The Limits of Privacy Post 9/11

By: Eduardo Trejo

Class: CST 373: Ethics in Comm & Tech

Introduction
Privacy is a very important concept in daily life, many would argue that it should be
protected and guarded no matter what since it is a constitutional right. Of course the boundaries
and content of what should be considered private differs among individual beliefs and culture.
However, things eventually changed due to the tragic events on September 11, 2001. Now the
Federal Government of the United States enforces and sees the right very differently than it did
before. Data around the world is gathered and scattered and technology advances the greater the
encryption and privacy has to be.
Personal Concept of Privacy
In the personal concept paper it was discussed that privacy is a delicate issue. Throughout
our childhood and adult life the way we think of privacy changes due to what we go through in
life. In today's society privacy has changed a lot due to social means like technology,
community, education, and family. I believe that privacy is a human right not a privilege, but the
degree of privacy that is allowed can change due to social means like technology, community,
education, and family but it is up to the individual to decide what should be known. Today's
information society most if not all the people are exposed but it is up to the individual to control
over what's exposed.
As I reflected through my own concepts of privacy, there were a couple of factors I took
into consideration. First of all my family and my environment played a role in defining my
personal concept of privacy, with some outside factors excluded since technology in my
childhood lacked. I am a fairly private person, through my school years I had a few close friends
to whom I entrusted personal information with. Of course in my life I don't want just anyone to

know information about me so I rather keep it to myself, it also depends on the situation.
According to Etzioni, "Privacy must be and is regularly weighted against many other
good".(Etzioni, 1999). I believe that with privacy comes with a cost, as a person you have to earn
it. Privacy can be a good or a bad thing depending on the situation, it has a back and forth kind of
issue that has no definite answer. The monitoring of specific groups can very well be a violation
of privacy and even be considered racial profiling under certain circumstances. As of 9/11 there
has many cases in which citizens and even politicians have done just that. When a tragedy occurs
people always look at a specific group or individual to blame. What this means is that most
people lack trust, it is hard to believe certain people that are affiliated with the same specific
ethnicity or religion that caused the tragedy.
Medical Information
One specific topic that I believe should be considered private is medical information, the
public should not need to know unless public lives are at stack. According to Ruth Macklin, "Is
freedom that important that you might allow 15, 000 babies' lives to be poured down the drain?"
(Etzioni, 1999). The argument that is brought up is that if a mother has HIV should they be
tested, along with their infant? "At a certain point, one balances freedom against lives, indeed.
We fight wars to preserve our freedom, knowing that a certain of people are going to die".
(Etzioni, 1999). Etzioni's stance suggest that positive test results be made public because the
overall safety of society trumps the mother's right to privacy. Of course if the test were done
without consent it would dimidiate the mother's privacy, with consent I believe it would be fine.
If I would have to disclose information involuntarily that to me would be a breach of my
personal privacy. I should have the power to unveil whatever information I feel comfortable
confiding in another person.

Post 9/11
One of the most important concepts to any U.S. citizen is being able to have privacy in
what they do in life. In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack that that
destroyed America's sense of security and invincibility, the government launched the Global War
on Terrorism. With this war, the U.S. has enacted a series of laws and executive orders that have
affected our everyday lives. Of course these steps were taken to prevent other attacks on U.S.
soil and restore a feeling of safety to the citizens.
By enacting the series of laws and orders the government has come under fire for
compromising civil rights and due process in the name of national security. The question that's
among most citizens is that if the counterterrorism measures have made us safer or have brought
unwanted consequences. Today, Technological innovations have made it easier for Americans to
conduct their lives electronically. Not only do they use the technological as a means of
communication but as a storing center as well. "Classified documents leaked last year by former
government contractor Edward Snowden detail the expansion of a colossus surveillance that has
seeped into the lives of millions of Americans."(Green, 2015). The public became frightened that
the government had so much information on them without the NSA telling them beforehand that
all the information that they are collecting is going to be stored and analyzed.
"Further audits reveal that the National Security Agency alone has annually scooped up
as many as 56, 000 emails and other communications by Americans with no connection
to terrorism, and violated privacy laws thousands of times per year since 2008.(Green,
2015).

