ICT,+Rights,+&+Privacy

In collaboration with your debate partner, summarize the best three arguments for both the 'for' and 'against' sides of your prompt (that is 3 arguments for 'for' and 3 arguments for 'against'). Each argument should be a separate paragraph. Be sure to provide thorough evidence (with citation to sources; hyperlinking is ok) and explanation in each argument (PEE). toc
 * ICT, Rights, & Privacy Debate Summaries**

Topic 1
//A government should have access to emails and Internet surfing histories for security purposes//.

**FOR** 1) The Internet has transformed into a lawless world where people abuse their power by committing internet crime such as online terrorist attacks.  Many Terrorists groups use the internet to plan out their attacks, if the government had the access to check these peoples emails and internet history, they could stop attacks from happening. There have been many cases where the government located suspected terrorist but couldn’t stop them due to the regulations. For example before the 9/11 attacks, a police officer had found names of two the terrorist but he couldn’t get any more information on them due to the rules blocking him from accessing them, if the officer was given information, the 9/11 attacks could have been stopped ([|Miller Center]).   1252373867 2)  If the government is blocked from accessing the internet, someone else would access it. Hackers and many organizations can easily use the internet to get information on someone, and use this information for their own good. In 2008, there was almost 280,000 complaints from people claiming they had been scammed by hackers or websites, it is estimated that over $265 million was lost ([|IC3]). If the government had the access to manage the internet, then none of this would happen and the internet would be a much safer place. 1252373867

3) Many large sites such as Google, have access to almost all their users data such as name, email, address etc. Google uses this information for their own good, by using it on things like Google Adsense to make money. If people allow large corporation to access their info, then they should also let their governments access them too. Their information would be a lot safer if the government had control, then the large organizations like Google.

Human rights is a key issue that is often overlooked when discussing about security measures for the globe. However, it is a right that all humans are born with, and should be upheld beyond the rules made my law, or the opinions of others. By having access to peoples' emails and internet history, the government is violating the human rights issue of privacy. For example, when the government assumes that by accessing our private information, they will be able to reduce terrorist attacks. However, by violating our rights as humans, the government as consequently become a terrorist themselves. Therefore, the so called "war on terror" has not only spread internationally, but domestically as well by our own government.
 * AGAINST **

As the government becomes more diligent in preventing terrorist attacks, they have begun to access our private information for "evidence" against the terrorists. Even though the Forth Amendment blatantly states that humans have the right for privacy, the government continues to push forth by finding loopholes in numerous acts, such as the Stored Communications Act. However, what must be noted is how the government is continuing these heinous acts, even when they are discovered by the public. Sooner or later, the government will apply these situations to other events. For example, if the government was allowed access to our private information, the government may believe that they have the duty to provide "safety". Moments later, they may apply curfews throughout the country, and soon become a dictatorship before we know it.

An important issue to look into is the International Labor Organization Code of 1996, which covers private and public sector employees. One of the most common idea is that "if you don't have something to hide, then it doesn't matter." However, this is still a huge concern. While governments do have the right to look for information due to the ILO code, it only applies to employees. It, in fact, has no relationship to information from personal computers. Therefore, by finding these "loopholes", the government is actually not finding ways to help protect us. Instead, they are violating their own acts, which shows the hypocritical nature of the government. 1252523933

Topic 2
//Video surveillance systems are necessary in large cities to ensure the safety of its residents and visitors//.

**FOR** Safety is a genuine concern to be taken into account. A crime can occur anywhere, and if you or someone you care about were the victim of a crime, you would be relieved and thankful to know that the perpetrator could be identified through city cams. A new system called Safe recognition software- first used in 1998 in London, can be used to trace down suspects suspected of terrorism and prevent them from carryiung out their crime. Even without the cameras, our privacy had been infringed. Video surveillance are not only cameras that could be possible following you, Now that technology is so abundant. Any one can have a Personal cameras such as camera phones and portable video cameras. If there is a high chance of someone stalking you on video surveillance, there would be an equally large amount of chance of someone stalking you and following you around discreetly. Some may say the surveillance cameras infringe your privacy, however some rights have to be sacrificed for the general safety of the public. A special case happened in London 3 years ago, a man who was a suspected terrorist was seen wandering around the tube stations on camera. The police were alerted and apprehended the man before he could set off the bomb he was about to put in place. Because of the sruveillance cameras, people's lives were saved. 1252386099

