This paper examines the growing concerns about internet privacy in contemporary digital society. It explores the philosophical foundations of privacy as a right, analyzes key U.S. privacy legislation including the Privacy Act of 1974 and FOIA, and investigates privacy risks on social networking platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. The paper discusses government surveillance initiatives, including the Utah Data Center, contrasts privacy threats from government and private sector entities, and provides practical protection methods such as virtual private networks. Finally, it addresses net neutrality and argues that society must balance privacy with transparency as digital surveillance becomes increasingly unavoidable.
Social networking is beneficial for finding employers, online dating, and maintaining connections with others. However, privacy concerns are growing among social networking users, including those in the work environment. This issue is important because many people use the internet for work and school. Even though privacy remains a concern, the internet provides essential benefits for finding jobs, conducting business, and staying in touch with friends and family. Understanding privacy in the digital age requires examining both the advantages of internet connectivity and the real threats to personal information.
The concept of privacy carries different meanings for different people. Most people understand "privacy" to be connected with fundamental values. Some view privacy as autonomy or seclusion—the right to be left alone without interference. The Federal Trade Commission instituted a "do not call" policy that was immensely popular because people were becoming frustrated by unsolicited telephone calls at home during dinner hours. This policy exemplifies privacy as the right to seclusion and protection from unwanted intrusion.
At its core, privacy represents a principle of individual control over personal information. No one else has a right to information that one possesses, nor does one have any obligation to surrender it to them. One might suggest that society would benefit if people shared information, engaged in commerce responsibly, or made other personal choices, but no one can be forced to act in ways they do not choose. Forcing individuals to act according to another's preferences violates their autonomy—their fundamental right to determine their own actions and control their own property, which are necessary for personal survival and dignity.
Privacy also raises questions about public information and personal boundaries. When one walks in public, can they expect to control how others use information about their movements? Should one's location and activities be shared without explicit consent? These questions reveal that privacy exists as a spectrum: it depends on the ability to protect information from unauthorized access and use. Once information becomes exposed and accessible to others, privacy protection becomes increasingly difficult.
A number of laws have been passed or are in various stages of development in the United States that affect consumer privacy. Two of the earliest and most significant privacy laws are the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). These laws permit individuals to request information from government agencies, such as the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The Privacy Act allows individuals to retrieve records about themselves and delete, modify, or correct information that is erroneous, unrelated, expired, or inadequate. Individuals have the right to take legal action against an agency if it refuses to adjust or correct their record or if it denies access to their information. FOIA is applicable only to government organizations and does not create a right of access to records held by the courts, state agencies, or Congress. Every state has its own public access regulations.
As the internet has increased in prominence, privacy concerns have become increasingly urgent. People have come to accept that others can access personal information about them on social networking websites such as Facebook. Businesses and government agencies continuously monitor people's actions online for various reasons. In response, Congress attempted to support user privacy on the internet by passing the Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997. However, this law has proven difficult to enforce and has become outdated with the rapid evolution of internet technology.
In the modern digital environment, the internet has transformed from its early days as a place for free information exchange into a platform where privacy threats abound. The misuse and mismanagement of internet technologies are primary reasons why privacy concerns have increased significantly.
Facebook's instant personalization feature exemplifies these privacy risks. This feature broke down the boundary between the social network and the wider web, but many users discovered that it was enabled by default without their knowledge or explicit consent. This lack of transparency elevated concerns among Facebook's millions of users about improved targeted advertisements and increased sharing of personal data with third-party websites. Information marked as publicly visible could be transmitted to external sites without user awareness. Provided one is signed into Facebook, particular websites like Bing and YouTube can personalize their content using information from a user's account. Any material set to "everyone," such as a user's name or birthday, can be used to make websites appear more welcoming and familiar. While only certain sites can access this information and approvals must be established, users are generally advised to deactivate this feature for safety.
A 2005 study conducted at a major university investigated the privacy practices of 540 Facebook users. The study found that nearly 89 percent of users provided their actual names, and 61 percent uploaded a photograph of themselves for easier identification. However, the bulk of users did not change their default privacy settings, which permitted unidentified users and friends of friends to access their personal information. The main default setting allowed friends, friends of friends, and network members to view a user's full profile. While users have the option to restrict others from locating them on Facebook, this must be done on a case-by-case basis and is not commonly used. Most users were unaware that privacy settings return to default after each platform update. This has raised serious concerns that users are exposing excessive information on social networking websites, with potentially stern consequences for their privacy.
