Directions: Please read the article and make connections to other concepts we have discussed in this class so far. Hint: You should be able to make at least two connections. This needs to be discussed by "commenting" on the article, followed by replying to a classmate's comment. As always, your comments need to be thoughtful and considerate. It is okay to disagree, but do so respectfully. Ask questions in order to get a better understanding for yourself or for them!
Yahoo Faced $250,000-Day Fine for Not Giving U.S. Data
By Chris StrohmSep 11, 2014 9:01 PM PT
Nov2014MarMayJulSep30.0035.0040.00* Price chart for YAHOO! INC. Click flags for important stories.YHOO:US42.771.503.65%
Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO) might have had to pay millions of dollars per day in fines if the company kept refusing to comply with U.S. government requests for its users’ Internet data, newly released documents show. In a small victory for Yahoo’s legal challenges to U.S. spying, a court permitted the company to release yesterday 1,500 pages of partly redacted documents that shed light on the scope and force of the government’s surveillance methods. One document shows the U.S. in May 2008 threatened Yahoo with a fine of $250,000 day that would double each week the company failed to turn over data. Yahoo complied on May 12, 2008, giving in to the National Security Agency’s Prism electronic surveillance program that had operated without public knowledge until former agency contractor Edward Snowden exposed it in 2013. The revelations ignited a debate about the scope of U.S. spying and prompted Internet companies to take additional measures to boost the use of encryption for e-mails and other communications. “Abuse and excess take place in secrecy too easily,” said Ed Black, president and chief executive officer of the Computer and Communications Industry Association, a Washington-based trade group that represents phone and Internet companies including Yahoo. “This is hopefully a major step in having greater transparency about the secret world of surveillance.” Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg
The Yahoo! Inc. website is displayed on an Apple Inc. iPhone 5s and iPad Air in Washington. Close
The Yahoo! Inc. website is displayed on an Apple Inc. iPhone 5s and iPad Air in Washington.
Close
Open
Photographer: Andrew Harrer/BloombergThe Yahoo! Inc. website is displayed on an Apple Inc. iPhone 5s and iPad Air in Washington.
The case stemmed from amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that let the government to demand user information from online services without warrants.
10-Month Fight
Yahoo objected to the government’s warrantless foreign surveillance orders, waging an unsuccessful 10-month battle that started in 2007 in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and moved to an appeals panel that reviews rulings of the secret court, the declassified documents show. “The released documents underscore how we had to fight every step of the way to challenge the U.S. government’s surveillance efforts,” Ron Bell, general counsel for the Sunnyvale, California-based company, said in a blog. Confidence in technology companies began to be tested a year ago after the NSA document leaks by Snowden. In addition to the government asking Internet companies to turn over data about their users, the documents also uncovered NSA hacking of fiber optic cables abroad to steal data, and the physical interception of routers, servers and other network equipment to install surveillance tools before they were shipped to users. Photographer: George Frey/Bloomberg
Protesters march along the roadside to the new National Security Agency Utah Data Center being built in Bluffdale, Utah, U.S., on July 4, 2013. Close
Protesters march along the roadside to the new National Security Agency Utah Data... Read More
Close
Open
Photographer: George Frey/BloombergProtesters march along the roadside to the new National Security Agency Utah Data Center being built in Bluffdale, Utah, U.S., on July 4, 2013.
Fourth Amendment
Other companies including Microsoft Corp. (MSFT), Google Inc. (GOOG) and Facebook Inc. (FB) were also asked to turn over user data. Yahoo was the only company that refused to comply and fought the requests. The courts upheld the company’s right to assert violations of Fourth Amendment guarantees against unreasonable searches on behalf of its customers, while rejecting the substance of the constitutional claims. “We refused to comply with what we viewed as unconstitutional and overbroad surveillance and challenged the U.S. government’s authority,” Bell said. The directives were issued under a 2007 law permitting the NSA to intercept the communications of suspected foreign terrorists. That law allowed the e-mails and other communications of Americans to be intercepted without court warrants as long as they weren’t the target of the surveillance.
