled, only given the

illusion of privacy whilst handing our information to the government without question?

Care ethics advocates “What is moral is that which promotes healthy relationships and

the well-being of individuals and their interdependence” (Penn State) and was developed by

psychologist Carol Gilligan in the mid-1800s. Through the lens of privacy, care ethics is a good

framework to discuss the privacy advocate’s point of view. Privacy advocates believe that if the

government has unlimited access to everyone's information and data stored within technology, it

is a violation of human rights and creates a slippery slope. Once the government has access to

unrestricted data, they can use it for whatever purpose they see fit without say or control of the

people who it belongs to. If companies create backdoors and allow the government to have full

control over all information stored within, it can lead to bad actors gaining access who then use

or sell sensitive information to interested individuals or organizations with the intent of harming

or creating disturbances of the people they have information on. Privacy advocates say that

unrestricted data access has a high chance of being misused and abused by someone that has
 Johnson 4

entry to these back doors. The repercussions of selling or leaking personal information to harm

someone include blackmail, medical records can be leaked which could affect insurance rates for

people with medical issues, irreparable credit, identity theft, insurance fraud, with many more

implications to follow.

In 2016, the FBI requested Apple create a backdoor and a new operating system so they

could have the ability to access an iPhone that was in possession of a terrorist at the time. Apple

rejected the FBI and said, “Should the government be allowed to order us to create other

capabilities for surveillance purposes, such as recording conversations or location tracking? This

would set a very dangerous precedent.” (Apple.com, 2016). After Apple weighed in on that

situation, many individuals and companies were happy with the decision to object to the FBI’s

request.

Many were upset about Apple's choice to not create the software but Apple's mindset is

for the protection of the people as said by them ”Not only is it unlawful, but it puts the vast

majority of good and law abiding citizens, who rely on iPhone to protect their most personal and

important data, at risk.” (Apple.com, 2016). Privacy advocates rejoiced through Apple’s decision

to not give into the FBI’s request as it showed that Apple shares values that align with theirs.

From the definition given above of care ethics it seems that Apple has taken a stance believing

that people deserve their independence, away from someone watching over their shoulder, and

knowing that Apple will defend the well being of their customers by ensuring and advocating

strict privacy values for users while also creating more trust and morale within their company

values.

If the privacy advocate groups win this debate completely then complete privacy from the

government will be had. This can be good as no one has access to whatever they search, who
 Johnson 5

they talk to, where they go, and can live their lives with no worries of who may be watching.

This may have a bit of a drawback though, as if they have complete privacy then criminals can

act without fear of being surveilled and may be able to continue their illegal actions for an

indefinite amount of time. The best course of action in the eyes of the privacy advocacy group is

that the government should be able to surveille people within a limited scope; watch and keep

tabs on only select individuals the government believes are a threat to national security in order

to keep them from wreaking havoc on peoples’ lives through technology. The idea of watching

over every single citizen as if they are a threat is not welcome or appreciated, as rightful law

abiding citizens should be entitled to their own privacy.

On the other hand, the uilitarianism's ethical framework is “What is morally right is what

generates the best outcome for the largest number of people.” (Penn State) from the

government's and groups of people that believe security is more important than privacy this

ethical framework is a good place to look at the rationale behind the thinking. With complete

access to every citizen of the United States of America the government would be able to monitor

and keep an eye out for all suspicious activity within its borders. With the ability to watch for the

signs of a national threat the government would be able to stop the attack before it happened and

potentially save hundreds of lives.

While arguments from the NSA and other government sectors for the use of backdoors

into products have pitted technology companies against themselves as the government entities

see backdoors as important and necessary. An article from Ars Technica in 2019, the then US

Attorney General William Barr said “The cost of encryption is measured in "victims" who might

have been saved from crime if law enforcement had been able to lawfully intercept

communications earlier” (Arstechnica.com, 2019).

The threats that could be potentially thwarted from having the access to these companies data is

seen as necessary evil to save lives, prevent harm to business, the public at large and protect the

nation from another attack like the one that happened in September of 2001.

