Editorial: Risk of Online Privacy

Current Internet Privacy Laws are lax, to say the best. They are outdated and easily exploitable. There is little to no protection for those that use the Internet. And we are at the risk of having our online privacy invaded, or our information harvested and sold by companies to third parties. The government has not provided any solid privacy laws, possibly so they can continue to invade the people's personal privacy with little repercussion. We need a change in online privacy law, and we need it immediately.

We have not had an update in Internet Privacy laws in decades. The ECPA, or Electronic Communications Protection Act, was the last solid law passed, and this was in 1986, before the Internet became the dominating force it is today. Though there is also the more recent Patriot Act, this only gives the government more power to invade our privacy, instead of protecting our rights. There is the Fourth Amendment, however this is open to interpretation, and the constitution is only applicable to the government, not private organizations. With so little protection, it's very easy to access and exploit online information. All of this puts us at great risk. A lack of consequences allows organizations great leisure in accessing our online accounts. And there is little we can do to prevent it.

A loose legal net around Internet Privacy, allows many to slip past. The government for one, has few restrictions on their access of our digital information, take for example, the man who had his laptop confiscated and searched for eleven days by border control. Colleges and businesses can also use online information to decide whether or not to admit or hire applicants. In addition there are aforementioned companies, who will gather bits and pieces of information you web browsing reveals, then sell it to the highest bidder. In one case this lead to an old man being scammed out of a large sum of money, when a group of telemarketers purchased his online information. There are clearly many risks to having so little protection for our online privacy. When people are polite and ethical while using the Internet, there are few problems. However in the case of those who exploit the laws and sneak through gaps in Online Privacy, there is a true risk to all users of the Internet.

We need a change to our Internet Privacy. There are clear measures that must be taken. The first is restricting companies from selling our online information without our knowledge or consent. It is unjust for companies to make a profit off our online browsing, especially when it puts us at risk. In addition we must make it illegal for colleges and businesses to demand access to our online information, before they accept us. In addition the government shouldn't so easily be able to look at our online information, especially without warrant. With these corrections, we can have some protection against organization and government exploitation. It is impossible to be protected without proper laws, though there are some righteous enough to be ethical, there are always those that will take advantage. This is the reason we need laws, as demonstrated by all the methods that have been used to invade our online privacy.

There is no greater risk to Internet Privacy than those that wish to exploit the lack of solid laws. This is why there is a call and necessity for an increase in online privacy laws. As technology continues to evolve, there is more and more not covered under our current laws, and more and more risk to users of the Internet, especially those unaware of those risks. We should not have to live in fear, that our online accounts can be scrutinized or harvested for profit. It is within our right to demand a change in a law, a change that, once enacted, will prevent the exploitation of the new forms of technology. This is what is necessary for our online rights to be protected and safe. The Constitution is just, but our laws need to keep up with our technology.

My Interview

My private interview was with Frederick Lane, referred to by some as the regional expert on internet privacy. In my interview with Mr. Lane, he came forward with a strong opinion that we need further laws to protect our internet privacy. He talked about how we have little real protection against the government and other organizations that want to access our online profiles. He admitted that though companies, schools, and government should be able to request access to our online profiles, such investigations should always be done with the awareness of the individual and their consent. He condemned sneaky internet investigations to find out more about an individual without their knowledge.

In summation, Mr. Lane firmly believes that we need tighter internet privacy laws. He believes that companies and government alike will continue to use the many loopholes in our current system, until the point that we address the topic of internet privacy in future laws, that are current and up to

date enough to protect our interests.

Stakeholders

There are two sides to this issue. The first are the users and activist groups who call for an increase in internet privacy. They cite the fourth amendment as their protection. Unfortunately only the government is covered by the fourth amendment, not private organizations and companies. This is why there is a need for increased internet privacy, in the opinion of these individuals and organizations.

The second side of the issue is the government, as well as colleges and organizations. Those who seek to use your personal information for their own purposes. The government can defend their invasion of your privacy as "providing for the common good" or protecting the general public. Colleges and organizations need not defend their invasion of their privacy, due to the fact there are no laws preventing them from doing so. These stakeholders clearly wish for internet laws to remain ambiguous and loose, so that they may exploit them.

Panel Day: Reflection

On panel day, we heard from two lawyers: Kevin Ryan and Mike Kennedy. Both of them are experiencing the changes that technology creates on all aspects of society. They seemed to share a similar opinion on the risks and benefits of internet privacy. They condemned those that used the internet to exploit others without their knowledge. Such as colleges that backhandedly use your Facebook profile to decide whether or not they should admit you. Or businesses that demand to look at your online accounts to ensure your job. However they also said that you have a reasonable expectation to privacy, and beyond that the government has a right to check your accounts.

Both Kevin and Mike also cited the fourth amendment as the main protection against the government searching our internet accounts. However the fourth amendment only covers the government, and private organizations do not have to abide by that. Apart from this, there is no laws that keep us safe from others invading our internet privacy. The two lawyers seemed convince that there would be no changes to the constitution, however we could see further laws that address these technology issues. There is certainly a gaping whole in legal regulations when it comes to the internet. The hope is that we will soon have more legal protection and definition, however until then we must remain in ambiguity.

