When it comes to privacy, is it better for the majority for things to be private from the government?

Rights-Based Ethics - this means that no matter the circumstance, our individual rights can not be violated; focus is on right vs. wrong

discoursemagazine.com/p/sinking-the-clipper-chip#:~:text=Civil%20liberties%20organizations%20such%20as,sophisticated%20criminals%20and%20foreign%20agents.

Link 2/source2-

https://repository.law.uic.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1714&context=lawreview

https://www.security.org/resources/data-tech-companies-have/#:~:text=Google%20collects%20your%20IP%20address,Purchase%20Activity

Link/source2-

https://www.tspa.org/curriculum/ts-fundamentals/transparency-report/what-is-a-transparency-report/

Link/source3-

https://staffsupport.spcollege.edu/hc/en-us/articles/28596305364763-Understanding-End-to-End-Encryption-E2EE#:~:text=End%2Dto%2Dend%20encryption%20(E2EE)%20is%20a%20security%20method,to%20anyone%20without%20the%20proper%20decryption%20key.

Source 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothing_to_hide_argument

Source 2:

https://www.brennancenter.org/topics/government-power/privacy-rights

Source 1: https://www.aol.com/facial-recognition-predictive-policing-tech-110300491.html

Source 2: https://www.eff.org/issues/privacy

Links: "what north Korean internet really looks like" https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-37426725

"North Korean secrets revealed by phone" https://www.bbc.co.uk/learningenglish/chinese/features/learning-english-from-the-news_2025/250604

Sources:

1. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/05/when-surveillance-chills-speech-new-studies-show-our-rights-free-association

2. https://law.yale.edu/mfia/case-disclosed/aclu-v-nsa-how-greater-transparency-can-reduce-chilling-effects-mass-surveillance

Sources:

1. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/565/400/

2. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/373/

New America – Doomed to Repeat History? Lessons from the Crypto Wars of the 1990s https://www.newamerica.org/oti/reports/doomed-to-repeat-history-lessons-from-the-crypto-wars-of-the-1990s/

Summary: This source explains the 1990s “Crypto Wars,” when the U.S. government pushed for backdoors in encryption through policies like the Clipper Chip and CALEA. The report shows how privacy advocates and technologists resisted these efforts and how those early battles shaped today’s surveillance and encryption debates.

Source 2

EFF – The USA FREEDOM Act Explained https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/effs-guide-usa-freedom-act

Summary: This source breaks down how the USA FREEDOM Act (2015) reformed surveillance after the Snowden leaks. It ended the NSA’s bulk phone‑metadata program, increased transparency, and required more targeted data collection, while also noting the limits of the reforms.

Source 1

Microsoft – Government Requests for Customer Data Report https://www.microsoft.com/transparency Summary: Shows how Microsoft handles government requests for user data, including what information they release, what they refuse, and how they protect encryption. The report highlights transparency practices and the balance between user privacy and lawful investigations.

Source 2

Stanford Internet Observatory – How Tech Companies Handle Government Requests https://cyber.fsi.stanford.edu/io/news/how-tech-companies-handle-government-requests

Summary: Analyzes how major tech companies like Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft respond to government demands for user data. It explains transparency reporting, legal standards, and the tension between privacy protection and cooperation with law enforcement.

Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto_Wars

https://news.law.fordham.edu/jcfl/2023/03/31/the-crypto-wars-and-the-future-of-financial-privacy/

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/business-ethics/resources/apple-vs-fbi-case-study/

The link below is a a letter from Apple to its customers on their intentions moving forward in regard to the case.

https://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-investigate/lawful-access

The link below is an essay from UC Berkley Law, which delves deeply into the topic stated above.

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/archive/2019/10/Kerr-Encryption-Workarounds.pdf

Sources: https://www.eff.org/aboutface

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facial_recognition_system

In the case Katz v. United States, a man was arrested for giving someone information to gamble. He argued that the government had no right to listen in because of the Fourth Amendment, which states that your belongings cannot be searched without a warrant. The government argued that because they didn't physically enter anything it was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. The court ultimately decided that it was a violation without a warrant. This also decided that people should assume they have privacy in anything they own, including a phone booth, where they own it and have privacy from the second they pay.

In the case Smith v. Maryland, the police station had installed a pen that records numbers that a petitioner had dialed, and he pushed back on it and said it was an invasion of privacy. Maryland denied it and said it did not violate the Fourt Amendment. The petitioner was convicted and Maryland won.

In the case United States v. Jones, a man was convicted by tracking his GPS without a warrant. The government argued that it was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment because it was in the public, but they lost.

In the case Riley v. California, a police officer stole a man named Riley's phone, searched it, and found a street gang. Riley was charged for being involved in a shooting, and arrested. It was then decided that police also need a warrant to search a cell phone.

In the case Carpenter v. United states, suspected robbers were arrested from their CSLI. The court ordered that evidence be provided that a search was necessary. They eventually decided that data requires a warrant to search.

In the case Clapper v. Amnesty, the NSA had permission to track foreign intelligence outside of the US. However, individuals in the US who communicate with individuals outside of it who are being tracked, are likely to be tracked themselves. This case limited the power of surveillance.

Is privacy or safety more important? It may be a debate until the end of time.