Kansas Citizen
“The directives will cause Yahoo! to capture the communications of a U.S. citizen sitting in his bedroom in Kansas while communicating in realtime to someone located overseas, who may also be a U.S. citizen temporarily located abroad,” the company said in a November 2007 court filing. In response to questions from court, government attorneys said the NSA had a procedure to purge data that was found to have been improperly collected. The data, the government said, are “precisely labeled and controlled” and “stored in a limited number of known, established electronic repositories.” In defense of the NSA’s requests, Michael McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence at the time, filed a statement with the court saying Yahoo’s refusal to comply with requests put the nation at risk. “Any further delay in Yahoo’s compliance could cause great harm to the United States,” McConnell wrote. “Each day that Yahoo does not comply with the directive we are losing foreign intelligence information that may never be recovered.” McConnell went on to become vice chairman at Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp. (BAH), which employed Snowden when he began to expose U.S. spying programs.
Obligatory Compliance
The government’s demands “are lawful” and “compliance with them is obligatory,” according to an August 2008 opinion by U.S. Circuit Judge Bruce Selya, who at the time was chief judge of the review panel. “Notwithstanding the parade of horribles trotted out by the petitioner, it has presented no evidence of any actual harm, any egregious risk of error, or any broad potential for abuse in the circumstances of the instant case,” Selya wrote for a three-judge panel. Selya also brushed aside Yahoo’s argument that warrantless surveillance placed too much power in the government’s executive branch. “This is little more than a lament about the risk that government officials will not operate in good faith,” according to Selya. “That sort of risk exists even when a warrant is required.” The Office of the Director of National Intelligence and Justice Department issued a joint statement last night that highlighted the parts of the case in which the court determined that the directives were lawful. President Barack Obama and other senior administration officials have defended the Prism spy program and resisted efforts to restrict or alter it. The U.S. continues to compel Internet companies to turn over user data. To contact the reporter on this story: Chris Strohm in Washington at cstrohm1@bloomberg.net To contact the editors responsible for this story: Jon Morgan at jmorgan97@bloomberg.net Romaine Bostick, Elizabeth Wasserman
This whole situation is really tricky. In the end it depends which one is worth more to us, security, or privacy and independence from government spying. I understand the views on both sides. The government wants big companies with information about foreign affairs to help spy on other countries and threats. On the other side, people feel threatened by the idea of government forcing information from companies, and spying on citizens. Maybe a limit should be set in stone for how much spying the government can do, and that it must be closely watched by a group who's sole purpose is to prevent government from spying to much.
Some of the things that I connect with in this article are, Scope of government, and The Patriot Act. I see the scope of government getting larger then it needs to be when it comes to personal privacy, I don't think any smart terrorist organization is going to search something that would blow their cover. Like The Patriot Act gives the government the authority to see anything that they see is a terrorist threat. But how is someone searching something on Yahoo! going to give the government any leads?
So, it says that " the government demands are lawful and compliance with them is obligatory", but does that gives them the right to spy and to violate the user fourth amendment of the users? I think that the company was in the right because they are suppose to respect and protect their customers privacy instead of paying a fine of thousands of dollars for being loyals to their users.
One thing that I immediately made a connection to was the objective in our textbook about the "scope of government". Here the NSA is pushing the line on how much the government should be involved. Clearly the Yahoo Corporation had a right to claim the government was doing unreasonable searches on their clients, which complies with the American Individualism. I personally feel Yahoo was in the right for not handing over the information, but if the NSA had given a reasonable cause to justify the need for information that is a whole different story. One question I still had was if Yahoo still had to pay the fines?
The whole time I was reading this I was thinking about Facebook Messenger this app started out a few years ago and has gotten bigger and bigger but here recently the people who have downloaded the app have experienced problems with their phones. The app can take your location and put it in a database for Facebook to view it can also do this with pictures and any other data on your phone, without your permission. Now I understand that this sort of data can be seen as a security threat but lets take all of these politicians and look at their internet viewing pages or their skype calls or even their emails! This is an example of indirect democracy where we don't get to decide on everything but we think we do. Another realization I came to was the Elite Theory, the people with the money right now are controlling the issue and we have no power or opinion.
This post can be linked to the USA Patriot act which allows the government to conduct active surveillance on suspected terrorists. However, enacting the Patriot act can be a tricky situation. By demanding that companies such as Yahoo, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft hand over all of their users' data, that is infringing on the Fourth Amendment rights. By the NSA attempting and eventually succeeding in obtaining data from millions of users, not only in America, but globally, they violated the rights of everyone who used any of these services.
