Spillover Cards
Download 0.51 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Turn: Surveillance Backlash
- Link non-unique — people are concerned about their privacy now
- Link non-unique — NFA, Snowden, activists, journalists, and increased internet use
- Public opinion is moving in favor of privacy — Congressional security rhetoric is the only opposition
- The link is non-unique – people are concerned with their privacy – prefer our studies
- The link is non-unique – Snowden leaks made people concerned about their privacy
Aff AnswersPrivacy LinkNo SpilloverNo spillover — pro-privacy legislative action is dependent without crisis.Kerr 4 — Orin S. Kerr, Associate Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, B.S.E. 1993, Princeton University; M.S. 1994, Stanford University; J.D. 1997, Harvard Law School, 2004 (“Technology, Privacy, And The Courts: A Reply To Colb And Swire,” Michigan Law Review (102 Mich. L. Rev. 933), Available Online to Subscribing Institutions via Lexis-Nexis) Contrary to Swire's suggestion, I think that statutory protections also tend to reach a middle ground. If there is a general trend toward lesser statutory protection over time, it is not clear to me. Swire focuses on the fact that Congress did not act on an Internet privacy bill that the House Judiciary Committee approved in 2000, but then passed the USA Patriot Act in 2001. To Swire, this suggests that the legislative process is broken: Congress passed (bad) pro-government legislation but not (good) pro-privacy legislation, leading to less privacy. n19 I find it difficult to draw a lesson from this example. It is worth noting, however, that in Swire's own example the legislative process rejected FBI and DOJ proposals and instead attempted to push the law in a strongly pro-privacy direction. Then, when Congress passed some of the proposals a few years later, it did so only under remarkable circumstances and even then only subject to a sunset provision. n20 If Swire's example is supposed to show a trend toward [*938] lessening privacy protection over time, then it is at best a mixed signal. More broadly, the privacy/security pendulum swings both ways; while there may be times of crisis when the pendulum swings in favor of law enforcement, there are other periods when the pendulum swings in favor of privacy. I would pose this question to Swire: if there is a systematic tendency toward greater surveillance, in what year was privacy most protected by the legislative process? In 1960, when federal law did not forbid wiretapping? In 1970, before FISA was enacted? In 1980, before Congress passed ECPA? Turn: Surveillance BacklashTurn: Surveillance causes public backlash which increases privacy.Moncrieff, Venkatesh, and West 9 — Simon Moncrieff, research fellow in the Department of Computing at Curtin University of Technology, Svetha Venkatesh, professor in the Department of Computing at Curtin University of Technology, and Geoff West, professor in the Department of Spatial Sciences at Curtin University of Technology and at the Cooperative Research Centre for Spatial Information, 2009 (“Dynamic privacy in public surveillance” Computer, 42(9) http://dro.deakin.edu.au/eserv/DU:30044204/venkatesh-dynamicprivacy-2009.pdf) As surveillance becomes increasingly intrusive, public opposition to these technologies will grow. Lawmakers will be pressured to force organizations that develop and deploy surveillance systems to incorporate additional privacy protections. However, because legislation tends to lag behind technology, such measures will inevitably inhibit preexisting systems’ functionality. Designing surveillance systems with privacy in mind, rather than as an afterthought, will accelerate the adoption of privacy policies in surveillance and reduce the impact of enforced privacy measures.6 For example, Google did not foresee privacy issues with Street View and thus did not incorporate privacy protections into the initial release of this feature in 2007. In response to public outcry, the company instituted several measures including the blurring of facial images and vehicle number plates and reducing image resolution to limit discernible information about pedestrians and vehicles. However, there is still considerable debate as to whether these measures go far enough; other identifying data such as location, clothes, and stature/gait are evident in Street View and may violate local privacy laws. Link Non-UniqueLink non-unique — people are concerned about their privacy nowTrujillo 15 — Mario Trujillo, Professor in the Engineering department at University of Wisconsin – Madison, PhD from the University of Illinois, 2015 (“Poll: Large concern over data collection through smart devices,” TheHill, January 15th, Available online at http://thehill.com/policy/technology/228472-poll-large-concern-over-data-collection-through-smart-devices, Accessed 7-20-15) Nearly eight in 10 people are concerned about their personal information being collected through smartphones and other devices, according to a poll released Monday. The survey commissioned by TRUSTe, a consumer privacy company, also found that 69 percent of people believe they should own the data that is collected through their smart devices. Twenty percent, on the other hand, believe the benefits of the products outweigh privacy concerns. Eighty-seven percent expressed concern about their personal information being used in ways they are not aware of. Eighty-six percent said they are concerned about identity theft or their device being infected by malware. Seventy-eight percent expressed concern about their geographical location being unknowingly revealed. Link non-unique — NFA, Snowden, activists, journalists, and increased internet useBartlett 15 — Jamie Bartlett, Director of the Centre for Analysis of Social Media, 2015 ("How we all became obsessed with online privacy," Content Loop, June 16th, Available Online at http://www.content-loop.com/how-we-all-became-obsessed-with-online-privacy/, Accessed 7-20-2015) It began with radical 'cypherpunks' who wanted to destroy the state. Now it's a hot-button issue for every Facebook user. How did the notion of internet privacy gain so much traction, and where will it take us next? Cast your mind back to just 5 or ten years ago. Did you ever think about data, your digital footprint, the