2_mettlach_leslie

Leslie L. Mettlach

Rhetoric

11 April 2001

Privacy: The Civil Rights Issue of the 21st Century

Trusting Americans are having their warm security blanket of privacy taken away from them in one quick wrench. Most people take the value of their privacy lightly because it is not something tangible like a car or money. Yes, these tings are important and costly, but a person's identity is priceless. Peoples' lives are recorded on the phone by the government, put into databases by cunning computer businesses, and are even invaded by ordinary people who are supposed to keep our personal items confidential. As technology continues to advance, the public is beginning to fear the tragic end of privacy. In fact, privacy is widely known as "the civil rights issue of the 21st century." The battle of privacy was not always so complicated. Personal information used to be kept on regular paper files and stored in a safe place. Now, most of the files are stored on computers, which makes them easier to obtain. People are also attached to their phones on which they explain all their personal details. We could give up our privacy for a promised protection, but we would be willingly handing it over to people who will sell it and use it for their own corrupt purposes. Is our praised advance really worth the privacy we lose on computers, phones, and everyday life?

The most recent topic of privacy is focused on the Internet. The Internet allows the public to talk to friends near or far through e-mail, do research on any topic, listen to music, and buy anything and everything. Most people could hardly imagine their lives without computers. People are getting nervous because the computer companies have found a way to use this rapid growing trend to their advantage. They have databases that hold peoples' information such as when they were born, how often they travel, and what they buy. Nearly everyone would like to be asked if they want to give out this information, but the computer companies are not concerned about privacy for consumers. Do you ever wonder why ads that pertain to you pop up onto your computer screen? These databases are the answer. Jeffrey Rothfeder, an editor and novelist, explains, "we go through life inadvertently dropping crumbs of data about ourselves. Following right behind us are powerful vacuum cleaners- -computers accessed by marketers, snoops, and even criminals- -sucking up the crumbs, labeling them, and storing them for future reference." Without a second thought about respect or morality, they readily sell the publics' information to the highest bidder, and make an enormous profit.

There is surprisingly one advantage to companies snooping into the lives of others. For example, a man in Washington D.C. is trying to quit smoking but constantly fails. One day, he receives a letter in the mail saying there is a new drug that might be able to help him successfully quit smoking. Now he might still have a chance (Rothfeder). The information on the new drug was helpful, and this man might be able to quit smoking all due to the efforts of computer databases. But where did the letter come from? It was able to get to him because the computer companies sold his information to the business that offered the most money. Basically, the publics' information if floating around and businesses will occasionally help individuals. On the other hand, lets not forget criminals are also floating around and can obtain peoples' data just as easily as the computer companies. To criminals, this data is like Christmas all over again. They "can easily obtain unauthorized files, open new credit card accounts, get loans in your name, or attempt to blackmail you" (Rothfeder). The more intelligent choice is to do research on your own about anti-smoking medication, rather than give criminals the opportunity to access the data. Sadly, Heather Green et al., in a cover story on the subject, writes that the only way to be sure information will not fall into the wrong hands is to not log on in the first place.

Our personal space is not only being taken away on the web. For several years the government has kept taps on the phones of innocent citizens. These taps react when certain words like "president" and "bomb" are said together. This system was set up to protect the public from any danger, though Athan Theoharis found "FBI officials used the acquired information to advance their own bureaucratic and political objectives" (103). Now, they have extended this practice to basically eavesdropping and recording people's telephone conversations in order to obtain even more information. They call this system Carnivore, which sounds evil enough to begin with.

Furthermore, Bill Frezza reports "the cellular industry had rejected the FBI's real-time location of cell phone users." This would allow the FBI to track down the location of a cell phone even if it was not turned on. Yet, when their objectives became public, the FBI claimed they never asked for this tracking ability (Frezza). Richard A. Posner explains he would speak less frankly if he knew someone was listening. This is an obvious fact. People will be more secretive and will hold back what they really want to say when they know someone is taping their every word.