The GDPR expands on the 1995 European Data Protection Directive (a basic data privacy and security standard for the EU). To name a few of the many topics it covers, the GDPR has clear guidelines on consent regarding the gathering of data, especially regarding children, and has laid out a set of privacy rights for data subjects (users of the internet). It also requires certain kinds and sizes of companies to hire a DPO (Data Protection Officer). This is a person who is responsible for managing and protecting data, fixing problems and answering questions regarding data and privacy.  

https://www.gdpr.eu/what-is-gdpr/

The EU AI Act is the first regulation on AI, to be passed by a major legislative group. It was first presented to the EU in 2021 and was passed in 2024. It contains a risk factor classification system (different risk levels require different compliance regulations) and ensures that “AI systems used in the EU are safe, transparent, traceable, non-discriminatory and environmentally friendly.” The EU AI Act also specifies that AI programs should be run and overseen by humans to prevent harmful outcomes. 

Under this act, the EU has banned several types of AI, including real time biometric identification, such as facial recognition in public spaces and cognitive behavioral manipulation (the example given was voice activated kids' toys that encouraged dangerous behavior). Some AI systems that fall into the high-risk category are critical infrastructure (specifically management and oversight), education and vocational training, law enforcement, legal interpretation and migration, border control and asylum. Systems deemed high-risk go through assessments before being put on the market and during their operational lifetime. Generative AI, like ChatGPT, is not considered high-risk. However, it does have to abide by transparency laws. These laws mandate that AI created content is disclosed and clearly marked, illegal content can’t be generated and the companies behind these AI’s must publish summaries of copyrighted data used to train their systems.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20230601STO93804/eu-ai-act-first-regulation-on-artificial-intelligence

The importance of privacy comes up a lot. The government is trying to protect us, but the effect on the average person is hard to ignore.

Karen Gullo. (2016, May 19). Survellance Chills Speech-As New Studies Show-And Free Association Suffers. EFF. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/05/when-surveillance-chills-speech-new-studies-show-our-rights-free-association

Harsha Panduranga and Emil Mella Pablo. (2022, February 9). Federal Government Social Media Surveillance, Explained. BC. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/federal-government-social-media-surveillance-explained

https://direct.mit.edu/jcws/article/25/1/101/115125/Why-the-Five-Eyes-Power-and-Identity-in-the

https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/Partnerships/FIORC/FIORC-Charter-2025.pdf

Links:

https://www.internethalloffame.org/inductee/philip-zimmermann/

https://hiddenheroes.netguru.com/philip-zimmermann

The EU created two acts to help with GDPR negatives, one of the goals is to create a safer digital space in which all fundamental rights are protected.

The impact of GDPR is widespread across more than the EU shaping strong standards for global security, and helping keep things secure in case of hackers. (Although it may be made obsolete in a few years with rise of quantum computing)

Links:

https://gdprlocal.com/global-data-protection-regulation-how-gdpr-sets-the-international-standard/

https://www.cloudi-fi.com/blog/the-impacts-of-gdpr-on-global-organizations-after-6-years-of-implementation

The email privacy act passed on April 27, 2016. The bill amended or updated the Electronic Communications Act that was passed in 1986. It clarifies that prohibitions or exceptions apply even if the content is held in storage or read. It also says that the government must have a warrant to get the communications of a third party provider. It also states that the a governmental entity can tell a provider to not tell (for up to 180 days) that they have been required to disclose communications and records.

CALEA, act passed in 1994, required all telecommunication carriers and manufacturers to make sure that they could comply with any surveillance requests required by legal personal/government. Meaning, the government required them to make sure that the FBI or other government officals could do a wire tap if they wanted.

As of April 17th, 2026, the Senate passed an extension on FISA Section 702. This act allows the government to surveil non-Americans electronic communications without getting permission from the court. The problem is that it gets many Americans' data as well, and that raises concerns for lawyers around the country.

1. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2015/04/7-reasons-why-ive-got-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-response-to-mass-surveillance/

2. https://www.npr.org/2026/04/14/nx-s1-5768270/what-to-know-about-section-702-surveillance

ProPublica is another company trying to make sure that minorities are not unfairly targeted by surveillance technology. There are computer programs used to predict whether someone will commit a crime and it is often wrong, predicting that the minority will commit a crime and the White person will not. ProPublica studied the results of these programs and how accurate they were, and learned that only 20% of the people predicted to commit violent crimes actually did, and that Black people were predicted to commit crimes more than twice as often as White people.

1. https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/the-people-not-the-police-should-decide-if-and-how-surveillance-technologies-are-used-in-their-communities

2. https://www.propublica.org/article/machine-bias-risk-assessments-in-criminal-sentencing

An example of this is Apple. They take their customers' privacy very seriously and have gone to court over this after refusing to give the government access to an encrypted phone. The government is hoping that Apple will create a "back door" code to crack a phone. Apple's argument was that it was against their freedom of speech rights to be forced to do this and also if they did create ways to break into their phones, they could be used by hackers who aren't just trying to track down criminals. They were also concerned that if they did this once, it would create a precedent and allow government agencies to use technology companies to do what they want, when they want.

1. https://ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/case-study/fbi-apple-security-vs-privacy

2. https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/speeches/going-dark-are-technology-privacy-and-public-safety-on-a-collision-course

3. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-privacy-vs-security-battle-reignited

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43649018

https://www.the-independent.com/tech/facebook-settlement-payments-cambridge-analytica-b2826708.html

Millions of people got paid because of an unsafe feature of face book where some people could illegally harvest and view tons of peoples public information. Since then Facebook has had some updates to try and stop the harvesting. Cambridge Analytica collected data from millions of users but has relied on the London-based firm to delete the information. Now they directly delete the info. The 'This Is Your Digital Life' app was what allowed so many to get their hands on personal info.