Ethics and Technology at Homeland Security

Ethical Considerations for the Use of Technology to Meet Selected Homeland Security Objectives Introduction The Digital Age has transformed the way the world works for better or worse. Technology exists to bring down nations’ infrastructures without ever firing a missile (Ten, Manimaran & Liu, 2010). New technology has been developed that can allow agencies to spy, snoop, monitor, and retrieve conversations had online, through email, on cell phones, or via text messaging. To meet security needs, using this technology has very real and practical advantages.

At the same time, there are privacy rules and regulations that have to be considered as the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution clearly gives people the right to privacy. Nonetheless, Homeland Security requires that the nation consider the evolution of terrorism and view it not just as an external threat but also as an internal threat. In other words, terrorism is not just a variable or factor that comes from outside the borders—it can also come from inside.

Domestic terrorism or homegrown terrorism can result from the radicalization of members of society who are disgruntled, angry and in communication with radical elements abroad. Immigration presents specific risks for precisely that reason. Yet ethical issues and standards exist to protect the people from overreach by government and to ensure Americans do not have to end up fearing their government as much as they fear the threat of terror.

This paper will discuss the ethical considerations that have to be made for the use of technology to meet Homeland Security objectives. Immigration Technology is crucial to monitoring and addressing issues that arise because of immigration (such as through the use of RFID chipping). Technology can be used to monitor the movements of immigrants, to patrol borders (via drone technology). Communication lines can be tapped, and so on.

But should immigrants be required to have an RFID chip implanted in them to allow for their every move to be known by government? Does the use of drain technology present a slippery slope? Does spying on communications encroach on the rights of the person to privacy? These questions have very clear ethical domains that must be addressed. Search and Seizure Applications Search and seizure issues have to be addressed as well.

The Fourth Amendment states that citizens have “the 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” (U.S. Const. amend. IV).

While numerous court cases have shown that law enforcement must give notice before breeching a person’s privacy— Wilson v. Arkansas (514 U.S. 927, 931-932, 1995), Miller v. United States (357 U.S. 301, 1958) and Sabbath v. United States (391 U.S. 585, 1968)—others have shown that law enforcement agents are not required to do so— Hudson v. Michigan 547 U.S. 586, 2008)—for example.

In terms of searching and seizing a person’s electronic devices, the Electronic Privacy Control Act of 1986 has been instrumental in transforming the manner in which law enforcement has the right to search citizens’ electronic devices, and this law was passed well before 9/11. And the power of the government to search using new technology has only intensified since then along with powerful new technology tools that make it easy for peoples’ data to be collected.

Leveraging Technological Advancements Leveraging technological advancements like the ones provided by Google and Amazon is important when it comes to protecting the nation. Evolving technologies relate to national and international policymaking, as has recently been demonstrated by the EU’s new laws pertaining to data collection by tech firms. Agencies that collect and monitor tech data are not bound by borders but rather can extend their influence over multiple countries and nations.

Technology exists to monitor internationally persons who travel and who have connections overseas and abroad, and in the U.S. it is possible that they will be monitored and watched. General Approach for DHS and FEMA to Retain Ethical Considerations in Mind When Using New Technologies The U.S. Department of Justice notes that “law enforcement-private security partnerships have been viewed as critical to preventing terrorism and terror-related acts” (U.S. Department of Justice, 2005, p. vii).

With 85% of America’s infrastructure being overseen and protected by the private security sector, it is incumbent that collaboration and partnership with the private sector be engaged (U.S. Department of Justice, 2005). However, there are ethical issues to address, particularly with respect to the use of new technology.

Even if one chooses to view the ECPA as a fair and balanced compromise between the privacy needs of the public and the information gathering needs of the government, it should be acknowledged that the ECPA also opened the door to looser and looser interpretations of the Fourth Amendment as well as the justification of “safety” and “security” over the privacy rights of the individual person—a significant step in the de-limitation of government and the suppression of the Constitution.

Technologies/Types to Avoid Technologies to avoid are any tools that can be “planted” on devices or people without their knowledge or consent in order to monitor or spy on their activities. The extent to which the search or seizure of personal property of people is allowed has been questioned in a number of court cases, especially those involving wiretapping, confiscating hard drives, or surveillance through FISA courts.

