Privacy and Security in the Digital Age (Current Controversies) by Anne Cunningham

Privacy and Security in the Digital Age (Current Controversies) Reviews

• 
  C

  A collection of articles on the topics of privacy, security, and liberty, from across the political spectrum. Each chapter gives an overview of the issue, then presents opposing views, arguing which society should prioritize higher: privacy and liberty, or security. It's pretty dry.
  
  The book isn't technical. It contains no tips about defending your digital security and privacy (other than indirectly, through the political process).
  
  Questions explored
  • Is Security More Important Than Liberty?
  • Does the Government Have the Right to Monitor Its Citizens?
  • Should Consumers Have Expectations of Privacy?
  • Does Video Surveillance Make Us Safer?
  
  I read this to increase my knowledge of digital security and privacy. Based on the title, I expected more about Internet security and privacy.
  
  Notes
  Is Security More Important Than Liberty?
  

  Peer-reviewed studies have concluded that the effect of widespread surveillance on crime rates is statistically insignificant.

  If the FBI today came to your home and demanded access to your emails, it would require a warrant obtained from a court after a show of probable cause to get them. If, however, the Department of Justice can simply issue a subpoena to Google to the same end, they can potentially vacuum up every Gmail message you've ever sent without a warrant and it won't constitute a "search."

  HIPAA was amended in 2002 to state "We may also disclose your PHI [personal health information] to authorized federal officials as necessary for national security and intelligence activities."
  
  Does the Government Have the Right to Monitor Its Citizens?
  Results of 2013 Pew Research Center study
  62% of Americans say it's more important for federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy. 34% say it's more important for government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.
  
  45% of Americans say government should be able to monitor everyone's email and other online activities if officials say this might prevent future terrorist attacks. 52% say government should not be able to.
  
  Younger Americans are more likely than older age groups to prioritize protecting personal privacy over terrorism investigations (45% for ages 18 to 29 versus 35% for ages 30 to 49 and 27% for ages 50+).
  
  Should Consumers Have Expectations of Privacy?

  97% of the people surveyed expressed concern that businesses and the government might misuse their data. Identity theft was a top concern (cited by 84% of Chinese respondents at one end of the spectrum and 49% of Indians at the other). Privacy issues also ranked high; 80% of Germans and 72% of Americans are reluctant to share their information with businesses because they "just want to maintain their privacy." —Harvard Business Review, 2015

  Does Video Surveillance Make Us Safer?
  A 2009 book pooled results of all 41 available studies on surveillance and crime prevention. It found an average 16% reduction in crime, much from parking lots and garages. There was less evidence of effect on violent crime. Enhanced lighting in public areas was more effective than cameras (21% reduction).

  In some contexts, surveillance helps keeps us on track and thereby reinforces good habits that become second nature. In other contexts, it can hinder moral development by steering us away from or obscuring the saintly ideal of genuinely disinterested action. And that ideal is worth keeping alive.

  One of the goals of moral education is to cultivate a conscience—the little voice inside telling us that we should do what is right because it is right. As surveillance becomes increasingly ubiquitous, however, the chances are reduced that conscience will ever be anything more than a little voice inside telling us that someone, somewhere, maybe watching.