The constant use of the internet can reveal more information than we think.
All we have to do is connect online and get access to endless services, downloadable content and a lot of social networking platforms. Of course, doing so means skipping the ubiquitous terms and conditions that describe data collection, use and other participations in our private information. Almost all of us end up accepting the potential consequences of clicking on “I Accept”, whether we read, let alone understand, the legal jargon or not, and therefore, we accept the barrage of ads selected for their interest in all their iterations .
Does this mean that our attitudes towards privacy, and how we value our personal information, have changed, particularly those who are more connected to the digital world? The 2016 Pew Report on privacy and information indicates that, while most American users prefer not to use their information for other purposes, they also see it as a necessary consequence of online access.
As digital becomes a more integral part of our lives, the line that delimits personal space and public information becomes increasingly blurred, and that is why some believe that the debate between privacy and surveillance has ended and to give up personal information conclusion.
Do people really do not care, or just do not know what happens because of this abdication of their rights? Have we really considered the consequences of allowing our personal information to be shared?
Comfort for privacy: voluntary compensation.
For RegHarnish, CEO of GreyCastle Security, a provider of cybersecurity services based in New York, the concept of privacy as originally planned has already been gone. He says, “in 10-15 years, we’ll talk about privacy as we currently talk about rotary phones, we will not.” The concept of privacy has been completely revolutionized.
Harnish believes that this dilemma is simply another manifestation of the historical will of society to give up something for wealth or convenience. He says, “the advent of the Internet gave us access to more convenience than ever, and the price of that is a certain level of privacy.” Society, which includes each one of us, will ultimately dictate whether or not we are willing to sign it. , and I bet we will all do it. ”
As more and more people accept less personal privacy, those values will be absorbed into the spirit of the time.
Instead of condemning how information is so easily accessible, he believes that the focus should be on managing risk and protecting what we consider valuable information. Resources must be devoted to identifying these assets and enforcing security measures. This change of attitude simply means that we must be more aware of what we share and what we keep private.
Is all the surveillance bad?
Ben Epstein, a senior advisor at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), argues that a better answer is that as technology and services change, the debate will also reinvent itself.
He understands the concerns about governments that spy on their citizens, but maintains the need to be able to effectively track criminal activity. He says, “Most Western governments understand that privacy is the expected norm, but at the same time the means to carry out (legal) surveillance to ensure public safety should not be diminished as communication modes change. “The safeguards that authorize legal surveillance involve many steps to justify its issuance.
Due to the rapid advances in digital technology, the universalism of existing privacy jurisprudence are considered outdated or inapplicable. The splendor is that many of the applications or grooming itself are protected from legalized interception. Mobile devices and applications have encryption services that adequately secure user data, which has led to correctly documented conflicts. Epstein believes that governments can kill by imposing more stringent, and controversial, gambles that can provide stalking in the interest of preventing crime.
As technology continues to evolve, so do our attitudes towards privacy. Perhaps the debate must be reconsidered in the context of what we, as a society, define as seemingly private, and what can be shared for the common good. These are the questions you should consider before clicking “I accept” in the following disclaimer box.