Technology has made it increasingly easy for anyone to access information about almost anyone, creating a continual struggle between liberty and security.
However, as technologies progress, the privacies invaded have moved beyond security and are now used as marketing tools and unwarranted surveillance.
“The internet is about as private as a bus stop,” said Gene Policinski, vice president and executive director for the First Amendment Center.
The internet causes everyone who is “plugged in” to be very easily interconnected, whether it is via social networking sites, Google searches or the tracking behind the scenes available to the government and marketers.
However, this surveillance is not limited to your personal computer.
“Gaze tracking” is a method supermarkets use to watch their customers’ shopping habits, which helps to develop purchasing trends that lead to more effective marketing.
These cameras are capable of not only facial recognition, but also 360-degree views of shoppers that even monitor posture and walking.
“You can be pulled up anywhere these databases are in action,” Policinski said.
Policinski believes we have come full circle from the time of the village green, and are now in the age of the village screen. But this creates problems in dealing with the flow of information.
“We walk away from the ‘fence.’ It’s an old-fashioned solution to a high-tech problem,” Policinski said. “[In the past,] how did we handle the gossip, the defamation? Did we confront it? Did we use more speech as an antidote? We have some low-tech solutions at hand.”
However, no matter how we handle the issues of technology, the accessibility of information created by it still crosses lines.
“I want a line drawn like when I close the door and draw the shades,” says Policinski. “I want that electronically, and I think that’s compatible with the First Amendment.”
For example, if you are in the city of London, according to Policinski, there is a 100 percent chance you are being watched by surveillance cameras.
The explosive popularity of Smartphones has raised many additional issues such as tracking applications which, according to headlines, 55 percent of Smartphone users have problems with.
“When the government knows more about us than we’re willing to approve, bad things happen,” Policinski said.
Attorney Stephen Zralek recognizes that “after 9/11, we want security.”
However, the repercussions of security are evident even in the social networking world, that is often treated very lightheartedly.
For instance, Gilbert Gottfried, comedian and spokesperson for Aflac, was fired after tweeting insensitive jokes about the tsunami in Japan. In addition, Chrysler’s media firm used the “f-bomb” on its Twitter and consequently lost hundreds of thousands of dollars in contracts.
Courtney Love was also forced to pay $430,000 for a defamatory tweet.
All of these suits made headlines.
“We’re moving from a toy to a tool to a lifestyle,” Policinski said. “In the 1990s, we used the internet to learn about thumbtacks. In 2003, we would go to the web to buy thumbtacks. Now, I’m on Facebook talking about green thumbtacks. We’re going back to that village green.”
Zralek suggests the best way to handle the constant flow of information, often misinformation, is to monitor what is being said about you.
If something false is being said, contact that site.
“Tell them, ‘This is misinformation; please contact me,’” Zralek said.
As technology becomes more prevalent and invasive, people must be able to distinguish between necessary security measures and impositions on liberties.
“These issues challenge our commitment to free speech,” Policinski said.