Twitter presents similar privacy challenges. The mini-blogging site admitted that it had logged and analyzed user phone numbers in its database to help new members find friends. Many users were unaware of this practice. Twitter stated that it would disclose its privacy policies more clearly in the future. More than one thousand businesses sought access to millions of tweets from employees using the platform. In response to these vulnerabilities, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission took action against Twitter and reached a settlement on June 24, 2010—the first time the FTC had taken formal action against a social networking site due to privacy concerns.
Several social networking websites have responded to criticism and concerns about privacy by restructuring and amending their policies regarding default settings, data storage, and sharing with third parties. However, many critics remain dissatisfied, arguing that essential modifications to privacy settings remain minor and that social networking sites prioritize criticism management over genuinely familiarizing users with their policies.
"Utah Data Center and cybersecurity surveillance infrastructure"
When examining internet privacy, it is important to distinguish between threats posed by the government and those posed by the private sector. When evaluating potential employees, employers increasingly examine online profiles. Nearly 75 percent of companies now require their human resources officials to review an applicant's online presence before offering a job. With blogging and social networking, people's information is displayed online at a rapid rate. Given the ease with which personal material can be distributed, there will be more instances when information people wish to keep private ends up in the public domain.
However, government and private sector data use differ in important ways. While the government has potentially accessed a large portion of data individuals have sent electronically, it cares about very little of that information. The U.S. government also does not have many people with access to raw data itself. Consequently, there is relatively little privacy concern for the vast majority of people regarding government surveillance. In contrast, private companies care about everything individuals do online. The more they know, the better they can sell users products. They are also far less secure with the information they possess. While the National Security Agency has no public history of releasing data on hundreds of Americans with the intent to embarrass or endanger them, private companies have both a history of such behavior and a financial motive. A newspaper released to the public all of the names and addresses of gun owners in New York. Instagram attempted to claim unlimited commercial exploitation rights to user data through a change in terms of service. The U.S. government does not have much history of doing things like that. People have more control over what the government does with data than what private companies do with the same data. Thus, there is more perceived danger from private companies than from the National Security Agency or other government agencies.
There are numerous ways individuals can protect their personal information from public disclosure. The fundamental principle is that people have a right to privacy as long as that right is exercised within the limits of the law. Seeking privacy should not cause shame or guilt. Privacy should be anticipated and valued.
The most common protection method is to set up a Virtual Private Network (VPN) account. A VPN can be useful in many ways. When one connects to the internet, the connection passes through an internet service provider. While everyone pays for internet access, the terms, policies, and conditions governing this service can be unclear. Most attacks on personal computers target a user's Internet Protocol (IP) address. An IP address is unique to a device, similar to a telephone number. With a VPN, one can "spoof" an IP address by routing internet traffic through multiple nodes and tunnels, making it very difficult to trace back to the original address. Depending on configuration, a corporation needing remote access with hundreds of employees, or a single user hiding their identity, may utilize this feature.
Another privacy concern involves cookies. Cookies are small files placed on one's computer by websites that store data—often information users would prefer to keep private. This information can include passwords, credit card numbers, and browsing history. Understanding how cookies work and managing them is essential for online privacy protection.
When discussing internet privacy, the issue of net neutrality often arises. Net neutrality refers to the principle that internet service providers should not restrain or discriminate in how they manage internet traffic. The historical expansion of telegraph networks before the Pacific Telegraph Act illustrates this principle. Companies were reluctant to allow telegraph traffic from competitors on their lines, so they did not share or interconnect. Each corporation had its own private network, and as a result, no single company could service the entire country. Telegraph poles in the public right of way were scattered with duplicate lines, and corporations regularly cut the lines of opponents.
Net neutrality typically means that internet service providers should charge customers for internet access without favoring one service provider over another and without charging providers extra for directing information to end users. However, corporations sometimes offer different rates to broadband and dial-up customers based on web content or service type, and there are no clear legal limitations on these practices. The Data Cap Integrity Act of 2012 was created to expand the capacity of customers to govern their internet data usage and to promote fair internet use. The U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has been reviewing this policy.
"Net neutrality, broadband regulation, and international broadband models"
"Balancing privacy rights with societal transparency demands"
You’re 66% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.