RUNNING HEAD: No Spying

No Spying!

ENG 102

Professor Kardell

Carlos Barajas

March 11, 2019

RUNNING HEAD: No Spying
2

No Spying!

It has been found that governmental agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), were given the right to invade anyone’s

activity as they browse the internet. The governmental agencies claim that it helps to resolve

online issues like possible child sex offenders, identity theft, and even national security issues,

which are common issues society faces every day. However, this doesn’t technically break the

Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which states that we have the right to privacy. They

are given the authority to take any measures to prevent any harm to the society. Through

research it has been discovered that internet users feel negative about the surveillance, but don’t

have the will power or the resources to protest it. The problem that internet users now face is that

websites are implementing a surveillance system, which allow them to collect personal data, and

some even sell it to others for financial gain. There are both positive and negative effects of the

monitoring systems and those effects can alter the future of internet laws.

Balfe, M., Gallagher, B., Masson, H., Balfe, S., Brugha, R., & Hackett, S. (2015). Internet Child

Sex Offenders’ Concerns about Online Security and their Use of Identity Protection

Technologies: A Review. Child Abuse Review, 24(6), 427–439. https://doi-

org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1002/car.2308

This article is about protecting children from child sex offenders and issues involving

online security. Child sex offenders would abuse Internet technologies to exploit children. By

discovering their strategies, the authorities can develop regulations or plan tactics that will halt

child sex offenders from committing their acts on children. This is a credible article that

discusses current issues about the lack of security services and is well written by many authors
RUNNING HEAD: No Spying
3

from different universities and one working on internet design related works. I felt that the

intended audience was parents and those working in the field involving the structure of the

internet. Parents would need to be informed of the risks that children take when signing with an

online service. With the newly gained knowledge, parents would be able to protect their children

as they use the Internet. This source is like the second source cited, they both discuss the design

of online security and how there are areas that can be improved for its users. This work will help

show the flaws in the design of online security and even support the other side of the debate. I

side with the idea that there is a need for more security that doesn’t involve monitoring or

collecting data for personal information. The information about fighting against child sex

offenders will be prove beneficial to the opposing side of the debate. I not only find this

important to make my persuasive paper to be taken seriously, but because Internet users must be

informed of the possible dangers and have a plan to prevent themselves from getting harmed.

Cath, C., & Floridi, L. (2017). The Design of the Internet’s Architecture by the Internet

Engineering Task Force (IETF) and Human Rights. Science & Engineering Ethics, 23(2),

449–468. https://doi-org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1007/s11948-016-9793-y

The article is about the design of the internet through a different perspective and adding

their own comments on what they think should changed or implemented. They claim the Internet

Standard Developing Organization’s (SDO) work is inherently political and believe that they

through moral obligation should incorporate human rights into their design. Author Luciano

Floridi has many academic awards, written many books, and teaches at the University of Oxford.

Author Corrine Cath was a doctoral student at the Oxford Internet Institute and focused her work

on the politics and ethics of Internet governance. With their educations and experiences in the
RUNNING HEAD: No Spying
4

field of the Internet, they are credible to write on this topic. Even though that they are

commenting on the design of others, the information presented informing the readers about an

organization’s actions and adding comments to explain aspects of the design, which they provide

further insight on the topic. The intended audience seems to be those interesting with working on

online designs because this information may guide them on designs that they will make in the

future. Designs that integrate human rights are most likely going to be supported by the public.

This article is like most sources I have cited, discussing the lack of human rights and suggesting

that they involve them in future designs. This article will help present flaws in the current

designs for the internet and discuss possible solutions to fix them. Assisting my side of the

debate for an improved design for the future of the internet.

Carr, M. (2013). Internet freedom, human rights and power. Australian Journal of International

Affairs, 67(5), 621–637. https://doi-

org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1080/10357718.2013.817525

This article discusses the issues of freedom on the internet like freedom of speech and

censorship. The author is Madeline Carr from Aberystwyth University, which means that she is

well informed in this area and can expertly write on the topic. This a credible source, especially

since it was accepted by a journal from another country. The intended audience would be

governmental officials and businessmen because they deal with international affairs. If they are

well informed about the issues on this topic, so they can alter anything of the business to adapt

any changes because they are always looking for ways to gain money, resources, and

connections. This is different from the first article because this one is about business

opportunities while the other one is about protecting children from online attackers. This article
RUNNING HEAD: No Spying
5

will help discuss the negative effects of strict internet laws. Although, this article is about the

United Kingdom, this will support my side of the debate of preventing the United States from

adopting harsh restrictions.

