Privacy invasion through Google, Carnivore, and the Patriot Act

Digital Privacy in an Information Technology Age

Information privacy refers to the desire of individuals to control or have some influence over data about themselves. Advances in information technology have raised concerns about information privacy and its impacts (Belanger & Crossler, 2011). There are many definitions for information privacy, but there is little variance in the elements of the definitions, which typically include some form of control over the potential secondary uses of one's personal information. Secondary use refers to the practice of using data for purposes other than those for which they were originally collected. Digital privacy has been a concern since the Internet became such a popular means of communication. The abundance of computers and smart phones, the proliferation of communication, and the explosion of digital information has precipitated people's disclosure of very personal information online, thus creating concerns with three types of technology that invades the privacy of citizens: Google (Internet), Carnivore, and Surveillance.

Types of Technology Invasion

Google (Internet)

A skilled user might be able to locate a great deal of information about a person through Facebook, MySpace, blogs, news articles, or any resumes that exist on the Internet. Companies, the government, and others can use tracking cookies and other widely available software to observe a user's shopping habits and visited websites. These tools also permit third parties to obtain unique identifying information such as a user's IP address, which is a unique number assigned to a computer or router when it accesses the Internet. Every click of the mouse, site visited, and page read creates a trail of digital cookie crumbs that can be analyzed and exploited by merchants, webmasters, and the government. In addition, all of this information presents a potential goldmine for law enforcement agencies to use in investigating crimes.

Carnivore

To address the changing times, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) developed "Carnivore," digital monitoring software that allows FBI officers to monitor suspects ' online communications (Kerr, 2003). The FBI "taps" into Internet Service Providers (ISPs) using Carnivore. The software then scans huge volumes of communications for those fitting the search criteria flagging and storing any messages meet those criteria. Carnivore thus allows the monitoring of vast amounts of personal information without a dramatic increase in marginal costs.

Surveillance

Within weeks of September 11th, Congress passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act more often known by its intentional acronym, USA PATRIOT Act, or just as the Patriot Act (Kerr, 2003). With very little congressional debate, the Patriot Act sped through Congress hastily in response to the perceived inability of authorities to track and uncover terrorist plots. The laws overall effect, however, has had less to do with terrorism than with easing restrictions on government surveillance of digital communications. The Patriot generally loosens the procedural and substantive limits regarding government investigative and surveillance powers, both foreign and domestic. It allows broader sharing of gathered information between law enforcement and intelligence agencies and amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to expand the federal government's ability to investigate and search foreign entities and organizations. Furthermore, it allows law enforcement to install roving wiretaps and to obtain pen registers and trap and trace orders for telephones- and now for computers- with less procedural barriers. The Patriot Act also implicitly enshrines Carnivore into law by defining the digital surveillance provisions to include the type of search Carnivore performs. Most importantly, the Act requires judges to sign orders authorizing these searches without allowing the court to review the efficacy or legitimacy of the request.

Can Citizens Protect Their Information?

Short answer is no! Intimate privacy is still protected; however, public domain privacy still resides in shades of gray. Financial information, public records, and medical history can still be retrieved at the click of a button. Arguably, the reasonable expectation of privacy standard works in traditional Fourth Amendment settings such as searches of vehicles, homes, and instances involving customer information, where it has already been defined and applied. However, the digital age has amplified the standard's quirks and limitations more than it has over forty years ago. It would be foolish to contend that the degree of privacy secured to citizens