The people want to have a say in whether or not they want their private information to be known,
store, and analyzed. The public has the power to choose if they want their government to have
the right to conduct their spying.
The reason why Americans' privacy rights under the national surveillance state has
eroded is in parts because the U.S. laws have not kept pace with the technology. Back in the day
once emails were read, the individual had the option to delete them and once they were deleted
they were gone forever. However, in today's society once emails are received they are archived
on their provider's server.
"Outdated digital privacy law is not only a threat to individual privacy, but it also fails to
protect adequately against government abuse. For example, both the Fourth Amendment
and a domestic wiretapping statute provide for an exclusionary remedy: If a law
enforcement official obtains information in violation of a defendants constitutional
privacy rights or the statute, that information usually cannot be used in court. The same
rule, however, does not apply to electronic information obtained in violation of ECPA.
Without an exclusionary rule, there is little deterrence against government
overreaching."(Shamsi and Abdo, 2011).
After the attack many wondered why this happened and during the time security was
pretty good for the standards back then. Once the nationality/ethnicity of the culprits were known
many were pointing fingers and looking for people to blame. Many Muslim were being targeted
for interrogation and had no way to object because if they were to, they most likely would be
seen as culprits. Of course no citizen should be treated like this just because of such an event and
they happen to be of the same nationality. Laws that upheld privacy and freedom for any citizen.

The Patriot Act

Legislation proposals response to the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001 were
introduced less than a week after the attacks. The USA Patriot Act introduced many changes to
increase surveillance and investigative powers of law enforcement agencies, even expanding
government investigative authority in respect to the internet. "The Act did not, however, provide
for the system of checks and balances that traditionally safeguards civil liberties in the face of
such legislation."(EPIC, 2015). Title II of the Act is entitled "Enhanced Surveillance Procedures"
it extends the government's authority to use wiretaps under the Foreign Intelligence Survey Act
of 1978.
"Typically, the Fourth Amendment requires a showing of probable cause before a warrant
will be issued in a criminal case. Before the Patriot Act, the government could conduct
such wiretaps only where the primary purpose was to obtain foreign intelligence. The
Patriot Act expanded the Fourth Amendment exception. Now, pursuant to section 218,
FISA may be used where a significant purpose of the investigation is foreign
intelligence gathering."(USLegal, 2010).
Public Opinion of Surveillance
Every person desires to have their own privacy protected, so it is believed among many
that the NSA should not be storing anyone's data or personal information since it is considered
an invasion of privacy. This statement is said because in no way has the NSA asked any
individual for their consent to be spied on.
"This widespread and invasive surveillance is has the effect of instilling fear in the
citizenry; fear that our thoughts, words and relationships will be the subject of

interception and analysis; fear that the content we access on the internet will be exposed.
This fear can cause us to withdraw from public spaces, censor our communications,
refrain from accessing certain services."(Finnegan and Nyst, 2013).
Even though the NSA is doing its duty to protect citizens from terrorism and tracking down
foreign intelligence, the people feel shocked on how their privacy is easily invaded and at a large
scale. The information and data that is gathered is comprised of phone calls, emails, social
networks, and internet searches.
The Limits of Privacy
As technology increases the increase in encryption comes with it. Encryption is used to
protect our communications, transactions, and emails to name a few. One solution to the loss of
privacy may be to focus more on developing and utilizing "hyper-privacy". "Hyper-privacy is
based on encryption(basically a very complicated code that protects the secrecy of the
communications involved), the advanced forms of which are very difficult some believe
impossible, to crack."(Etzioni, 1999). Etzioni explained that in the world today encryption is
becoming so important because everyone wants privacy. Citizens and companies today are using
encryption to encrypt what they send and receive on the internet. However, with heavy
encryption there is a heavy draw-back to it which is the ability to obtain necessary evidence
becomes almost impossible if not completely impossible. This impossible task does not sit well
with the FBI and NSA because it would make it much more difficult for them to gather
information from users, of course their goal is to track down suspicious and criminal activity. If
the citizens understand the trade-off then there decision to keep privacy should be respected.