The surveillance systems don’t lower crime it just displaces it, thus not ensuring the safety of the residents. Typically cameras are placed in high rent commercial areas, which means the crime will just be moved to low rent residential areas ([|http://www.privacyinternational.org/article.shtml?cmd[347=x-347-61925&als[theme]=Video%20Surveillance&headline=CCTV%20Frequently%20Asked%20Questions#3]] ). // And as //Richard Thomas, Acting Deputy Chief Constable for Gwent has said "Certainly the crime goes somewhere. I don't believe that just because you've got cameras in a city center that everyone says 'Oh well, we're going to give up crime and get a job". This points out how we try to solve a more complex problem, just by installing cameras, which doesn’t work. Furthermore there’s this survey made of Glasgow’s city centre showing that people don’t feel safer, because of cameras. If we look at the rate of fall elsewhere (outside Galsgow city centre) as a baseline, Glasgow's smaller fall actually looks more like a 9 per cent rise. //Jason Ditton is Professor.// [|//http://www.scotcrim.u-net.com/news1.htm//]//.// This shows how installing cameras does not prevent crime, it’s just displacing it to other areas.
 * AGAINST **

Public surveillance may ruin people’s privacy. As an example of how our privacy can be ruined by cameras, we can take a look at the UK, where they have the most video surveillance per capita. This means that you can easily find footage from of couples intertwining in office stockrooms, elevators or cars, and such scenes are sold commercially in UK video stores. There’s an example of a video entitled “Really Caught in the Act”. This shows how there’s no control at all of the authorization of those footages, and it’s ruining the privacy of innocent people. We don’t have any privacy if the videos recorded just can be sold in common video stores. The Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act is a privacy law in Canada. They state that the surveillance is only legal when those, who are being taped, are aware that it’s happening, and this is not the fact in many cases. Furthermore videotapes that are shown in public, like the ones on this website called [], might show individuals that may not have been charged yet. This could mean that their faces are already broadcasted, ruining their privacy. The authorities might have mistaken the identity, or it may just simply be a misunderstanding – and thus is a serious threat to our privacy. Furthermore new technology allows the cameras to zoom, tilt, record in during night etc. and even penetrate walls, which makes the authorities able to “see” through clothing and get a precise intimate anatomical detail of people’s body. ([]) Thus threatening peoples’ privacy.

The use of surveillance cameras is too expensive compared to benefit and safety it gives residents. You need to weigh the benefits versus the costs; it just seems more like a “quick fix” to a particular and more complicated problem, and in many cases it seems to me that it is fuelled by the surveillance and IT companies. For example a recent British government report found that while video surveillance accounts for nearly 75 percent of the country’s crime prevention spending, the cameras have “no effect on violent crimes” ([]). This shows how we spend a lot of money on the technology, which in many cases might be unreliable (face recognition – Tampa police in Florida - []) and has no actual effect on the safety of the citizens. So instead of spending all the money on cameras and time reviewing tapes, as they do after the London bombings [], wouldn’t it be better to spend it on multiple police units to monitor and control the public spaces, thus ensuring the safety. The fact that you have the police units on the street makes those able to prevent crime instead of just observing it. Another fact is that everyone has a cell phone, so the things that needs to be recorded are probably recorded by individuals and their camera cell phones. [] 1252462660

Topic 3
//Police should have the right to install GPS devices on unknowing criminal suspects for both prevention and indictment purposes//.

**FOR**

1) The GPS system violates the privacy rights of the subject. In the International Index of Privacy and Human Rights, under the section of satellite surveillance regarding both vehicle tracking and personnel tracking through the GPS system, it is stated that both sides must agree to the situation for the tracking to be legal and legit. The manufacturer of the vehicle also has the right to refuse initiating the GPS tracking plan. The tracked subject must know that they are too be tracked in order for tracking to happen. This is a flawed system as no obvious criminal want to further deepen their suspicion. 1252386872
 * AGAINST **

2) The GPS system is too inefficient in tracking. It's a waste of resources. The hardware current is simply not capable of sustaining it self for long term tracking. An example would be that in Florida, the Jessica Lunford Act enforced all child sexual abuse offenders to be tracked with GPS anklets for 5 years. However, 40% of these tracked offenders still was able to recommit the crime. There are various ways to deactivate the anklet momentarily with household items. Also, it's pointless to track the offender since it does not matter where he commits the crime. GPS tracking does not show what the offender is doing, you can only predict what he's doing from his location.

3) Although GPS tracking may be handy, it's still required for people to watch the signals. GPS tracking is confusing and gets more difficult to identify as the number of tracked offenders increase. 80% of the tracking officers claim to have difficulty keeping track of the signals, they find that it is easy to miss them, and they common overlook one or two signals that vanished from the monitors.

Topic 4
//Governments have the right to limit access to Internet websites in the name of public security and upholding certain moral values//.

