Our Rights

As Deibert argues for our awareness as a society, he begins acknowledging the loss of human rights due to our high usage of information technologies.  Instead of having data stored in “our actual desktop and filing cabinets”, that information now “evaporates into the cloud” for storage (Deibert p.14).  All of the stored information in the cloud is placed in the hands of third party companies that compile large quantities of personal data every second.  The companies that are headquartered in the US are subject to the Patriot Act, which states citizens do not have unlimited privacy when it comes to voluntarily public information, even to a third party, and can allow for government intervention if necessary.  Also, the government is not legally allowed to “spy on innocent Americans”, but can use the tools they have at their disposal, if required, to investigate a situation or a person further (McNeill).  Although the Patriot Act softly attempts to maintain privacy among the citizens, the act still allows for some questionable actions to take place ‘if necessary’.  This is similar to the argument David Lyon makes in his article Surveillance, Power, and Everyday Life.  Lyon uses the term ‘dataveillance’ to help make a claim for our constant monitoring of the data we put in cyberspace, which ultimately has lead us into the end of privacy as we know it.  Lyon states this because of the “surveillance systems in place that record, monitor, or trace many of our daily activities, nothing we do is exempt from observation” (Lyon p.459).  I believe Deibert and Lyon make important cases for enhanced communication from the government to its citizens about what is actually being reviewed by them.  It’s hard to know what the government is watching without our knowledge. Although the government has made a legal warning through the Patriot Act, the average citizens may never know the full disclosure of the monitoring plans established through the act. Watching the usage of cyberspace can be beneficial to the greater good with respect to national security however.  By passing the Patriot Act, I believe the threat of government monitoring does minimize the threat of terrorism within the country or at least frightens people from pursuing these consequential actions.  Certainly citizens deserve to know the details of the policies we are held accountable for as a result the implementation of this Act, especially if, as a society, anything we do through the use of information technologies may be used against us.  The awareness of how our nation’s policies are evolving is what Deibert argues society to do as a whole, so we can fight for our privacy when future policies are developed for the control of cyberspace.  Otherwise we will be trending towards total loss of our American rights within the unknown world of cyberspace.  Without the transparency of Deibert’s information presented in the Black Code, citizens would still be confused to what they are “Accepting” when they agree to using third party companies to store information.