Clinton, H. R. (2012). Internet Freedom and Human Rights. Issues in Science &

Technology, 28(3), 45–52. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7

4617918&site=ehost-live

The article is about the uses of the internet and the harsh restrictions that were placed is

making it difficult for the digital economy. This is considered negative for those that are

involved in international affairs. It also discusses the lack of human rights online and adding

possible solutions. The author is Hillary R. Clinton, former first lady, so that means that she

would most likely have the resources to be able to write a scholarly article. She also as been

involved in politics, so she has knowledge and experience involving international affairs. The

intended audience of this article would be businessmen, politicians, and those seeking internet

human rights. They need to be informed of any issues that may threaten their business. For the

casual person, they may want to know if things they aspects of the Internet is changing. This

work is like the third cited source where they discuss possible loss of international business. I

can use the content from this article to support my side of the debate. It will support the idea of

having too many or harsh restrictions on the internet can have negative effects. Those can be a

decrease in international trade and in the global economy.

RUNNING HEAD: No Spying
6

Cooper, M. (2012). Internet freedom: Not a foreign-policy issue. Issues in Science &

Technology, 28(4), 18–20. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=7

8223817&site=ehost-live

The article is a letter to the editor, which contains the author’s thoughts on the article

“Internet Freedom and Human Rights” in the Spring 2012 issue. The author of this article is

Mark Cooper, Research Director, Consumer Federation of America Washington, DC. With his

experience in the field, he can expertly write about the topic. The article has his opinions because

it discusses what the author thinks, but I am comfortable using it as a source because it uses

evidence to support his claims and they include comments that are like what I believe. This work

is different from most sources I have cited because it is a response to another person’s work,

while the other articles are addressing the issues of the design of the Internet. However, it does

like many sources I have cited believes that change can improve the structure of the Internet.

This work explains the other side of the topic that is not addressed by the editor. This gives the

readers a new perspective to see the topic and possibly decide which side of the debate can they

relate to. This is great for persuasive papers because they have to address both sides of the debate

or not it would not be taken seriously in an academic field. It would also help me prove that there

are more positive effects if we enforce or change the current system.

De Minico, G. (2013). New Social Rights and Internet: Which Policies Combine

Them? International Community Law Review, 15(3), 261–286. https://doi-

org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1163/18719732-12341253

The article discusses the models of the Internet’s freedom, such as how there is an

absence of regulations and the idea of implementing rules. The article also mentions whether the
RUNNING HEAD: No Spying
7

Internet should have these regulations and provides possible solutions on regulating it. The

author is Giovanna De Minico from University of Naples in Federico II, Italy. The author being

foreign means that they will have a significant difference in experience with the Internet in their

region. From this article, I acquired a new perspective when discussing about the Internet’s

models. The intended audience would be policy makers or those petitioning for a change on

online services. This is because those individuals can read about the current models of the

Internet and its effects on the users. From this, they can decide whether they want to appeal for

more stronger regulations or support that the current system for the Internet is great and does not

need to be altered. This source is like most sources I have cited because it discusses the structure

of Internet and provides solutions on making the system more secure for personal privacy. This

source is helpful for supporting my thoughts on making new laws for the Internet, so that its

users have privacy and are protected while using the Internet.

Goldsborough, R. (2016). The Freedom of Free Speech Online. Teacher Librarian, 43(3), 62–63.

Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1

13222025&site=ehost-live

This article is about the freedom of speech that users on the Internet are not given. It has

been found that websites prevent users from posting any negative reviews on their product or

services. It occurs because the users do not fully read the website’s terms and services when

accepting to access the website or purchasing the product. These businesses are unfairly

silencing critics and preventing the products from having honest reviews, while businesses are

paying people to write fake critics to boost the reviews. The author is Reid Goldsborough is a
RUNNING HEAD: No Spying
8

syndicated columnist and the author of the book Straight Talk about the Information Highway.

He has the experience for writing on debated topics and can expertly write on topics, which

makes him credible. The intended audience is businesses and those that critic products for a

living. Businesses must be informed if the community is taking actions to change their

regulations on reviews, so they can alter any changes in their regulations to fit the laws. This

source is like most of the sources I have cited. They all discuss that Internet users have limited

freedom of speech, content, or security, and suggest that there is a need to include more human

rights into their systems. Allowing them to be more honest and having control of what occurs

with their personal information. This source can assist me by providing an issue that prevents

Internet users from using their freedom of speech online. This will support my thoughts that

there needs to be regulations that give more control to the users.