This is when a right to privacy for U.S. citizens gets very tricky with the advent of modern technology and with internet becoming more and more the definition of communication. Citizens publicize themselves through facebook and twitter or other social media sites in which entails the "un-privatization" of peoples' lives. The internet is essentially a public marketplace of information, goods and data and just like any urban area, it is slowly being filled and watched by police and cameras. Just like private property for industry giants are inspected by the FDA and other organizations, so are the industry giants such as Yahoo and Google to be searched. It is the same regulation by which the government conducts physically only now on an interweb level. I do agree that the government has the right to search these industry giants to exploit things that shouldn't be happening for the safety of citizens and use this power within practical, non-abusive bounds. There is definitely a gray area that I haven't addressed that is up for debate that could sway me the other direction, but for the sake of taking a stand, there it is.
John, The Internet IS a public market place. It IS a place that everyone is on. But, you see, the police, the FBI, the NSA, They already have penetrated, obtained and can search through every single piece of data. Even this comment i am writing, they can look at. nothing you post on the internet is safe. For the part about the government having the right to search these industrial giants, I have to disagree with you. Take your twitter or instagram for example, do you want the federal government scrolling through your photos, or tweets? why would you want that? It is not only morally wrong, but violates your right of privacy. But for the sake of taking a stand, this is mine.
This article is an example of the right to freedom of the press. In particular, releasing information on the government's internet spying, "This is hopefully a major step in having greater transparency about the secret world of surveillance." An uninformed public is a weak public in my opinion. And Yahoo! letting it be known that the government tried to force them to comply with their desires is definitely practicing freedom of the press. Yahoo! may also be more of a Republican business because they argue that "warrantless surveillance placed too much power in the government's executive branch." The Republican party believes that the government has too much power and so does Yahoo! in regards to internet surveillance.
I think its wrong that the government wants big companies to give up information such as Facebook, and Google, that way the government can spy on other countries. From my understanding of the article I thought that Yahoo did a hard choice not giving the government what they had asked for. I don't think that many people like the thought or the idea of the government taking information from those large companies and spying in on people.
I believe the US should vote on a law where the government can only spy to certain limitations. With agreeing on specific limitations of intruding citizens privacy, there would be less controversy about not abiding by amendments of the constitution.
What worries me is how we have such a small percent of youth in the voter turnout rate. I'm willing to bet mostly younger people are most interactive in social networking sites than people 65+. So, how would our voice really get heard in this case?
I have mixed fellings about which side I agree with. I do beileve that eveybody's buisness is is there owns, but if the government is telling the truth about terroist being active on Yahho then, Yahoo should comply to the U.S government.
I disagree on the fact that the government has lied to society about many things to get what they want. Really the government could say that there are terrorists on anything and make people hand over information. I think Yahoo! was right in trying to fight giving over their information because it's not theirs to share.
That's the thing, the government neither knows, nor even strongly suspects terrorist activity, they simply want access to the information to collect any foreign intel. They're searching through a vast number of private documents to find something that very possibly isn't even there.
I would agree, mainly because I would rather be safe than sorry on this issue. Does a personal e-mail mean more to me than a few hundred American human lives?
I think it is kind of ridiculous that the government is asking for every Yahoo! users information. I think that if the government is suspicious about someone on Yahoo! then they should ask the company for that person's information not everyone on the site. People are trusting the company when they sign up not to give their information to everyone and it is definitely a privacy problem.
I think that it is wrong that the government wants big online companies to give up data and user information. Yes the government has control of everything but going to court over such a little thing like not paying a fine and then doubling it is stupid. I dont think that, that reason is good enough to take a company to court for. Its unreasonable. If there is an act of terriorism on Yahoo then Yahoo is in the position to tell the government but there is no proof that there was an act of terriorism on Yahoo.
If they were really wanting someone to be brought down for terrorism against us they have the right to arrest them..... SO why have the need to look through our personal lives? I have nothing to hide but some people do, SO get those peoples names and leave the rest of us out of it.
These issues are fairly similar to the ones related directly to the patriot act, as far as the issues of privacy and due process. Of course, at the very least superficially, these actions are taken by the government to promote national defence as well as maintain order in the nation, but as the defensive author, Selya, says, we have to expect that the government operates in good faith. Although she's right that that's true with a regular warrant as well, due process is an integral part of our system. Proving the legality after the fact is not how we should operate. And perhaps it should also be considered that maybe, even though it's legal now, maybe it SHOULDN'T be. This kind of thing is another reason more people should vote so they can defend themselves and their information in issues like this by voting for people who won't compromise it.