**FOR** The government should be allowed to limit internet access by blocking websites in the name of public security and upholding moral values. The internet contains an entire ocean of information, however some information can be rather damaging, such as pornography, so governments should have the right to limit theses websites by being viewed to uphold moral values. Children that accidentally stumble upon or deliberately search for such material would have a higher possibility to practice sexual acts earlier in their life, take part in more dangerous activities, and even increase the risk of victimization (http://www.kidsintheknow.ca/app/en/viewing_sheet). Through these risks the government should have the right to continue their movement in limiting access to websites that have explicit material. Blogs posted online can spur negative propaganda, and enrage people to take serious action against the government or another ethnical or religious group, such as protests or raids. Unmonitored news can also have similar effects on the country’s population. Severe clashes have taken place in Tibet, where a strong group of consistent protestors clashed with riot police and many were killed in the violence (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7297248.stm), as well as that negative news spread the idea throughout the world, giving the Tibetans physical and social support, which enlightened the protestors spirits and caused more fights resulting in a higher death toll. The death toll could have been greatly reduced, if the news and blogs would have been slightly monitored more closely. The internet provides users with a lot of information, such as detailed maps of major cities, this information however is not only used by the average traveler, but also terrorists. In the Mumbai bombings the terrorists claimed that they used “Google maps” as a planning tool for their attacks (http://searchengineland.com/conservative-state-legislator-wants-to-limit-info-on-maps-to-limit-terrorists-tools-16835). Such technology is very helpful, but in the wrong hands it can become extremely dangerous, as it allows terrorists to coordinate their attack on an important site. In order to combat this the government should have the right to limit access to Google maps, some might say that it would be outrageous, but the government and Google has agreed to blur possible targets on the map ( [] ). This would prevent terrorists from using Google maps as an effective planning tool, yet not completely impair a user’s ability to use it for navigation. 1253155891

The governments should not have the right to limit internet access by blocking websites they deem ‘unsuitable’ as the definition of what is unsuitable differs from person to person. Internet accessibility should be determined by the person who bough the internet for their home. If someone is concerned about what their child might see on the internet, then they can purchase family security packages which block inappropriate websites and have password protected areas. Also, the government’s limiting of internet access does not reflect the peoples‘ opinions, only what the government thinks is ‘best for the people’. The moral values the government may be wanting to protect would not always equal the whole population and visa versa. Loop holes can also be found in what a government may define ‘inappropriate’, and thus the whole blocking escapade is pointless. Finally, the use of tax-payers‘ money on an ‘issue‘ the people either don’t want or don’t need is not an acceptable political tactic. Millions of dollars are spent each year on upholding the moral values of the governmental politicians rather than it being spent on something the people really want. People should be surveyed in order to determine where and for what their money is being spent. 1252535379
 * AGAINST **

Topic 5
//Tapping mobile phones to listen for terrorist chatter is necessary, considering the threat of terrorism in the world today//.

**FOR**

**AGAINST 1252506342**

Laws that permit and grant groups power to legally phone-tap are flawed in terms of protecting human rights. The protocols are vague, risky, thus the system of phone-tapping is vulnerable to corruption. For example, the UK’s Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000) was deceptive because it ordered for warrants to be submitted to individuals rather than to communications providers and extended periods for warrants issued, yet the change also allowed ‘suspected’ individuals to be subjected to all kinds of surveillance, not just to phone-tapping, and gave less confinement to warrant procedure and protocol, so actually increased surveillance. Sir Paul, a UK senior judge with access to secret intelligence material, reported 1,088 incidents where public bodies broke the rules on surveillance operations. (Telegraph) Vagueness allows for loopholes, or other ways of tricking the system. The privacy of innocent people can be easily exploited this way for blackmail or other harmful purposes.

Phone is not the only way of communication, nor is it the most efficient. Some can even argue it is not the most secure, because service providers such as AT&T record and store phone call data. Terrorists may thus opt to speak in code, switch phones regularly, or use other better channels of communication. There are observedly limited results and arrests, very many false leads and disruptions of lives of innocent people. Some countries even prohibit the use of phone-tapping evidence in court. Lowell Bergman from the New York Times quotes, “In the anxious months after the Sept. 11 attacks, the National Security Agency began sending a steady stream of telephone numbers, e-mail addresses and names to the F.B.I. in search of terrorists. The stream soon became a flood, requiring hundreds of agents to check out thousands of tips a month… But virtually all of them, current and former officials say, led to dead ends or innocent Americans.” (Electronic Frontier Foundation ) Rationally, time and resources are better spent on strategies that may yield higher successes.

Legalizing phone-tapping is but a stepping stone to a police state. For example, the foot-in-the-door phenomenon refers to people who initially agree to something small will be more likely to agree to something bigger later. In this case, the first step is sacrificing some privacy by allowing phone-tapping. The second may be constant surveillance. Sooner or later, as the nation's surveillance programs grow, so will be those using the technologies, thus more and more people are spying on each other leading to great distrust in the government and general fear. Thus, invasion of privacy may lead to instability as people become increasingly conscious of surveillance. Malden57, a Telegraph.co.uk user, comments on an article about warrantless phone-tapping, “This is one more step to a revolution, people will only stand for so much, sorry I'm too old to take part.” (Telegraph)