Logo2001



Commentary> Privacy vs. Security

In order to better understand my perspective on this issue I present the following 3 examples.

Example 1:

In the late 1980's to early 1990's, cable channel theft was growing due to the cable providers sending all channels across the cable in to a customers home. Some created their own descrambling boxes to unlock the unpaid-for channels (usually the premium HBO-Showtime-Cinimax). When cases went through the legal process many made the same argument from the 1984 AT&T breakup about what happens to the signal once it enters your home.

Ultimately it came down to 'Private vs. Public' use of the signal, and so once entering your home - what you choose to do with it is up to you. However once your signal leaves your private domain (home) then it enters the public realm. This is why today cable providers enable/disable channels from their home office rather than relying on the cable box to enable or restrict what channels you are able to see.

Receiving a cable signal was mostly a one-way process though today with the addition of internet and VOIP phone service, two-way communications are a necessity. This means as long as your device is not actively using a public network, privacy is expected. A good example of this is hacking a device's camera/microphone which would be an invasion of privacy. Connect that camera/microphone to a public website and NSA could (as defined by law) collect/analyze for any (national threat type) illegal activity.


Example 2:

Another good example is the public highway system we use for cars. They are all usable by anyone though some charge tolls for repayment of build costs, but nobody is going to stop you without probable cause. If we think of the vehicle you travel in as your internet communication, even though what you do may be seen, you are not allowed to be stopped without probable cause.

 

Example 3:

For those who are concerned with the NSA collecting information, they are not the FBI. NSA is concerned with -National Security- or threats to the country - not that you cheated on your spouse. Thanks to laws, regulations, etc. the FBI can not access NSA information without extreme legal process -of American Citizens-. If the FBI wants to watch what you do then get a warrant based on probable cause. Broad-based warrantless monitoring in my opinion is a violation of a soverign persons privacy, despite what the FBI may desire to make their job super easy. Throw a justified warrant in to the mix and 'incidential' collection which the target interacts with may reveal further probable cause of another. Normal investigative practice at any level.

I can not be more blunt - C.U.P.I.D. will keep honest people honest, and those who want to be too. The tradeoff is you will be secure from any other threats.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Copyright 2017 @www.cupidtechnologies.com All Rights Reserved