Private / Public / Internet: Corporate and Individual
Home / Morality Tales / Private Realms / Public Realms / Corporate and Individual / Utopia/Dystopia / Projects
 |
PolS 486 / CAPP 479
"You have zero privacy anyway . . ."
Scott McNealy, Sun Microsystems
Page Two
Thursday, February 19, 2004
The following four classes deal with the efforts of corporate entities--the state, social groups, and private industry--to regulate the individual's sphere of privacy. Because there is no completely private sphere in any aspect of life, including the Internet, we can take the presence of some form of control, regulation, or social pressure for granted. But how much intrusion into the private sphere is legitimate? Political debates in democracies frequently center on this question.
The State and the Individual
Many of the recent debates over the violation of privacy on the Internet have centered upon the state's role in surveilling email traffic and Web surfing. This is not surprising given the effect of the attacks of September 11, 2001 on American culture. But, there are also constitutional limits on the steps law-enforcement agencies can take in, among other things, intercepting communications between private persons. In your reading, ask yourself three questions: 1) Where have these limits been? 2) How might they have been expanded or changed? and 3) What kind of a society do I prefer?
For background, read "Wiretaps" in Robert Ellis Smith, Ben Franklin's Web site. Also, reread the "Fourth Amendment" (in your Reader).
On this basis, read pp. 29-48 in Schulhofer's The Enemy Within for an assessment of the changes that took place with regard to Internet surveillance after the passage of the USA Patriot Act of 2001.
Read what Senator John Ashcroft had to say about wire-tap authority in 1997, and then compare it with what he had to say about the Patriot Act in his new capacity as Attorney General. .Speech of October 18, 2001
Then, ask yourself whether we are now sliding down a slippery slope that will lead to the weakening of basic freedoms and our civil liberties. You can do this by reading the following draft of an internal Department of Justice about a proposed Patriot II act, known as the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003.
Finally, what do many Americans think about the tradeoff between national security and the preservation of civil liberties? Think critically. Is it possible to maintain such a tradeoff? Or does the word 'tradeoff' even make sense in this context?
Page Three
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Social Pressures and the Individual
The US is known throughout the world as a highly moralistic--even condescendingly moralistic--culture. More than in many western democracies, the American understanding of morality and decency intrudes directly into the private sphere. In fact, while many of our allies (e.g., Germany, France) worry about prohibiting anti-democratic speech on the Internet, we are more concerned with curbing pornography and controlling various forms of socially offensive behavior. One could blame all of these opposing priorities on politicians were it not for the fact that so many different groups support them.
In these questions, there are really two relevant debates: 1) as before, the debate over the degree to which public policy should be allowed to intrude upon private interest; and 2) what areas public policy should be allowed to intrude upon at all.
In this context, consider how attitudes about what should/should not appear on the Web may spill over into the arenas of free speech and free association. Juxtapose your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment with the First Amendment to the Constitution:
AMENDMENT I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.For background on American attitudes, see the chapter on "Sex" in Robert Ellis Smith, Ben Franklin's Web site.and read "There is a special place in hell . . ."
For an example of how Americans wrestle with the issue of pornography on the Net, see Cybersitter and its critics.
For an example of how Europeans, such as Germans, wrestle with the issue of hate speech and anti-democratic organizations, see Germany's policy. It's interesting to find that the kind of organizations Germans most want to prohibit enjoy First Amendment protections in the US. See Gary Lauck's NSDAP web site.
In other words, all democracies face public policy challenges in defining the limits of acceptable speech and action over the Internet, but they may differ strongly on the subject of those limitations. Still, they have a common problem. What can any state or organized groups do to safeguard public morality over the Net? Look at the following cases and ask whether there is any realistic hope for controlling different social values on the Internet.
The American case. Read about the Children's Internet Protection Act and "Smut filter..."
Internet Watch Foundation. Monitoring child pornography.
Christian Family Coalition (New!)
The French case. Read France versus Yahoo and California
Page Four
|
Page Five
Tuesday, March 2, 2004
Class Debate
On this date, we will have a class debate about the 'tradeoff' between the safeguarding of national security and the preservation of civil liberties. At a later date, I will advise you about the content and structure of this debate.
For background,
Read Schulhofer, The Enemy Within, pp. 29-48, to get a sense for the changing relationship between national-security policy and our civil liberties since September 11, 2001.
For ideas,
Look closely at the following Pakistani site of an earlier radical muslim site, Islamic Fatwas, that was apparently blocked by US law enforcement. (Oh, no. This first site now seems to have been blocked, too!). Perhaps you can track the sites down here: Internet Archive. For milder stuff, consider "Martyrdom Opehttp://www.archive.org/rations or "Islamic Q&A."
Or, if you like weaponry, consider cruise missiles. Or, if you want to have more options among your bombs (thermite, pipe, paint, fertilizer, or even napalm) consult the infamous Anarchist's Cookbook.
Should we allow these sites to be posted in the U.S? What can we do about such sites anyway? Read what one designer found out.
To get you in the mood for this debate, watch: Joe McCarthy and Paranoia
__________________________________
Saturday, March 6, 2004 to Sunday, March 14, 2004
Spring Break