Transcript Ethics Presentation CIS4328 Sr. Project II Team 2

Ethics
Presentation
CIS4328 Sr. Project II
Team 2
6-3-2002
Team Members:
David Ritchey
David Stoner
Sheldon Snyder
Jill Bauer
Mary Cook
Internet Privacy
With
Special Concern For
Children
In a December 2001 Harris Poll
Loss of Privacy at 29% was the thing most
feared by Americans
Terrorism was 2nd at 23%
Outline








Invasions of Privacy
Constitutional Basis of Privacy
Current Legislation on Privacy
Have we been here before
History of COPPA
COPPA
Filtering
Ratings
Invasions of Privacy
INVASION OF PRIVACY





Search and seizure
Unsolicited e-mail
Defamation
Secrecy
Creation of databases consisting of
personal information.
Search and seizure
Without a reasonable expectation of privacy, there is no
privacy right to protect. Files stored on disk or tape in
the home are protected, but the rule becomes less clear
when applied to files stored on an Internet access
provider's server. Web servers, on the other hand, may
be protected by federal law. Some argue that consent of
the access provider, however, is all that is required for
law enforcement authorities to search and seize any files
in the possession of that access provider. Internet
service providers may have a lot of information about
the users because servers routinely record information
about users' e-mail and web browsing habits.
Unsolicited e-mail
Unsolicited email is not regulated by federal law
at present. Various states have outlawed
unsolicited commercial email. A federal judge in
Philadelphia has ruled that companies have no
First Amendment right to send unsolicited
messages to online service subscribers.
Minnesota 5-21-02, Jesse ventura, signed the first
Law that sets up punitive damage guidelines for
those that have been “spammed”
Defamation

Individual states specifically prohibit
defamation, no matter what form it takes.
Defamation consists of false and
unprivileged publication which results in
economic damages. Financial loss is not
necessary where the statement implies
that a person is a criminal or has an
unpleasant disease, or which injures a
person in respect to his other office,
profession, or business.
Secrecy


Trade secrets and other confidential information can also pose legal
problems. Unauthorized entry into a computer system is illegal,
whether the target machine is connected to the Internet or not.
Nevertheless, hackers still manage to get past the most difficult of
firewalls. Compromise of company secrets can lead to millions of
dollars in damages. Hacking is not the only danger to sensitive
information, however.
Some software can tell webmasters which visitors came from which
links. In addition, all e-mail has an address attached. Even if the
message content is encrypted, system administrators have access to
the fact of communication between two parties. The existence of
communication can itself often be secret, and the Internet cannot
provide absolute security. In many ways, the Internet abhors
secrecy. Many netizens believe in an absolute free-flow of all
information.
Creation of databases consisting of
personal information.


A few companies are creating huge databases full of private
information. Websites may even collect email addresses
inadvertently. In many cases, there is no prohibition on the
dissemination of personal information. The federal government
regulates only its own databases, leaving private database owners
to decide how and when to distribute collected information.
Webmasters use "cookies" as a means of accumulating information
about web surfers without having to ask for it. Cookies attempt to
keep track of visitors to a Web site. Criticism of cookies has
included fear of the loss of privacy. The information that cookies
collect from users may be profitable both in the aggregate and by
the individual. Whether the convenience that cookies provide
outweighs the loss of privacy is a question each Internet user must
decide for him or herself.
Constitutional Basis of
Privacy
While the U.S. Constitution does not
explicitly use the word "privacy," several of
its provisions protect different aspects of
this fundamental right.
Privacy is considered a “Penumbra Right”
Penumbra Interpretation


The Fourth Amendment limits government intrusion into people's private
lives. The Supreme Court's interpretations of the Fourth Amendment,
however, contain weaknesses that are particularly troubling in the
network environment of the Internet.
The First Amendment's freedom of expression and association clause,
which protects information about those with whom we associate (e.g.,
political groups and social organizations), and offers protections for the
materials that we create, read, view, etc., in the privacy of our homes

The Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which protects
the autonomy of our bodies, thoughts and beliefs

The Ninth Amendment, in which the Supreme Court has found protections
for the privacy of our family and reproductive life

The Fourteenth Amendment, which the Supreme Court has also cited as
the source of some limits on state government intrusions in the freedom
and privacy of intimate decisions that affect our sexual, family and
reproductive lives.
Current Legislation on
Privacy
Legislative Protections

Fair Credit Reporting Act (1970)

Privacy Act of 1974

Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (1974)

Right to Financial Privacy Act (1978)

Privacy Protection Act of 1980

Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (1986)

Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988

Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991

Driver's Privacy Protection Act of 1994

Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI)
(part of the Telecommunications Reform Act of 1996)

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)

Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) of 1998
Legislative Protections


All legislation has passed not to ensure
protection of privacy itself but to calm
down constituent fears in specific problem
areas as they arise.
This trend needs to stop
Have We Been Here
Before?
Have We Been Here Before?



