So last week the lovingly titled ‘Protecting Children From Internet Pornographers Act of 2011’ was passed through US legislation. This law requires Internet Service Providers to retain customer names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card numbers, bank account numbers, and dynamic IP addresses for 18 months. This made me think about the ‘Sniffer Worm’ theory that Lessig discusses in his chapter “Four Puzzles From Cyberspace.”
Lessig explores how the online world, or ‘cyberspace,’ is evolving much faster than our laws, and muses the numerous dilemmas and gray areas that exist due to the Internet now, and probably in the future.
Lessig alludes to the idea that further regulation of Internet usage would be a positive thing, and that the “innocent have nothing to fear.” I am not entirely sure how comfortable I am with this Big Brother approach, even if it doesn’t “interfere with ordinary life.”
Giving any Government the power to ultimately monitor and collect data about us in this exceedingly efficient manner is a dangerous move, even if they only intend to use the information for good. To support this argument I’m going to compare the idea of the worm to the recent British phone hacking scandal. Similar to the phone hacking scandal, the victim (yes, I have purposely used the word ‘victim’) doesn’t know that they are being listened to or having their records searched, creating an invasion of privacy. Can we really try and use the argument that this probe is fine and appropriate just because there is no burden on the individual searched?
I agree that there should be some sort of regulation on the internet, but I don’t have an answer to where this line should be drawn. I pose these ponderings to my fellow bloggers;
Do you agree with the ‘sniffer worm’ theory? That having the Government secretly probing into people’s computers is OK — with or without warrants. If we are innocent and are oblivious to the probe, thus avoiding harm and embarrassment — should we care? And does anyone have an answer to Internet regulation, or is there even an answer that will keep up with the pace of technological change?
Would love to hear your thoughts.
Em
I absolutely agree with you there. I have similar mixed feelings in which I think the internet does require regulation but am highly suspicious of giving anyone, in a particular a government, the right to so much of my personal information.
ReplyDeleteLast year in PHIL106, we took a really interesting approach in discussing that concept of privacy in which there's this idea that the 'innocent have nothing to fear'. We had a look at how relationships work and how we reveal different things to different people depending on our level of friendship with them. It wasn't about concealing things we should be ashamed of, but about showing how important specific people were to us by giving them the privelage of knowing more about us.
The issue with letting the government have access to personal information does not have to do with trying to hide our wrong doing, but more to do with being indignant that they are trying to make a privelage into a right- that is, information we want to have the power to choose who has access to is simply taken from us with no choice at all.
The second problem is that information about us does not have to be 'bad' to be used against us. It could simply be embarrassing or necessarily private (such as a pin number). While we may (or may not) be confident that our current government does not have a nefarious plan in keeping our information, we cannot be sure that this ability will not be abused in the fuure.
Again, I'm just like you in that I don't really have an answer for where I think the line should be drawn-just that there should be a line.