Thats a very good point, this is another instance of when the people complain and complain about an issue and how the government is out to get them, and then when given the opportunity they chose to take no part in the political process. A bit of a contradiction, and one of the major problems with our society.
I fully agree. I honestly doubt that taking the public's private information is something we have to take in "good faith". Who's to say that argument will stand the test of time? Maybe that's what the government intends, but once they get our information, what could evolve in uses with it from there?
I never thought of it as detailed as that Israel, and really agree that these are some of the reasons why more people should vote, it seems some people just let whatever happens until there's something wrong already and the government starts looking a bit sketchy to the people who disagree to what their doing
I honestly could care less if the government was looking in on my personal life, as long as I don't end up on the evening news. Our government has a right to protect us, and if that means reading in on a few e-mails or logging into our facebook or Yahoo! accounts every once in a while to stop terrorism, im totally okay with that. I have nothing to hide, so yes government! I don't care if you want to read about my e-mails from George Fox University, or my neighbor asking me for a cup of flour.
It's for protection, I get that. However, where do we draw the line? How long are we going to be okay with the "protection" excuse. It's getting out of hand. The fact that I had to point out someone's house number just to post this is a bit scary to me.
We need to decide between security of safety vs. security of privacy. I think we shouldn't make this so black and white and instead find a happy medium between surveillance and privacy, of course leaning more towards privacy. Kudos to Yahoo! for letting the public know that the government tried to force them to release user data, although I've got the feeling they're doing this more so that the public gets angry at the government rather than Yahoo! should they ever comply. We deserve privacy but we really need to educate people far more on what's really private or "confidential" on the internet, especially with social networking sites.
I think that spying on us is wrong. If they think that someone is trying to hurt us then by all means look but you can't just look at our personal stuff because you wan't to. You have to have a reason for it, Yahoo did the right thing by saying no to them.If they can look at our personal stuff why cant we look at theirs? How are we supposed to trust the government when they go behind our back all the time and not tell us anything.
There are two sides to the argument here, both which have very solid points in my opinion.The security and safety of our nation and its citizens is of great importance and should be a priority for the government, and the requests to have access to the information of web users is not completely unwarrented or ridiculous. But then again neither is the argument for privacy and to resist government access to their information. The primary issue I have with this argument is that the government most likely does not care about 95% of the information they gain from an average American in this way, and the 5% that they do care about is information they probably already had access to in the first place. Wanting privacy of information is one thing, but to get extremely angry about something like this, you have to wonder if they have something to hide.
I feel like hysteria has a little to do with how uptight our government is with keeping watch over us. After the events of 9/11 they have been very VERY secretive to keep us safe, but how can we know whether or not their actions are justified if they don't tell us? Would we be as safe if they told us everything? Are they really looking at the big picture or just being annoying parents? Too many questions to answer Jared. I'll let you decide however on how to think of these questions.
This article is in direct relation to the "scope of our government" and how much we want the government involved in our lives. When we "asked" for the Patriot Act we agreed that if it meant giving up some of our freedoms we would comply to keep our country safe. The problem with this however is that it conflicts with the enlightened understanding of our government. In the world of technology where things like swatting exists (look it up if you don't know what that is) it is very likely for a terrorist to hide himself in a mainstream source. The question we must ask ourselves and bring up to the linkage institutions is "how transparent do we want our government to keep us safe" and "how involved do we want the government in our lives". It is a very conflicted question so I don't think I can answer it right this moment, but we should definitely need to look into it.
I agree with your question "how involved do we want the government to be in our lives". This is a question that has been asked since the beginning and still remains pertinent today. I feel like every American wants privacy; but to what degree is where we all differ. It's definitely a good idea to ask the linkage institutions this question and find a way to agree on an answer.
The fourth amendment gives us the people protection from unreasonable searches. The government should not have free access to data. Good for Yahoo for being the one to stand up. It said others like Microsoft, Google, and Facebook all turned over their data. I find it really concerning that we didn't even know about it. They had the access to the data handed over by the parties that complied and the people did not know.
I find it ridiculous that Yahoo! was the only company to immediately disobey the government's orders. I realize that It's for safety purposes, but if that's true, then why don't I feel safe? I feel violated and like the government is breathing down my neck. This issue went through the public policy cycle but I feel like the new policy hasn't fixed much and the policy impact should bring it up again; hopefully fixing the problem this time.