In 1946, there were 6,000 black and white TVs
in the entire country, mostly in well-to-do homes
Three years later, in 1949, there were three
million TVs, and, in 1951, there were 12 million.
Today, more Americans have TVs than have
telephones
Have We Been Here Before?



People argued about whether TV was a tool or a
toy
Would it just provide mindless entertainment, or
teach our children and bring the world closer
together?
People had asked similar questions about the
radio, movies, the telephone, and even the
telegraph in the 1840s!
Have We Been Here Before?


Today, they’re asking the same kinds of
questions about computers and the
information superhighway.
But the answer is always the same: it isn’t
the technology. It is the way people use
the technology that makes the difference.
Industry Self-Regulation
Is
Not Enough
The Internet
Needs Rules
No Better Demographic to begin
To Protect
Than
Our Children
History of COPPA
History Of
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
(COPPA).

In June 1998, the FTC issued its "Report to Congress on
Privacy Online" in which it announced the findings of its
survey of 1,400 web sites. The FTC found that 89% of
the 212 child-oriented web sites it visited collect
personally identifiable information directly from children,
and only half of them disclose their information
collection practices. Fewer than 10% of these sites
provide for some form of parental control over the
collection of information from their children. The FTC
recommends that legislation be enacted which places
"parents in control of the online collection and use of
personal identifying information from their children."
Children's Online Privacy
Protection Act
(COPPA).
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
(COPPA).

Only for Children 13 years and younger

Why are Children 14-18 not protected?

No other Demographic currently protected
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
(COPPA).



(1) Collection limitation. Data collectors may not
collect personal information from children, unless it is
relevant, necessary and socially acceptable.
(2) Disclosure. Each data collector must prominently
display a privacy statement which discloses what
information is being collected or tracked, how it is
collected, how it will be used, who is collecting it, and
who will use it.
(3) Parental consent. The child must understand that
he/she must get parental permission before visiting
areas where personal information is collected. The
burden is on the collector/tracker to obtain valid
parental consent.
Children's Online Privacy Protection Act
(COPPA).



(4) Use specification/use limitation. Personal data
should not be disclosed, made available or otherwise
used for purposes other than those specified in the
disclosure statement.
(5) Data quality and security. Personal data should
be protected against loss, unauthorized access,
destruction, use, modification, or disclosure.
(6) Parental participation: access, correction and
prevention of future use. The data collector must
provide access to the information it has collected about
the child. It must also allow the parent the ability to
correct erroneous data, have data deleted, and/or
prevent further use.
Filtering
Filtering
A number of products are available which,
when installed in the personal computer,
block access to web sites containing
objectionable material. Some products also
prevent access to the computer during
specified hours of the day. Others provide
parents a log of the web sites visited by
their children. And some prevent access to
such web services as Internet Relay Chat.
Filtering







Cyber Patrol: www.cyberpatrol.com
Cyber Sitter: www.solidoak.com
Net Nanny: www.netnanny.com
Safesearch: www.safesearch.com
SurfWatch: www.surfwatch.com
Web Chaperone: www.webchaperone.com
X-Stop: www.xstop.com
Features to look for in filtering software













blocks "outgoing" transmission of personal information such as name,
address, phone number
limits access by time of day and total amount of connect time
clearly states its criteria for blocking sites, and allows parents to read a list
of blocked sites
has user-definable options, allowing customization of blocked sites
allows user to turn software on and off with password control
is updated frequently
blocks image files (JPEG/GIF) and binary downloads, likely to contain
photos and graphic images
blocks transfer of compressed files likely to contain adult content (ZIP and
SIT)
filters offensive language
blocks gopher and FTP (File Transfer Protocol) downloads
blocks Internet Relay Chats (IRCs) and Usenet Newsgroups
works with online service providers like AOL, Prodigy, and MSN
works with rating systems like PICS and RSACi
Filtering Software Problems




None of these software programs has been proven entirely effective
when put through a set of controlled tests.
Product testers have found that filtering programs often block
access to sites with legitimate non-obscene speech, for example the
word "breast," which can be found on the American Cancer Society's
web site pages concerning breast cancer.
In addition, reviewers are critical of software products which do not
disclose the list of keywords used to block web sites.
A further criticism of filtering software is that it can be difficult to
install and can cause the computer to operate more slowly.
Ratings
Ratings



One such system has been developed by the
Recreational Software Advisory Council, called
RSACi
Originally created as a rating system for
computer games, it is the most widely used PICS
rating system to date.
RSACi allows Internet web site publishers to
describe the levels of sex, nudity, violence and
harsh language, with five levels within each
category.
Ratings


SafeSurf, www.safesurf.com
NetShepherd www.netshepherd.com.
RSACi and SafeSurf rely on web publishers
to self-rate their web sites. NetShepherd
conducts third-party rating of sites.
Problems with Ratings


Self-Regulated
No way to keep a Universal Standard that
every website can agree on.
Thank You for Your Time
The End