| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | Sharping the New Perimeter of Digital Privacy | >
> | Shaping the New Perimeter of Privacy | | | | |
<
< |
"Shaping" or "sharpening"? I'm not sure which.
| >
> | -- Revised By WanTingHuang - 05 May 2021 | | | | |
<
< | -- By WanTingHuang - 11 Mar 2021 | >
> | 1. Smart City and Automatic Recognition Cameras
The cameras on the roads and streets have raised huge concerns. "The automatic recognition cameras benefit to build up a smart city," allegedly by governments. However, is it really the whole story of automatic recognition cameras? Why would choose those "smart" ones? | | | | |
<
< | 1. The expectation of Privacy and The Risk of Sharing Information
As technology has developed, many people couldn't live without digital devices, and often share their personal information to exchange for "convenience." However, when a person shares his/her information with another individual or company, does he/she really know where will the information be distributed? Does this person understand the risk of sharing information? And let's look at another perspective: does this person know his/her information being collected? Could a person distinguish the private from the public after sharing information? | >
> | 2. The God's Eye
There are facial recognition cameras in stations in many countries. Those cameras, which exist at stations, gates and street lamps, are so smart that they can recognize every face in its database in less than a second, identifying who you are, analyzing your facial movements and emotion, predicting your next-step movements. Anyone who owns those "smart" ones, will become the God that governs everyone. However, who owns those cameras, the government who set up those cameras, the company that makes them, or a third party? People may feel that only the authorized government agency can own those cameras and the data those cameras collected. But the truth is always ugly. | | | | |
<
< | 2. The Fourth Amendment: A Powerful Weapon?
In the United States, people’s right to privacy is protected under the Fourth Amendment, and police officers need a warrant to search legally. If the government entities want to search without legal authorization, the third-party doctrine is the best way to circumvent the requirement. | | | | |
<
< | Even though in Carpenter, the Supreme Court found how the new technology changes the way in which privacy should be protected, and held that enforcement acquisition of CSLI requires a warrant. But as a user consent and shares information with a third-party company, this person gives up the expectation of privacy. And at this moment, the company, which is the third party, will not claim the Fourth Amendment rights because the information does not belong to them. Therefore, government entities including police have found a new way of collecting information: asking a third-party to provide information. What’s more, maybe they will also make an agreement and purchase information from a third-party. In this case, notwithstanding how powerful the Fourth Amendment is, it is no longer a knight for individuals, because the individual has surrendered and given out his/her weapon, and government entities can get whatever information they want without a warrant or physically trespassing onto people’s property. | >
> | (1) Can a Government Capture Everyone's Biometric Data?
If a government wants to collect all people's personal data and biometric data without reason, people will highly probably refuse. But this situation happens almost everyday -- governments collect innocent people's data, without proper reason or with poor reason. Take cameras of automatic number-plate recognition systems for example. This system can be used for the detection of average speeds and help to decrease the traffic accident rate -- which alleged by the government as the purpose of setting up this system. Nevertheless, the problem of average speed cameras is not on who drives over-speed but on those who do not drive overs-peed. Through this system, the government can establish mass surveillance of vehicle movements. Once governments profess to have public interest, they can access every camera that automatically captures every number plate and even driver's face, even if innocent drivers. Although the purpose of decreasing the traffic accident rate could be done by a traditional camera, a government can take advantage of automatic recognition software in the smart camera and use its data without people's awareness, and that could help a government to govern its people, or even control its people. | | | | |
<
< | 3. The Problem of automatic recognition cameras
In another perspective, the cameras on the roads and streets have raised huge concerns as well. Take cameras of automatic number-plate recognition systems for example. This system can be used for the detection of average speeds and help to decrease the traffic accident rate -- which alleged by the government as the purpose of setting up this system. Nevertheless, the problem of average speed cameras is not on who drives over-speed but on those who do not drive overs-peed. Through this system, the government can establish mass surveillance of vehicle movements. Once governments profess to have public interest, they can access every camera that automatically captures every number-plate and even driver's face, even if innocent drivers. | >
> | (2) Can a Government Agency Share Data with Another Agency?
A facial recognition camera should only be used with proper and reasonable purpose, and the data collected by those cameras should only be used for their set-up purpose.
It is undoubtfully that a government could not set up a facial recognition camera without authority by law. However, can a government agency share its data with another agency? For example, can an image captured at a driveway of an E-pass be shared with a taxation bureau? Or let me ask in another way. Can a public housing department share its data which was collected by its cameras on the corridor with the police department?