However, this protection system would be a good way to protect citizens if used properly and had successful results. In theory, the FBI would listen to criminals on the phone, arrest them, and save thousands of lives. Then again, in real life, it does not work this way. First of all, wire taping is only supposed to be used as a last defense, but rarely is this followed. Complete strangers are taping thousands of hours of our phone calls. However, only a fraction of these recordings actually lead to drugs or drug money while most taps lead nowhere. Peter Jennings uncovered one case in Los Angeles where the police listened to 131,000 conversations and still had no evidence to make any arrests. Equally disturbing, is the fact that the FBI is supposed to inform the public that they are being taped. Yet, they have recently admitted they do not always follow this rule (Jennings). Richard Finlay, a writer for
The Toronto Star, declares citizens have a right to be aware of public officials who are constantly invading their privacy. In addition, James E. Katz and Annette R. Tassone found "when asked about wire taping as a way to combat crime, the public

. . . disapproved of it by a two-to-one ratio." So, the FBI says they are recording us for our own protection, but they are not doing so. And it is clear the public does not want the governments' help if it involves taking away their privacy. The evidence is not in the governments' favor, yet they continue recording. Is it wrong to assume they just made up their claim to protect citizens so they could listen in to conversations for their own benefit? Who would ever imagine they would steal our privacy, lie to the public, and get away from this obvious crime?

Even the people who are supposed to keep personal items confidential are failing. For example, Colleen Sullivan reports that a college student, named Al Joseph DeGuzman, took a picture of himself in front of some bombs. The person who developed the photograph called the police upon viewing the shocking sight, and eventually DeGuzman was arrested. Rebecca Trounsan, a Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, informs the public that this man "faces charges of possession of bomb-making materials and possession of a sawed-off shotgun." Most photo labs are required to check for any child pornography or other suspicious photos, but it is the manager's job to report them and not the employees (Sullivan). Again, it is apparent that the rules are being broken. Nevertheless, this procedure has actually caught criminals and has inarguably saved many lives.

On the other hand, should the photo lab be able to decide who looks dangerous? What if someone was just playing around or just looked suspicious? To this, the usual response is that "people have to expect that people are going to look at their pictures and do not have the right to be upset because they choose to let others develop their film" (Sullivan). But how would it be if all privacy in life were exposed by such an easy escape as this? Let's take a look at psychiatrists and priests for instance. It is not uncommon for individuals to talk to a psychiatrist or a priest about the most intimate details of their lives. This information, however, is kept completely confidential, and it is even illegal to share it with another human being. These professionals have a certain duty to uphold and do not reveal any information, even if they do not agree with others' actions or opinions. This just goes to show that some things in life are meant to be kept private, and the photo lab is not to be separated from them. People take their film and trust only the person developing it will see their private photos, and that is how it should be.

In conclusion, our personal lives are not so personal anymore. Privacy, by definition, means the covering up of information. But let us not forget privacy is also used as a "synonym for freedom and autonomy" (Posner 405). In spite of everything, computer companies, the FBI, and photo labs are getting away with using our identities. They repeatedly lie, steal, and break the law for their own selfish and deceitful purposes. These crooks are taking advantage of billions of people who are unaware of the damage these corporations are causing them. But, technology is constantly advancing, privacy is diminishing and, regrettably, not much is being done to stop it.

Sources Cited

Finlay, Richard. "Big Brother Tories will all be Watching us Soon." Toronto Star 21

Jan. 2001. 1 Mar. 2001 <http://www.elibrary.com>.

Frezza, Bill. "We Should Revoke the FBI's License to Snoop." Communications

Week 14 Oct. 1996: 81. 29 Mar. 2001 <http://www.elibrary.com>.

Green, Heather et al. "ONLINE PRIVACY: Our Four-Point Plan." Business Week

20 Mar. 2000: 86. 29 Mar. 2001 <http://www.elibrary.com>.

Jennings, Peter, John Miller, and Jonathan Franzen. "Privacy Lost." World News

Tonight 7 Oct. 1998. 29 Mar. 2001 <http://www.elibrary.com>.

Katz, James E., and Annette R. Tassone. "A Report: Public Opinion Trends: Privacy

and Information Technology." Public Opinion Quarterly 54 (Spring 1990):

125-143.

Posner, Richard A. "Law and Economics in an Environment with Imperfect

Information." The American Economic Review 71 (May 1981): 405-409.

Rothfeder, Jeffrey. "You Are For Sale." PC World Monthly 1 Sept. 1998 1 Mar.

2001 <http://www.elibrary.com>.

Sullivan, Colleen. "California Film Controversy Raises Privacy Concerns."University

Wire 15 Feb. 2001. 29 Mar. 2001 <http://www.elibrary.com>.

Theoharis, Athan. "FBI Wiretapping: A Case Study of Bureaucratic Autonomy."

Political Science Quarterly 107 (Spring 1992): 101-122.

Trounson, Rebecca. "Man Held in what Police say was a Plot for Campus Assault."

Los Angeles Times 31 Jan. 2001, Home Ed.: A3. 29 Mar. 2001

<http://www.elibrary.com>.