Etzioni also talked about biometric identifiers and ID cards, that will become 100%
reliable and un-forgeable. This is where the limits of privacy hits the high point, if this would
come become reality most fugitives, illegal immigrants, tax evaders, and many others would
escape by relying on the false IDs. "If individuals could be properly identified, public safety
would be significantly enhanced and social and economic cost would be reduced
significantly."(Etzioni, 1999). These technologies can raise privacy concerns as well, what if you
are being tracked or the ability to be identified without your consent becomes a breach of
privacy.
Click
With the idea of privacy many people find a way to seclude the things they talk about,
what they are thinking about in a daily basis, and what they are doing. With the age of
technology more people find themselves more secluded. Instead of going out and doing some
outside activities, the online realm can do the same for some. According to Bill Tancer, "Search
engines have gone beyond the simple purpose of find information or navigating to a website.
Increasingly engines such as Google, Yahoo!Search, and the other thousand-some-off search
sites are serving as a source of knowledge and learning."(Tancer, 2008). In the book Click one of
the main questions that comes up is, Aren't we all, in some way, concerned about being judged
for our fears, perceived as being weak or irrational? We as individuals have chosen to look to the
computers to find answers to our failures and of others. The notion of having privacy online
makes people feel comfortable, instead of asking someone a question that they might judge you
for. With everyone being online though it can become dangerous because someone or something
could be collecting the data and analyze it. Technology is the revolution of the century, now we
can have easy access to social groups, information, and communities.

Comparing Our Personal Concepts of Privacy Within Our Culture

Generational
We currently live in a society where technology is in our daily routine. However, not everyone
has access to it. Smart phones are the overall main connection these days to the real world, back
in the day if you would go on vacation for a couple days you would not be able to stay up to date
on current events. As new generations come along, technology has vastly overwhelmed natural
teaching methods such as books or libraries.
"Whats more, the world isnt just divided between those who have internet access and
those who dont. We also need to consider the staggering differences between the quality
of access, individual internet literacy, and how these variables can be leveraged to create
good outcomes." (Evans, 2012).
Although technology is easily available to most, the main point is to know how to use it
properly. Individuals have to learn of what kind of information is okay to provide online and
what to keep with them. If there's enough identifiable information in the online data, individuals
could be picked out and potentially targeted by any random agencies, companies, hackers, to
name a few. We should be concerned about who can exploit the data, and how much control we
have over access. That is why many still like the traditional approach to doing things.
Religion
In most religions there is a little to no tolerance policy of acceptance of LGBT members
into their community. If they would acknowledge such members it would mean to renounce their
faith in God in certain circumstances.

"The other moral argument put forward by the world's great faiths is that homosexuality
is 'unnatural'. God create man and woman with complementary capacities, and not to use
them is an insult to the creator."(Waldman, 2003).
In today's society if a member of the LGBT would be strongly religious it would be frowned
upon to even post their beliefs on the internet due to backlash and shaming of the individual. The
individuals online privacy would be taken into question, so they would rather refrain from stating
their beliefs. It is understandable if something like this would happen to someone it would create
a strain on their lives in a negative aspect. An example that comes to mind is teens being their
true selves. Some teens know that they have privacy to state how they feel on online blogs, but
what they don't know some people can ruin their lives by reporting back to their families that
may be strongly religious.
"Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but
this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those
beliefs on others who do not share them."(ACLU, 2015.)
Political
Countries deal with the use of internet differently, even if individuals have the right to
use the technology. Content opposing the current government or its policies get you in serious
trouble with the government even though you have the right. "..data you hold with any US
internet company , be it Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple, or Yahoo, is easily accessible by
the US government under National Security Agency(NSA) program called Prism. "(Shubber,
2013). Governments must not use cyber security for censorship or to deny people their
opportunities that the internet represents. Censorship of internet content can take many forms and