NSA, or what happened to your social media posts? Doubtful, even though you might have been doing much the same online. The question of internet privacy wasn’t something many of us gave much thought to. In the last couple of weeks, a handful of events have demonstrated how much that has all changed. Earlier this month the US Congress passed the ‘Freedom Act’ (which, in American tradition, stands awkwardly for Uniting and Strengthening America by Fulfilling Rights and Ending Eavesdropping, Dragnet-collection and Online Monitoring). It placed limits of mass data collected on US citizens by the National Security Agency, something many privacy advocates thought impossible. Last week, David Anderson published an independent review of the UK government’s investigatory powers – it’s very good by the way – and made over 100 recommendations about how to make surveillance simpler, clearer, and with more oversight. Perhaps even more surprising, although barely reported, Facebook decided to allow users to send encrypted messages on their messenger service. This is all driven by growing pubic concern of course. According to the 2014 Deloitte Data Nation survey, 24 per cent of people in the UK do not trust any type of organisation with their personal information. Recent research by my think-tank Demos found half of young people said they were either extremely or very concerned by ‘online privacy’ – more than environmental issues, immigration, tax avoidance, or the EU. There are more people are using tools and techniques to cover their digital tracks, especially since Edward Snowden blew his whistle. Internet privacy has become a major political and social preoccupation. But very few people know much about the origins of the idea. The hope that modern, digital cryptographic software could change society goes back to the 1990s Californian ‘Cypherpunks’ (a mash up of the word cypher with cyber-punk). All were radical libertarians and early adopters of computer technology, sharing an interest in the effects it would have on politics and society. But while many West Coast liberals at the time were toasting the dawn of a new and liberating electronic age, these Cypherpunks spotted that networked computing might just as likely herald a golden age of state spying and control. They all believed that the great political issue of the day was whether governments of the world would use the internet to strangle individual freedom and privacy through digital surveillance, or whether autonomous individuals would undermine and even destroy the state through the subversive tools digital computing also promised. At their first meeting, Tim May, as close to a leader as the group ever had, set out his vision to the excited group of rebellious, ponytailed twenty-and thirty-somethings. If the government can’t monitor you, he argued, it can’t control you. Fortunately, said May, thanks to modern computing, individual liberty can be assured by something more reliable than man-made laws: the unflinching rules of math and physics, existing on software that couldn’t be deleted. ‘ Politics has never given anyone lasting freedom, and it never will, ’ he wrote in 1993. But computer systems could. What was needed, May argued, was new software that could help ordinary people evade government surveillance. The group quickly grew to include hundreds of subscribers who were soon posting on a dedicated email list every day: exchanging ideas, discussing developments, proposing and testing cyphers. This remarkable email list predicted, developed or invented almost every technique now employed by computer users to avoid government surveillance. Tim May proposed, among other things, secure crypto-currencies, a tool enabling people to browse the web anonymously, an unregulated marketplace—which he called ‘BlackNet’—where anything could be bought or sold without being tracked. Twenty years before the notorious Silk Road. Ultimately they also hoped their endeavors would eventually bring about an economic, political and social revolution. In 1994 May published Cyphernomicon, his manifesto of the cypher-punk world view, on the mailing list. In it, he explained that ‘many of us are explicitly anti-democratic and hope to use encryption to undermine the so-called democratic governments of the world.’ On the whole, the cypherpunks were rugged libertarians who believed that far too many decisions that affected the liberty of the individual were determined by a popular vote of democratic governments. They saw internet privacy as the way out. (Julian Assange was joined the mailing list in late 1993 or early 1994). Of course, not everyone who cared about internet privacy shared the cypherpunks’ view that internet privacy was a route to pulling down governments. Each time governments – especially the US government - overreached by trying to spy on citizens too much, new movements and organisations would join the fray. And through the course of the 1990s and 2000s, internet privacy slowly started to inch into people's peripheral vision as something worth worrying about. But it's really only the last 5 years or so that it's moved from periphery to centre. Partly it's Snowden. Partly it's the relentless work of activists and journalists who share concerns. But mostly it's the amount of time we now spend online, and a dawning realisation that all that data we produce must be going somewhere. These days we share inordinate amounts of digital information about ourselves: our bank details, our love life, our holiday snaps; our whole lives are online. And it’s no longer just governments snaffling it all up – it is private companies, too. Think for a moment: do you ever wonder why it is that we get all these amazing internet services – Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Gmail – for free? I rarely think about it, either, because I’m used to it all just being there, and always working. But it costs an awful lot of money to run these platforms: the server space, the highly skilled engineers, the legal teams. We are paying all right, just not in cash. We pay with our data and our privacy. Public opinion is moving in favor of privacy — Congressional security rhetoric is the only oppositionMargolis 13 — Jason Margolis, reporter on economics and politics, M.A. in Journalism from the University of California