the FBI against the case of Apple, where the FBI requires that Apple should write new code for the FBI to decipher a locked iPhone in the case of San Bernadino, starts to set obviously a very important difference: the wiretapping of a modern phone or Internet are not wiretapping a phonecall. It is closer to, but beyond that, reading the most private diary.
As gradually shifted communications on the net POTS (technical jargon for "Plain Old Telephone System"), pursuant to the law required laws to "keep pace". They demanded that the wiretap laws they had been able to use tools like pre investigation were made "technologically neutral" and would apply the same to the Internet.
This huge expansion of surveillance powers passed without any debate among the security forces, saying things like "we're just doing what we have always done, what we have always had the right to do ", and" it is just a technical adjustment to track how people use technology. "
But what happened when the wiretapping was extended to the Internet?
Before this "technical adjustment", law enforcement could wiretap conversations between people .. End of story
Thereafter, the application of law could also tapped the following:
- what news articles you read, for how long and in what order
- Your travel plans
- your dating habits
- what you buy
- what do you plan to buy, but does not have
- Who you are in contact with, but not talk to
- what are you looking for more information about, and when
- what is the relationship (s) that you follow, given a selection
- Your physical movement through the cities, and in a city
- ... the list
this immense extension -. this ridiculously huge extension - the law enforcement monitoring power passed without any political debate at all, simply the weaseling "we just want what we've always had." It is politically repugnant.
(It is important here, however, to note that aligning the application of the law is not the same thing as being ethical. If you use government legislation as your guide to ethics, you 're likely to leave disappointed. Furthermore, even if your own country is a knight in shining armor, you'll probably agree that there are others who are not . not)
however, a journal usually has broad protection in law against search and seizure - the bar is set much higher for the opening and examination of newspaper someone else to intercept correspondence. I would say that a smartphone or laptop for that matter, is much more private than a newspaper again, as you choose what to write in a journal, but a phone or laptop essentially contains a history of your thought process.
an article in Slate today just brings this important point: an iPhone (or Android phone) are not phone your parents and grandparents about legislated - it is actually an extension of your mind. (Unfortunately, the article confuses this important key point in trying to make a point of whether companies or governments are more dangerous instead.)
This debate has yet to happen.
Privacy remains your own responsibility.
0 Komentar