Quotes

Robbins vs. West Merion School District

"But the official who ran the program, who is accused of downloading some photos on her home computer, didn't exactly help make that case in an email exchange cited in the motion. Another employee emailed her, "It's like a little LMSD soap opera." She shot back: "I know, I love it!""

-Newser.com

"In the complaint, the plaintiffs voice concerns as to any students or family members who could have been caught in “embarrassing and humiliating” situations, noting that “the laptops at issue were routinely used by students and family members while at home,” and that “many of the images captured and intercepted may consist of images of minors and their parents or friends in compromising or embarrassing positions, including, but not limited to, in various stage of dress or undress.”"

-Americasright.com

"Robbins expressed anguish in his lawsuit against the school, though he now makes light of the incident on his Facebook profile, where he’s a member of the groups, “I feel so safe in my room with a computer LOL. jk… I’m from Lower Merion” and Keep your pants on, Lower Merion is watching you!."

-Forbes.com

""It was just really creepy," she says. She covered the webcam lens with tape."

-USA Today

"gross negligence, reckless indifference and wanton abandonment of all responsibility to train, supervise, control, monitor, and discipline the employees of the school district acting in the course and scope of their employment, and with actual or tacit approval of the School District in the activities and behavior of its ... employees which were, by all moral, legal, ethical, and rational standards ... outrageous."

-Civil Suit filed by Plaintiff

Quon vs. Ontario

"JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring in the judgment, would have dis

pensed with the “operational realities” inquiry and concluded “that

the offices of government employees . . . are [generally] covered by

Fourth Amendment protections,” id., at 731, but he would also have

held “that government searches to retrieve work-related materials or

to investigate violations of workplace rules—searches of the sort that are regarded as reasonable and normal in the private-employer con-text—do not violate the . . . Amendment,” id., at 732. Pp. 7–9."

-Supremecourt.gov

"In this case, the high court said, the police chief's reading of the officer's text messages was a search, but it was also reasonable."

-LA Times

"Justice Kennedy was very hesitant about the scope of today’s decision. He wrote:

Rapid changes in the dynamics of communication and information transmission are evident not just in the technology itself but in what society accepts as proper behavior. At present, it is uncertain how workplace norms, and the law’s treatment of them, will evolve."

-Abovethelaw.com

Barnes v. CUS Nashville, LLC

"On or about September 19, 2008, Plaintiff was a business invitee of the Saloon and in that capacity was encouraged by employees of the Saloon to climb onto the Saloon's bar to dance. At the time of said encouragement, the Saloon's bar was wet and extremely slick. As a result of the Saloon's employee's encouragement, Plaintiff did attempt to climb onto the bar to be photographed with her friends. In so doing, Plaintiff slipped on the wet and slick bar and fell backwards a considerable distance, striking the back of her head on the ground."

-Filed Plaintiff Suit

"The magistrate judge chastises both parties for their failure to cooperate in the discovery process, and specifically calls out the defendant for its "mishandling of the Facebook subpoena." The judge then offers to create a Facebook account "for the sole purpose of reviewing photographs and related comments in camera . . . and disseminat[ing] any relevant information to the parties.""

-Eric Goldman Technology and Law Blog

Possible Contacts

Jo Edmondson Outsider's Opinion

Hinesburg, VT

(802) 482-****

Christine Bowden Internet User

Hinseburg, VT

(802) 482-****

Tracy Tomasi Current Events Expert

Hinesburg, VT
(802) 482-****

Cases

Robbins vs. Lower Merion High School District

In this case, a school used laptops' webcams to monitor their students. It was revealed when the wrongly accused a student of illicit behavior, referencing images gathered from his laptop's webcam. This student proceeded to file a suit against the school for an invasion of privacy. The court ruled that the school was wrong to use this technology-which was intended as an anti-theft precaution-instead on a daily basis. This case is a clear example of an invasion of privacy, however in other scenarios; it is less clear where the line is drawn.

Ontario vs. Quon

This case was between a police officer and the city of Ontario. It involved the officer using a text communication pager device that was issued to him by the state, to engage in private communications with his wife and girlfriend. The dispute began with the town accusing him of being negligent on the job, and continued with the officer claiming the town had invaded his privacy. When brought to the Supreme Court, the court ruled in favor of the city, however the judge also stated that there were few clear laws that applied to this case. This is a clear indication of a need for better constructed technology privacy laws.

Barnes v. CUS Nashville, LLC

The third case, involves the plaintiff a women who slipped and fell in a bar, accusing aforementioned bar of goading her into dancing on the bar, which lead to her slipping and falling off. The court's final decision is far less important, than the judge's ruling to use witnesses' Facebook accounts as evidence. He proposed that he would create a temporary account and friend these witnesses, so that pictures from their profiles could be used in the case. This demonstrates that there are no laws preventing courts from using internet accounts in cases. Proving that there should be more laws created that address issues such as these.