Hennig, N. (2018). Privacy and Security Online: Best Practices for Cybersecurity. Library

Technology Reports, 54(3), 1–37. Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1

28707555&site=ehost-live

This article is about the causes of security breaches and invasion of privacy and gives

suggestions to prevent online users from falling victim to those issues while online. The article

first explains the differences between possible threats and likely risks. It discusses how people

are likely to get persuaded to releasing personal information and possibly have their identity

stolen. Then, it provides methods to prevent issues of online security, such as changing

temporary passwords or having a two-factor authentication system. This assists Internet users to

stay protected from identity theft or other issues involving personal data. The author is Nicole
RUNNING HEAD: No Spying
9

Hennig, a known independent user experience professional, who helps librarians and educators

to effectively use technology. This means that she has the expertise and is credible to write about

cybersecurity. The intended audience is the Internet users who want to protect themselves or

have fallen victim to online scams. This helps them plan a system to protect their personal

information and browse the Internet without any concerns of facing any of security breaches or

invasion of privacy. This source is like the first source because it discusses the issues of online

security and gives suggestions on how to stay protected from them. They both also mention that

some person is getting manipulated to do what the other says. This source helps me prove that

the Internet has flaws in its systems and could add rules to help regulate the issues involving

online security. It can even assist Internet users in protecting their personal data or accessing

anything they want.

Jiang, M., Tsai, H. S., Cotten, S. R., Rifon, N. J., LaRose, R., & Alhabash, S. (2016).

Generational differences in online safety perceptions, knowledge, and

practices. Educational Gerontology, 42(9), 621–634. https://doi-

org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/10.1080/03601277.2016.1205408

This article is a study done on three generations, the Silent and GI generation (born 1945

or earlier), older baby boomers (1946-1954), and Millennials (1977-1992), on how they perceive

online safety, use coping strategies, and protect themselves online. It was found that the older

generation of the group, the Silent and GI generation, is more suspicious about online security

and are less confident of there skills in protecting themselves as they browse the Internet. This

leads them to need more assistance when they come across any issue pertaining the technology

and the Internet. All the authors have attended a media or communication related college, so they
RUNNING HEAD: No Spying
10

would have the knowledge and expertise to write this credible article. The intended audience

would be a student, or someone involved in higher education. This is because the purpose of the

study is to inform its readers that there is a difference in perspectives for each generation. The

article is different because it discusses the generation gap in knowledge about the Internet but is

like most of the sources because it explains that there is no system that protects its users from

falling victim to online issues. This is good source for my position because it shows that the

older generations are more susceptible to online scammers due to their lack of skills and

knowledge of the technology to stay protected. It will support my claim that there needs to be

more regulations made by the government that will assist every generation to avoid being

scammed or falling victim to agreements that they wouldn’t read carefully.

Tortell, D. M. (2017). Surfing the Surveillance Wave: Online Privacy, Freedom of Expression

and the Threat of National Security. Review of Constitutional Studies, 22(2), 211–238.

Retrieved from

http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=1

26190514&site=ehost-live

This article is about Canada’s Internet system and explains the privacy breaches the

government has done through their surveillance program on the Internet. The author defines what

privacy is and examines the problems and how it is being excluded from section 2(b) from the

Canadian Charter Rights and Freedoms. It also focuses on aspects of the section such as the

effects of surveillance and freedom of expression. The author is David M. Tortell, who has

worked in the Department of Justice Canada and as city council member in Toronto, and

currently works at the Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General and has Ph.D. and other degrees
RUNNING HEAD: No Spying
11

from the University of Toronto and McGill University. He is very qualified to write on the

subject matter of Canada’s policies on human rights because of his educational background and

career path, and this makes him credible. The intended audience is those that work in Canada’s

policy making or the Internet users in that country, and those curious about foreign affairs. This

article informs the readers about what the law considers is private and some issues that the

surveillance program breaches. The Internet users in that region should be informed of what they

can’t control, but can learn about what needs more security, such as personal information. This

source is like most of the sources I have cited. It discusses the government or someone breaking

laws that are meant to protect the rights of its citizens. It informs the readers about privacy laws

being neglected and may suggest a plan to prevent the issue, and possibly worsening if an online

scammer obtains personal information. This source supports my claim that the government is

intrusive of our online activity even though they are attempting to do good by preventing evil

from occurring. Although, this is not about the United States, it is the same as what our

government is doing.