at Berkeley, citing Joseph Nye, former Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, PhD in political science from Harvard University, 2013 (“After Snowden, Global Debate Over Privacy vs. National Security Gaining Momentum,” PRI, July 17th, Available Online at http://www.pri.org/stories/2013-07-17/after-snowden-global-debate-over-privacy-vs-national-security-gaining-momentum, Accessed 7-22-15) Those figures mirror the mood in the US: There's a clear conflict between the need to protect our national security and our civil liberties. There's a pendulum that constantly moves between security and privacy needs, said Harvard political scientist Joseph Nye, author of the new book, "Presidential Leadership and the Creation of the American Era." "I mean we saw it in the Civil War when Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, or in World War II when Franklin Roosevelt basically interned American citizens of Japanese origin," he said. "And then later the country swung back to saying this was excessive." Nye said nearly 12 years after the September 11th attacks the pendulum is beginning to swing back toward more calls for civil liberties. He adds Congress and the Administration need to find an acceptable middle ground. That's difficult, because many members of Congress say the surveillance programs are working successfully and have thwarted terrorist attacks. The link is non-unique – people are concerned with their privacy – prefer our studiesDoherty 13 — Carroll Doherty, director of political research at Pew, develops the research agenda, masters in international studies and bachelor in political science, regularly provides public opinion for BBC and NPR, 2013, (“Balancing Act: National Securityand Civil Liberties in Post-9/11 Era” Pew Research Center, June 7th, Available Online at http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/06/07/balancing-act-national-security-and-civil-liberties-in-post-911-era/, Accessed 07-14-15 The revelations that Obama administration secretly collected phone records and accessed the internet activity of millions of Americans have raised new questions about the public’s willingness to sacrifice civil liberties in the interests of national security. Since 9/11, Americans generally have valued protection from terrorism over civil liberties, yet they also have expressed concerns over government overreach and intrusions on their personal privacy. Security First. Since shortly after 9/11, Pew Research has asked whether people’s greater concern is that anti-terror policies will go too far in restricting civil liberties, or that they won’t go far enough in adequately protecting the country. The balance of opinion has consistently favored protection. Most recently, in 2010, 47% said they were more concerned that government policies “have not gone far enough to adequately protect the country,” while 32% said they were more concerned that “they have gone too far in restricting the average person’s civil liberties.” But Fewer See Need to Sacrifice Civil Liberties. Yet fewer Americans think it will be necessary to sacrifice civil liberties to combat terrorism than did so shortly after the 9/11 attacks. In a poll conducted in 2011, shortly before the 10th anniversary of 9/11, 40% said that “in order to curb terrorism in this country it will be necessary for the average person to give up some civil liberties,” while 54% said it would not. A decade earlier, in the aftermath of 9/11 and before the passage of the Patriot Act, opinion was nearly the reverse (55% necessary, 35% not necessary). The link is non-unique – Snowden leaks made people concerned about their privacyPierce June 5th — Charles Pierce, working journalist since 1976, author of four books, 2015, (“There Would Be No USA Freedom Act Without Edward Snowden,” Esquire, June 5th, Available Online at http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/30564-there-would-be-no-usa-freedom-act-without-edward-snowden, Accessed 07-14-15 The passage of the USA Freedom Act paves the way for telecom companies to assume responsibility of the controversial phone records collection program, while also bringing to a close a short lapse in the broad NSA and FBI domestic spying authorities. Those powers expired with key provisions of the Patriot Act at 12.01 am on Monday amid a showdown between defense hawks and civil liberties advocates. The American Civil Liberties Union praised the passage of the USA Freedom Act as "a milestone" but pointed out that there were many more "intrusive and overbroad" surveillance powers yet untouched. The ambivalence about Edward Snowden, International Man Of Luggage, all clears away at one simple point -- without him, none of this happens. Without what he did, nobody looks closely enough at the NSA and its surveillance programs even to think of reforming them even in the mildest way, which is pretty much what this is. Without what he did, the conversation not only doesn't change, it doesn't even occur. Oregon senator Ron Wyden, a Democrat on the intelligence committee who has railed against NSA surveillance for years, praised the breakthrough but said the work is far from complete. "This is the only beginning. There is a lot more to do," Wyden told reporters after the vote. "We're going to have very vigorous debate about the flawed idea of the FBI director to require companies to build weaknesses into their products. We're going to try to close the backdoor search loophole – this is part of the Fisa Act and is going to be increasingly important, because Americans are going to have their emails swept up increasingly as global communications systems begin to merge." Without what Edward Snowden did, even these first tremors of a rollback from the politics of fear that have encrusted the country in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001 would not have been felt in Washington this week. Directory: file -> view view -> Western Europe after wwii view -> Author study: paul fleischman view -> Qpa1 7ela study Guide view -> Arctic Oil/Gas Neg view -> November 1970 Approximately 150,000-500,000 deaths Bhola Cyclone Bangladesh view -> Grade Level: 6 Unit of Study: Caribbean glce view -> Citation: Duffield, Katy view -> Table of Contents Lesson # view -> Chinese Wind Energy Disad Download 0.51 Mb. Share with your friends:
|