			Leslie L. Mettlach Rhetoric 11 April 2001 Privacy: The Civil Rights Issue of the 21st Century Trusting Americans are having their warm security blanket of privacy taken away from them in one quick wrench. Most people take the value of their privacy lightly because it is not something tangible like a car or money. Yes, these tings are important and costly, but a person's identity is priceless. Peoples' lives are recorded on the phone by the government, put into databases by cunning computer businesses, and are even invaded by ordinary people who are supposed to keep our personal items confidential. As technology continues to advance, the public is beginning to fear the tragic end of privacy. In fact, privacy is widely known as "the civil rights issue of the 21st century." The battle of privacy was not always so complicated. Personal information used to be kept on regular paper files and stored in a safe place. Now, most of the files are stored on computers, which makes them easier to obtain. People are also attached to their phones on which they explain all their personal details. We could give up our privacy for a promised protection, but we would be willingly handing it over to people who will sell it and use it for their own corrupt purposes. Is our praised advance really worth the privacy we lose on computers, phones, and everyday life? The most recent topic of privacy is focused on the Internet. The Internet allows the public to talk to friends near or far through e-mail, do research on any topic, listen to music, and buy anything and everything. Most people could hardly imagine their lives without computers. People are getting nervous because the computer companies have found a way to use this rapid growing trend to their advantage. They have databases that hold peoples' information such as when they were born, how often they travel, and what they buy. Nearly everyone would like to be asked if they want to give out this information, but the computer companies are not concerned about privacy for consumers. Do you ever wonder why ads that pertain to you pop up onto your computer screen? These databases are the answer. Jeffrey Rothfeder, an editor and novelist, explains, "we go through life inadvertently dropping crumbs of data about ourselves. Following right behind us are powerful vacuum cleaners- -computers accessed by marketers, snoops, and even criminals- -sucking up the crumbs, labeling them, and storing them for future reference." Without a second thought about respect or morality, they readily sell the publics' information to the highest bidder, and make an enormous profit. There is surprisingly one advantage to companies snooping into the lives of others. For example, a man in Washington D.C. is trying to quit smoking but constantly fails. One day, he receives a letter in the mail saying there is a new drug that might be able to help him successfully quit smoking. Now he might still have a chance (Rothfeder). The information on the new drug was helpful, and this man might be able to quit smoking all due to the efforts of computer databases. But where did the letter come from? It was able to get to him because the computer companies sold his information to the business that offered the most money. Basically, the publics' information if floating around and businesses will occasionally help individuals. On the other hand, lets not forget criminals are also floating around and can obtain peoples' data just as easily as the computer companies. To criminals, this data is like Christmas all over again. They "can easily obtain unauthorized files, open new credit card accounts, get loans in your name, or attempt to blackmail you" (Rothfeder). The more intelligent choice is to do research on your own about anti-smoking medication, rather than give criminals the opportunity to access the data. Sadly, Heather Green et al., in a cover story on the subject, writes that the only way to be sure information will not fall into the wrong hands is to not log on in the first place. Our personal space is not only being taken away on the web. For several years the government has kept taps on the phones of innocent citizens. These taps react when certain words like "president" and "bomb" are said together. This system was set up to protect the public from any danger, though Athan Theoharis found "FBI officials used the acquired information to advance their own bureaucratic and political objectives" (103). Now, they have extended this practice to basically eavesdropping and recording people's telephone conversations in order to obtain even more information. They call this system Carnivore, which sounds evil enough to begin with. Furthermore, Bill Frezza reports "the cellular industry had rejected the FBI's real-time location of cell phone users." This would allow the FBI to track down the location of a cell phone even if it was not turned on. Yet, when their objectives became public, the FBI claimed they never asked for this tracking ability (Frezza). Richard A. Posner explains he would speak less frankly if he knew someone was listening. This is an obvious fact. People will be more secretive and will hold back what they really want to say when they know someone is taping their every word. However, this protection system would be a good way to protect citizens if used properly and had successful results. In theory, the FBI would listen to criminals on the phone, arrest them, and save thousands of lives. Then again, in real life, it does not work