This situation is kind of like the patriot act, I think the government has the right to know about a person if they suspect something but sometimes the government might search people for no reason. Like the patriot act they have no reason to believe they are involved in illegal activity. I'm not really sure who's side I'm on they both have good points and bad points on to why they made their stance.
This kind of blatant disregard for privacy is disturbing. The U.S government got away with getting vital information from other forms of social media as a means of protection. Yahoo called them out on it, and now they're being punished for protecting the rights of their users. While 250,000 is probably not going to put a dent into Yahoo's bank, the idea of a company standing up for user privacy and being punished is an example of hyperpluralism in the U.S government.
This is similar to the Patriot Act, and this type of thing does not surprise me from our government. I do think that sometimes they made have good reason to do so, but to me, I feel like it is just a big invasion of privacy. I think that they are doing something we know is wrong, and that's why they are having such a giant freak out and even doubling the fines.
This goes to show the "grey area" of both Freedom of Press and the right for privacy in the United States. Where we are given these rights, there is still little loopholes found when it comes to using the internet. Yes, we as a people are given the right of press, meaning we can write about anything we please on social media or wherever else on the internet, but then there is still the government looking it over and taking it down or something along those lines ---- which breaches in with invasion of privacy; although it actually isn't. It's the same when large companies overview calls made by their employees while using a company phone, or when they look at a possible employee's Facebook or Twitter page before hiring them. While it may seem wrong, or an invasion of privacy, I believe that it isn't. If there are things you don't want other people, or the government seeing then it shouldn't be on the internet. As for them going through Yahoo! or Google searches and user logs, that is their way of protecting its citizens and being able to exploit things that could come to harm our country. Now, while some people find that it is wrong for them to go through and search these user logs, I believe that it isn't as wrong as people think it might be. They aren't abusing the power of doing this, so there is no reason as to why they shouldn't, especially if it is being done to protect our country and it's people.
Individualism and privacy are entitlements but honestly i feel its the best choice that the government operates under the covers and keeps tabs on the media, I mean the feeling of paranoia and personal invasion might arise but at the end of the day its not like the government is a bunch of children who just go around reading up on personal affairs. Knowing that someone is keeping tabs eases the mind. Yahoo had the right to fight it is crazy to pull everyones information but i don't have anything to hide as do many other people and if sacrificing my internet information is the cost for the government to stay on to of things and collect more info to neutralize threats then i don't mind.
It is frusterating that the government wants all the information on the users of Yahoo and all the other internet companies. Not entirly sure what they hope to gain but it seem like by not complying because its unconstitutional and a violation of privacy to the users and the company and by stating that their lack of coroporation ¨puts the nation at risk¨ is a bit extreme and needs to come up with a better reason to be spying on people.
The fact that the government is using our social media and email to track information on us is a violation of the U.S. citizen rights to privacy. On the other hand, the request is sent for a specific and beneficial reason. It is to maintain the safety of our nation's citizens. Having the government tracking suspicious activity on areas that some may not know is being supervised will benefit the people and may prevent catastrophic events like 9/11. Similar to the Patriot Act, the request will cause some to sacrifice but the sacrifice will ensure the safety of all who are innocent. I strongly believe that Yahoo should comply with the U.S. government's request.
I have respect for people's privacy, however, if it is on a public site, what makes it necessarily private? If you have a private account for a social media site, then that's where the government is doing you wrong, which is creating the issue. This issue sounds like it can be apart of the policymaking system. The people are having an issue with their privacy and government spying. So, the word is coming out through the media, which is, in this case, Yahoo. It has to be on the government's agenda since they want the private information. Yahoo did bring this issue to court, as well, because it appears to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, the court believes that the doings are lawful. Technically, I think that it is lawful because the sites the government is trying to "spy" on are public sites used for anyone, if not everyone, to see. Yet, I still think that information that is posted for a few and not for others, should remain private. The government should be limited to certain information.
Mainly I see an issue where Americans' general want for a more limited government is butting heads with that government's need to protect it's people. Generally America's individualistic attitude means that we wish for our government to have as little as possible to do with our daily lives. One must wonder whether or not this attitude is preventing our government from more adequately defending our nation, or whether or not there is a legit justification for such an intrusion into the lives of US citizens. Is the loss of privacy truly too great a cost? If not then are these trespasses truly effective?
Connecting this article to the previous lessons that we have had, The connections are 1)the media. Not only is this being spread by the media, it is also about the media and how the government is getting a hold of it. 2) the policy making cycle. The people have now seen this as a problem, and the rest of the cycle should run its course. I believe we will see more about this later on in our lives.