More and more people concern about data sharing among governmental departments, especially when more cameras are set up and the technology advanced. And we should not allow a government agency to share its data with another department without transparency. | | | | |
<
< | The facial recognition cameras are more horrible. When those cameras exist at every station, gate and corner, and even in the offices and classrooms, identifying who you are, analyzing your facial movements, predicting your next-step movements, and you are no longer a freeman. | | | | |
<
< |
But the camera doesn't necessarily need to be modified for facial recognition to occur, after all. A camera is just some hardware for acquiring images, which can be processed by software at any subsequent stage.
| >
> | (3) Can a Company Shares Data?
Many governments often outsource technical projects to technology companies, as a symbol of progress, but ignore the risk behind the software made by private companies. Sometimes, a technology company transmits the data collected by its devices to its own company, beyond the consent of the owner of the devices, alleged to promote the function of its devices and improving the customer's service.
In other words, it is like a worker who came to build up your house, left a key of your house privately, and often came to your house to get something to his house -- saying that is for maintaining the function of your house. If this sounds preposterous to you, so does data collected and shared with a private company. | | | | |
<
< | 4. The Triangle of Regulation, Education, and Technology
As technology evolves rapidly and more and more data are generated in new ways, it is impossible that the legislation could run ahead of technology. Although many people believe that government entities will always follow the law, the reality is cruel.
People should not rely on the legislation only. Instead, the legislation, technology and education shall be a triangle. And the triangle shall pull each other arm-in-arm, rather than fighting with each other. When people understand the risk of technology devices and the potential danger of sharing information, they will get a better chance to defend against the violation of the right to privacy themselves. | >
> | 3. Reemerge of the Privacy Protection
Nowadays, advanced technology has forced people to rethink the relationship between people and a government, and the distinction between public and private. As the cameras are set up at more and more spots, the line between the private and the public is harder to distinguish. Moreover, as data flows around and gets linked to other data, it erases the boundaries of private and public and has redefined our privacy laws. The line between public and private is no longer be the same as the first time we learn their difference decades ago. Moreover, technology changes so quickly that the legislation could not catch up on time every moment. On one hand, a government can use a traditional camera instead of an automatic recognition camera. On the other hand, if a government would like to use a smart camera, the scope of data usage and its sharing should be strictly regulated. | | | | |
<
< | 5. Privacy Protection: Fade or Reemerge
Nowadays, advanced technology has forced people to rethink the distinction between public and private. As data flows around and gets linked to other data, it erases the boundaries of private and public and has redefined our privacy laws. The line between public and private is no longer be the same as the first time we learn their difference decades ago. Moreover, technology changes so quickly that the legislation could not catch up on time every moment. Hence, emphasizing something as a legal requirement also will not automatically reduce the risk efficiently and effectively.
Rather than saying technology is a bad thing, I will say that technology could eliminate anonymity easily if people did not knowingly protect their information. And the fact is that, when people consent to be collected by the technology devices, they make themselves in the possibility of being surveillance by the government, and thus they could not assert they are “freemen” anymore.
Decades ago, rarely can people imagined a community in which a phone goes wherever its owner goes, transmitting comprehensive and detailed information to third-party companies, and the third-party companies provide, exchange or sell clients' information to another company or government department.
Nonetheless, people have the right to pursue and obtain safety, anonymity, and privacy. If people were uneducated and unequipped to fight against the violation of the right to privacy, a nightmare in a novel would become the reality in the near future. Even though the enforcement agency or other governmental department would argue that what they do is to protect the security of the nation and public interest, but still, we are and should have the right to be freemen with the right to privacy, anonymity. As technology evolves, the protection of privacy should also evolve.
I think the best route to improvement is a tighter focus. By writing at the highest level of generality you are compelled to treat too many subjects in 1,000 words to add any new ideas of your own. You have written well at this "op-ed for general readers" level in last term's course. It will make this draft much better to take one of your topics here, like facial recognition for example, focus on the relations between the technology, the private providers and the State , and you will have an excellent essay.
| >
> | All in all, rather than saying technology is a bad thing, I will say that technology should not be everything. Even though a governmental agency, and enforcement department, or another department would argue that what they collect people’s personal information and biometric data is to protect the security of the nation and public interest, but still, we are and should have the right to be freemen with the right to privacy, anonymity. As technology evolves, the protection of privacy should also evolve. In addition, using technology by the government should be more regulated. And how a government takes advantage of the data they collected intentionally or unintentionally should both be reported to the public with transparency. With the advancement of technology, the protection of privacy should be promoted as well. | | |
|
|