The government thinking through the utilitarianism ethical framework would make sense

as they are trying to do what is best for the greater good by saving lives, protecting the nation as

well as the people that reside within it, and protecting foreign partnerships with different

countries. It can be seen that the utilitarian way of thinking is moral, can potentially be used for

the greater good, and minimizes risk for all involved. If the security advocates lose the right to be

able to surveille covertly and resort to requiring permission from companies and other branches

of the government, then their capability to stop threats before they are acted out will be

hampered and another huge national attack may be imminent. If this group can come to an

agreement that is beneficial for both them and the companies that they are seeking assistance

from, it could have a great impact on national security and public safety.

I believe there is a way to have privacy and security. one will have a greater precedent

over the other but there has to be some split of each. My opinion is that privacy needs to be the

greater half of the two since most of the individuals living within the country are not terrorists

and do not plan on harming the public. If the government is allowed to monitor and watch the

public's every word, movement, web searches, or anything that is done across the internet it can

lead to a scary slippery slope. For example, if the government does not like what people are

saying or writing about it and starts to see its citizens as threats that should be censored, it could

potentially lead to the nation becoming a country that is censored and controlled like China or

North Korea. While it seems like it is a stretch from our current reality, real-life examples

already exist within other countries who censor and silence individuals who speak against them
 Johnson 7

or raise criticisms. Once we give the government unlimited power to see into every part of lives

where does it stop? Where do they go from there?

An argument that is often brought up is that of “I have nothing to hide, so I'm okay with

them having my information,” but if you walked into your house and saw someone going

through your drawers would you be okay with someone snooping around even though you have

nothing to hide? I believe most people would answer that question as a hard no. Everyone

deserves their privacy and doesn’t want their personal belongings being snooped through by

someone they have never met. We all have conversations that we like to be kept secret, we have

sensitive medical records, financial information, and personal thoughts that we wouldn't like

anyone to know.

A way that I think we could handle this situation is for the government to realize that

citizens within the country are not terrorists or a threat to public and national safety. That people

deserve their independence, freedom and privacy. Knowing that for a world to work you have to

put trust into people and not feel that you have to keep a watchful eye over them as if they are

children and can't make responsible decisions. A compromise here is watching groups they

believe are a threat and if the members of the groups have direct communication with someone

that is a citizen, then surveille them and leave them as an isolated incident and not an example

that all people are a threat.

References

American Civil Liberties Union. (2016). Surveillance Under the USA/PATRIOT Act.

https://www.aclu.org/other/surveillance-under-usapatriot-act

Apple. (2016). Customer Letter - FAQ.

https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/answers/

Cox, K. (2019, July 23). Tech firms “can and must” put backdoors in encryption, AG

Barr says. Ars Technica.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/tech-firms-can-and-must-put-

backdoors-in-encryption-ag-barr-says/

Ganapati, P. (2009, December 23). Dec. 23, 1947: Transistor Opens Door to Digital

Future. Wired.

https://www.wired.com/2009/12/1223shockley-bardeen-brattain-transistor/

History.com Editors. (2018, August 21). Patriot Act. HISTORY.

https://www.history.com/topics/21st-century/patriot-act

Li, K. (2019, October 28). Section 215 of the Patriot Act Expected to Sunset in

December. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology.

https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/section-215-of-the-patriot-act-expected-to-

sunset-in-december

Morey, C. (2014, April 26). Government Surveillance: Pros. Sites.Psu.Edu.

https://sites.psu.edu/moreyrclblog/2014/04/26/government-surveillance-pros/

Sottek, T. C. (2013, July 17). Everything you need to know about PRISM. The Verge.
 Johnson 9

https://www.theverge.com/2013/7/17/4517480/nsa-spying-prism-surveillance-

cheat-sheet

Staff, A. (2015, January 21). NSA leaker Edward Snowden refuses to use Apple's iPhone

over spying concerns - report. AppleInsider.

https://appleinsider.com/articles/15/01/21/nsa-leaker-edward-snowden-refuses-to-

use-apples-iphone-over-spying-concerns---report

What are ethical frameworks? (Department of Agricultural Economics, Sociology, and

Education). (2019). PSU Site.

https://aese.psu.edu/teachag/curriculum/modules/bioethics-1/what-are-ethical-

frameworks