10

ranges from governments blocking the dissemination of political opinion to blacklisting

pornographic and pirate websites. If one would bring up the topic of armed conflicts, border
disputes, militant groups and separatist movements on the internet it would be flagged by one's
country. "North Korea: All websites are under government control. About 4% of the population
has Internet access."(USA Today, 2014). Allowing the government to access personal
information is a violation to our rights even though it is for "safety reasons". To suggest that the
vast internet spying and data collection programs have been built with our interests in mind is a
stretch. Ever since the 9/11 incident, the idea of some sort of conspiracy is on most political and
governmental figures' minds, they even believe it could be the closest people we may know.
Among Americans there is a broad agreement that we should not have to sacrifice civil liberties
to be safe from terrorism, which is share across all typology groups.
"Overall, 74% say Americans shouldn't have to give up privacy and freedom in order to
be safe from terrorism, while just 23% say Americans need to be willing to give up
privacy and freedom in order to be safe from terrorism."(PewResearchCenter, 2014).
For that reason that data collection should not be allowed to occur, more people would rather
keep their rights then give them up. "A majority of Americans(54%) disapprove of the
government's collection of telephone and internet data as part of anti-terrorism efforts; 42%
approve of the program."(PewResearchCenter, 2014).
Concepts of Other Cultures Outside the United States
Germany
The idea of privacy of personal data is deeply ingrained in German culture. Germans
even have a word for it "Datensparsamkeit", which is the principle of only collecting the bare

11

minimum of data necessary and anonymity is part of their idea of freedom. The concept of
Datensparsamkeit is written into Germany's 2003 Federal Data Protection Act.
"When asked in 2013 whether they thought the US government respects its citizens'
personal freedom, 81% of Germans said yes. But in 2014, after the Snowden revelations
made clear the extent of US National Security Agency (NSA) spying, that number
dropped to 58%."(Dobush, 2015).
Due to the revelations Germans deeply distrust how the U.S. handles digital data. Germany also
warns its citizens that when they enter the United States their electronics and storage media may
be searched by border authorities.
"In June 2014, the German Bundestag, or national parliament, canceled its internetservice contract with US telecom Verizon, opting to entrust its data to German company
Deutsche Telekom, instead. The alleged tapping of Angela Merkel's personal cell phone
in Dec. 2013, has led the German chancellor to compare the NSA to the East German
secret police, and German citizens remain outraged at the NSA's actions in their
country."(Dobush, 2015).
From this statement it's determine that the German citizens take their privacy to heart, they do
not want any their data to be gathered. They want to keep their privacy intact.
France
Currently in France there is a proposed law that would allow the government to monitor
emails and phone calls of suspected terrorists and their contacts, without seeking authorization.

12

The way this would be done is by having telecommunication and internet companies
automatically filter vast amounts of data.
"Of particular concern is the provision requiring telecoms to automatically filter internet
traffic. Under the law, internet service providers would have to install monitoring
mechanisms referred to by the French media as "black boxes" that would use
algorithms to detect, in real time, suspicious behaviors in internet metadata. The bill's
supporters stress that this metadata would remain anonymous and that content of
communications would not be automatically swept up, but the behaviors that would
constitute a "terrorist-like" pattern are still unclear. Critics say the measure effectively
amounts to mass surveillance of web traffic on a disproportionately large scale. Under the
bill, recordings could be stored for up to one month, and metadata for up to five
years."(Toor, 2015).
Since 2005, France has gone by specific strategy that follows: prevent, protect, pursue, and
respond. Many of France's citizens see terrorism as the biggest lie and step to restrain liberty.
Citizens would rather keep their privacy intact then to have surveillance in their daily lives. It has
been questioned that the approach taken is appropriate to prevent terrorism but it crosses the line
of violating human rights and citizenship of the people.
Japan
In April 1, 2005 Japan's Law Concerning the Protection of Personal Information took
effect.
"The Privacy Law defines personal information very broadly. It covers all the data or
all living persons that can be used to identify specific individuals by name, date of birth,

