Information policy frameworks and governance structures

¶ … Policy & Privacy

Lamb, Gregory M. 2006. "The end of privacy?" The Record. July

In an increasingly digitized world, activists and private citizens are rightly raising concerns regarding privacy. Privacy rights seem under attack through different ways, from personal records being hacked to storage devices getting stolen. Privacy advocates have criticized the lack of statutes to address and prevent these crimes, arguing that protections must be instituted at the federal level. These protections would help to ensure that even in a digitized world, one's "right to be let alone" remains intact.

Lamb's article rightly points out the lack of a national standard in regards to keeping private information safe. Currently, information theft is addressed on a state level, but this is far from enough. After all, Internet technologies have blurred geographical barriers between people and business entities. Thus, state laws may be inadequate in addressing the theft of Social Security numbers when the hacker is located thousands of miles away. There is thus a need for a national body - preferably one that is independent of corporate business or political interests - to take charge of the promulgation privacy rights and the prosecution of such violations.

Lamb's article illustrates how far behind United States information policy is with regard to the technology. While it is admirable that some states have taken the initiative to strengthen privacy laws, their efforts will ultimately be in vain without a national - and later, international - backing. The field of information policy is concerned with, among others, the challenges and need for keeping private information safe from potential malefactors.

Lamb's article makes a contribution to this field first by highlighting the schism between the laws and the available technology, and second by proposing the potential solution of an independent national monitoring body.

Scalet, Sarah D. 2006. "Cybersecurity: A Job for Uncle Sam." CIO. June 1. 19:16.

Who should shoulder the major responsibility of improving information security and privacy across the United States? According to former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) head Orson Swindle, this responsibility falls squarely on the federal government. Aware of the limitations of the current infrastructure in preventing instances such as identity theft, Swindle believes that the federal government must take steps to ensure greater security, even if such steps can be seen as encroachment into privacy rights. In the end, Swindle argues that the task of building a "culture of security" would necessitate the cooperation of businesses and private consumers as well.

Swindle adds a number of insights to the dilemma discussed by Lamb in the previous article. First, he rightly points out that alarmist media coverage - 40 million credit cards are compromised! - make the problem seem much bigger than it really is.

Government has been taking steps to keep information safe, and has been largely successful. This argument can be valid, considering the swiftness of technological advance and the relative rarity of identity theft.

While Swindle raised good points, this article does not adequately address privacy concerns regarding government "intrusion." Information policy mirrors the fluidity of the technology, and there have been very valid concerns raised regarding government regulation of cyberspace. Furthermore, given that the internet is a global medium, how effective could one country's regulations be? The difficulties of prosecuting online file sharing services such as Kazaa already illustrate this point. While Swindle's solution is a start, more thought is needed in addressing privacy issues over an international Internet.

Smith, Sylvia. 2006. "Neutrality' backers fear Net censorship." Journal-Gazette. July 17: page 1.

Smith's article raises other concerns regarding government regulation -- that of restricting price increases for telephone companies, the cable industry and Internet Service Providers. These providers have argued that restricting how much they can raise their fees will compromise the development of the technology, and may pave the way for unequal access to information technology. Cyber-businesses, on the other hand, argue that if Congress takes a "hands-off" approach, these private companies are in a position to monopolize access to the Internet, and to practice censorship.

For consumer advocates and cyber-businesses, the solution should be a government-instituted policy of "net neutrality." Instead of addressing the fee issues, there should be a law specifically stating that service providers could regulate access to the Internet. This policy makes much sense, and is a better focus than the fee issue. An ISP, for example, should not be allowed to bar access to websites that the company deems "objectionable."

The idea of "net neutrality" contributes much to this country's information policy, especially in the light of censorship being practiced in other parts of the world. Recently, for example, Google agreed to censor access to politically provocative sites to consumers in China. In the Philippines, the Catholic Church - the country's largest ISP - regularly blocks access to internet sites that are deemed pornographic or otherwise objectionable. Both companies may argue overriding reasons for their censorship. However, the task of regulating the content that comes into one's own computer should belong to the consumers or, in the case of minors, their parents.

Roach, Ronald. 2004. "Academic coalition opposes moves to extend wiretap law." Black Issues in Higher Education. May 6. 21:6.

Roach's article takes a look at an ongoing debate regarding the differences between government regulation on regular internet traffic and the kind of access needed for users in higher education. Current legislation gives law enforcement access to communication traffic, under stringent legal conditions and constraints. Librarians and other researchers in higher education, however, argue that access rules should be different for the academe, in order to ensure academic freedom.