this way. First of all, wire taping is only supposed to be used as a last defense, but rarely is this followed. Complete strangers are taping thousands of hours of our phone calls. However, only a fraction of these recordings actually lead to drugs or drug money while most taps lead nowhere. Peter Jennings uncovered one case in Los Angeles where the police listened to 131,000 conversations and still had no evidence to make any arrests. Equally disturbing, is the fact that the FBI is supposed to inform the public that they are being taped. Yet, they have recently admitted they do not always follow this rule (Jennings). Richard Finlay, a writer for The Toronto Star, declares citizens have a right to be aware of public officials who are constantly invading their privacy. In addition, James E. Katz and Annette R. Tassone found "when asked about wire taping as a way to combat crime, the public . . . disapproved of it by a two-to-one ratio." So, the FBI says they are recording us for our own protection, but they are not doing so. And it is clear the public does not want the governments' help if it involves taking away their privacy. The evidence is not in the governments' favor, yet they continue recording. Is it wrong to assume they just made up their claim to protect citizens so they could listen in to conversations for their own benefit? Who would ever imagine they would steal our privacy, lie to the public, and get away from this obvious crime? Even the people who are supposed to keep personal items confidential are failing. For example, Colleen Sullivan reports that a college student, named Al Joseph DeGuzman, took a picture of himself in front of some bombs. The person who developed the photograph called the police upon viewing the shocking sight, and eventually DeGuzman was arrested. Rebecca Trounsan, a Los Angeles Times Staff Writer, informs the public that this man "faces charges of possession of bomb-making materials and possession of a sawed-off shotgun." Most photo labs are required to check for any child pornography or other suspicious photos, but it is the manager's job to report them and not the employees (Sullivan). Again, it is apparent that the rules are being broken. Nevertheless, this procedure has actually caught criminals and has inarguably saved many lives. On the other hand, should the photo lab be able to decide who looks dangerous? What if someone was just playing around or just looked suspicious? To this, the usual response is that "people have to expect that people are going to look at their pictures and do not have the right to be upset because they choose to let others develop their film" (Sullivan). But how would it be if all privacy in life were exposed by such an easy escape as this? Let's take a look at psychiatrists and priests for instance. It is not uncommon for individuals to talk to a psychiatrist or a priest about the most intimate details of their lives. This information, however, is kept completely confidential, and it is even illegal to share it with another human being. These professionals have a certain duty to uphold and do not reveal any information, even if they do not agree with others' actions or opinions. This just goes to show that some things in life are meant to be kept private, and the photo lab is not to be separated from them. People take their film and trust only the person developing it will see their private photos, and that is how it should be. In conclusion, our personal lives are not so personal anymore. Privacy, by definition, means the covering up of information. But let us not forget privacy is also used as a "synonym for freedom and autonomy" (Posner 405). In spite of everything, computer companies, the FBI, and photo labs are getting away with using our identities. They repeatedly lie, steal, and break the law for their own selfish and deceitful purposes. These crooks are taking advantage of billions of people who are unaware of the damage these corporations are causing them. But, technology is constantly advancing, privacy is diminishing and, regrettably, not much is being done to stop it. Sources Cited Finlay, Richard. "Big Brother Tories will all be Watching us Soon." Toronto Star 21 Jan. 2001. 1 Mar. 2001 <http://www.elibrary.com>. Frezza, Bill. "We Should Revoke the FBI's License to Snoop." Communications Week 14 Oct. 1996: 81. 29 Mar. 2001 <http://www.elibrary.com>. Green, Heather et al. "ONLINE PRIVACY: Our Four-Point Plan." Business Week 20 Mar. 2000: 86. 29 Mar. 2001 <http://www.elibrary.com>. Jennings, Peter, John Miller, and Jonathan Franzen. "Privacy Lost." World News Tonight 7 Oct. 1998. 29 Mar. 2001 <http://www.elibrary.com>. Katz, James E., and Annette R. Tassone. "A Report: Public Opinion Trends: Privacy and Information Technology." Public Opinion Quarterly 54 (Spring 1990): 125-143. Posner, Richard A. "Law and Economics in an Environment with Imperfect Information." The American Economic Review 71 (May 1981): 405-409. Rothfeder, Jeffrey. "You Are For Sale." PC World Monthly 1 Sept. 1998 1 Mar. 2001 <http://www.elibrary.com>. Sullivan, Colleen. "California Film Controversy Raises Privacy Concerns."University Wire 15 Feb. 2001. 29 Mar. 2001 <http://www.elibrary.com>. Theoharis, Athan. "FBI Wiretapping: A Case Study of Bureaucratic Autonomy." Political Science Quarterly 107 (Spring 1992): 101-122. Trounson, Rebecca. "Man Held in what Police say was a Plot for Campus Assault." Los Angeles Times 31 Jan. 2001, Home Ed.: A3. 29 Mar. 2001 <http://www.elibrary.com>.