13

or other description. It includes publicly available information (phone numbers) as well

as business contacts, HR data and patient records. It is hard to think of facts about a
person that do not qualify as personal information."(Todd, 2005).
Individuals must be told why and how their personal data will be used. With the law individuals
have access to personal information about them and that businesses respond promptly to access
request, with limited exceptions. This concept differs so much from what we have in the U.S, it
is great the citizens can see their own data that has been collected.
Conclusion
Be it at home or another country, issues surrounding privacy are dealt differently. This is
due to social, political, and religious means along with the somewhat forced evolution that came
with the September 11, 2001 incident. In some countries governments are more involved in their
citizen's lives and demands in privacy that help or deny them their rights. The circumstances we
are placed in and the actions we take as human beings contribute to the how we define and
perceive privacy.

14

References
ACLU. (2015). Using Religion to Discriminate.
https://www.aclu.org/feature/using-religion-discriminate
Dobush, Grace. (April 24, 2015). Germans are paranoid that the US is spying on their data.
http://qz.com/390988/germans-are-paranoid-that-the-us-is-spying-on-their-data/
EPIC. (2015). USA Patriot Act.
https://epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/
Etzioni, Amitai. (1999). The Limits of Privacy.
Evans, Nicholas G. and Henschke, Adam. (October 29, 1012). Open health, privacy and the
digital divide.
http://theconversation.com/open-health-privacy-and-the-digital-divide-9344
Finnegan, Shawna and Nyst, Carly. (June 13, 2013). US-based surveillance and data collection:
New UN report provides guidance on PRISM.
https://www.apc.org/en/news/us-based-surveillance-and-data-collection-new-un-r
Green, Matthew. (September 10, 2015). How 9/11 Changed America: Four Major Lasting
Impacts.
http://ww2.kqed.org/lowdown/2014/09/10/13-years-later-four-major-lasting-impacts-of-911/
PewResearchCenter. (June 26, 2014). Section 6: Foreign Affairs, Terrorism and Privacy.
http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/26/section-6-foreign-affairs-terrorism-and-privacy/

15

Shamsi, Hina and Abdo, Alex. (2011). Privacy and Surveillance Post-9/11.
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol38_2
011/human_rights_winter2011/privacy_and_surveillance_post_9-11.html
Shubber, Kadhim. (July 29, 2013). Censorship and surveillance: Cameron's internet.
http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/29/censorship-surveillance
Tancer, Bill. (September 2, 2008). Click: What Millions of People Are Doing Online and Why It
Matters
Todd, B. Frost. (Juyly 2005). Global Privacy - Japan Sets its Rules for Personal Data.
http://www.frostbrowntodd.com/resources-524.html
Toor, Amar. (April 17, 2015). France wants to fight terrorism by spying on everyone.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/4/17/8439465/france-surveillance-law-anti-terrorism-charliehebdo
USA Today. (February 5, 2014). Top 10 Internet-censored countries.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/05/top-ten-internet-censors/5222385/
USLegal. (2010). Title II. Enhanced Surveillance Procedures.
http://civilrights.uslegal.com/usa-patriot-act/provisions-of-the-patriot-act/title-ii-enhancedsurveillance-procedures/
Waldman, Steven. (November 19, 2003). A Common Missed Conception.
http://www.slate.com/articles/life/faithbased/2003/11/a_common_missed_conception.html