Though these activities are conducted in order to obtain evidence so that the target might then be aptly accused of a crime, the Fourth Amendment is clear about persons being accused, first, and then detained or searched, and not the other way around. Any technology types that would enable DHS or FEMA to abrogate the Fourth Amendment should be carefully considered before being put into use.

Likewise, drone technology represents a slippery slope because it is so easy to weaponize and can be operated at a significant remove, which eliminates the human aspect of policing. DHS and FEMA should be wary about using any technology that removes the human element to such an extent that it dehumanizes the target. Environmental Factors to Consider Political Political factors should be carefully considered as the current political climate is now revealing.

For two years, President Trump has been the target of an investigation, and now that the investigation is over and has revealed nothing, it is Trump’s turn to launch an investigation on the investigators. Republicans will want to know why the wire tapping warrants were authorized on bogus intelligence and who is responsible for the plot to pin the charge of Russian collusion on the president.

Trump did not appreciate the fact that his campaign was being monitored, and this will likely have reverberations throughout that DHS and FEMA will feel. It will mean that all requests to monitor will have to receive careful attention and consideration going forward. Economic Economic factors will also play a part, as is currently becoming clear in the tech rival conflict between Apple and Huawei on the global stage. If anything impacts politics, it is economics.

The big tech firms will weigh in on legislative matters that will in turn guide ethical considerations. However, on a local scale, economic factors such as the cost-saving ability of new technology that can monitor electronic devices should not be used as an excuse to violate Constitutional rights even if the activity is considered to take place in a gray zone.

Social Social policy will have to address the issues of whether to monitor and collect data on persons using social media, private correspondence, and making contact with international persons/groups/organizations (Harawa, 2013). Social factors are now more inflamed than ever, with the work of whistleblowers like Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and Julian Assange being well-known by many. Governments spying on their own citizens sounds to many like an Orwellian nightmare.

Cultural Culturally speaking, every generation from this point forward will be a digital native, meaning every person will have grown up using digital technology. Lives are being lived almost entirely online today—and expectations that go along with privacy online will likely fluctuate in the coming years. Legal The ECPA of 1986 and the Patriot Act have been major factors in determining the extent to which agencies may use new technology to collect information on others.

However, these laws have been abused and the public is aware of that thanks to the work of whistleblowers as mentioned above. The legal parameters are likely to shift in the coming years, and this shift should be anticipated now. Conflict That May Arise between These Factors and Ethical Matters Because there is a tension between the need for security and the desire for privacy, the ethical considerations that have to be made are not rigid at this point in time.

In spite of the revelations made by Assange, Snowden and numerous others about the ways in which technology is used by government, government agencies are going to continue to use whatever means are available to protect themselves and their people. Conflict may arise between those who support the rights of citizens over the needs of the state—but this conflict can be managed in an ethical way, which is by shaping policy and adhering to it.

When These Factors Could or Should Trump Ethical Issues The need for security may trump ethical issues during states of emergency. Lincoln had no problem suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War. Other presidents have acted similarly during times of immense tribulation. Emergency situations call for emergency powers, and President Trump has recently called the border situation a national emergency.

In such situations it is not unheard of that political factors such as these trump ethical issues: when safety and security is deemed a paramount matter, ethical issues are put on the backburner if only temporarily. The Matter of Transparency Government should attempt to be as transparent as possible, but in some cases the use of technology for the purposes of securing borders and monitoring immigration or guarding against terrorism requires secrecy. This is the Catch-22 of the post-9/11 world.

Ethically speaking an agency that can justify its use of secrecy to serve and protect is one that will be esteemed more highly by the public than an agency that cannot even do as much. The Ethics of Using Technology without Public Knowledge or Consent Using technology without public knowledge or consent is, nonetheless, going to rankle many.

Many big firms like Google and Facebook already collect data on millions of their users, including where they are, what they have been shopping for, and what they have been looking at online or talking about with friends (Google and Amazon technology, for instance, allows devices to always be listening in on conversations even when they are not actively engaged). This trend has allowed for gray zones of what is ethically acceptable to come into existence.

Navigating these gray zones is an important concept to consider, and the courts have generally been helpful in interpreting the Constitution so as to show where the line must be drawn between privacy and security (Harawa, 2013).

However, 3thically speaking, technology has allowed for more and more advanced monitoring systems to be put in place and the question that remains is: just because they can be used, does that mean they should be used? The Role of Planning and Exercises in Reducing Ethical Compromises DHS can plan, train and exercise to reduce ethical compromises in terms of using technology.