People should expect that anything you put on the internet can be seen by everyone. Now with that being said there are sometimes where personal information is used. I don't believe the government should be able to see that information without a very good reason to, like if they are a terrorist or with a reasonable guess that they could be a terrorist. The government should not be allowed to force companies to hand over all their information about every user. It should be for only certain people with a reasonable cause. It still comes down to would we rather have privacy or be protected but there has got to be a option in the middle and we need to find that immediately.
I understand that the government wants to make sure that they are no attacks being planned and that we are safe but we all need our privacy. We as human beings should have that right. But I do understand anything and everything put on the internet is seen one way or another. The government should only be able to look at your information if they find you suspicious of something in my opinion because why look at someone's information when they are innocent.
It's sad to see that Yahoo is asking for everyone's information when they are out for one person. It's a privacy issue and it made me think of the NSA. They shouldn't have to ask for everyone's information like that. And it's ridiculous what Yahoo is doing. Are they still going to be fine for what they are doing to other companies? This is a big thing and we are making a connection to the linkage and how there is a problem and now it's on media. Things like this make you not trust the internet and giving fact information out is what parents have always said due to things like this and what Yahoo is doing.
After having read this article, it reminds me of a discussion that we've had in class. I remember Miss Kilcup talking about our lack of privacy and how there are people who have access to our emails, cell phone accounts, and more. I believe we have a right to our privacy and that we should only be "looked into" with good reason. Also, this article serves as an example to the policymaking system where linkage institutions get involved; media. With this news being spread, it can now be added to the list of the policy agenda, whereas a solution is to be made.
The first connection I made with this article is the media because that's the most important part of this article. I feel like anything and everything you put on the internet, you should expect it to be seen by everybody you can think of and then some. The second connection I made with this article is the Patriot Act because your privacy is being invaded by the media and the government but at the same time, they're doing it so they're able to protect us better.
The internet in general is a very public place, so everything and anything you put on there can most likely be seen by other people around the world in some sort of way. However, I don't believe the government has the right to invade people's privacy by forcing companies to hand over user information. It's wrong and it makes me feel really comfortable knowing someone can see my personal information. The government needs to realize that we do have a right to privacy and they need to stop violating it.
As i read this article i found out and could relate to where the government is allowed to excess what your saying and communicating with others online. It is like the same as text messages that we have learned in the past. I do not believe the government should always be allowed to hear or see what your up too without a good reason to go check and see if you are endangering the national security in some way. I also do not believe the government should be allowed to force companies to hand over there information without a reasonable cause.
Why does the government want so much power? It does feel like they are breathing right down my neck and that if we do something wrong we get punished by paying money. The media always makes a big deal out of everything the government does. Not all of it is bad. Honestly I wouldn't care if the government looked into my email or looked at facebook because I got nothing to hide. But! On the other hand it doesn't make me feel so great about myself because I feel like I have been personally attacked in a way by the government.
This is very similar to the Patriot Act. Government invades our privacies not because they want to but because they have a duty to protect this nation from threats of terrorism, that is a very good reason for Government to do this kind of thing. As for Yahoo not complying to government's request, they have a point in doing so but they could have endanger America by being stubborn. This also connects to Media as people will be reading this and be informed of the issue and how should they react to it.
This article connects to the scope of government and how much power they hold. Here the government is trying requesting Yahoo user information. This is pretty much going against the peoples' right of privacy and personal information. Why should the government who seems to hold access to such a grand scale need Yahoo user information? I feel like government is trying to hard to keep surveillance in check. I feel like there are much more effective ways to keep watch of suspicious actions then requesting Yahoo user info. The government is trying to get control of too many things that they seem to forget about things like the right to privacy.
Two concepts that I can connect this article to are the scope of government and a flaw within our policy making system. We all disagree with how much power our government should have. I believe that social injustices occur all the time, and there should be a high power to set things straight, but the "need" for personal information isn't necessary without cause. I believe that if you are stupid enough to talk about a planned terrorist attack over any type of social media, then the government will find out either way, but the need for more data is uncalled for. I also believe that there is a flaw in the system if the government wont budge to change it policies even though the people find their actions to be unlawful. I feel it's time for change within our law making system because we should be able to protect out privacy.
I believe that this is wrong and we should have our right to privacy. Yahoo did the right thing in fighting for what they believed in. There are certain cases where i think you should be able to view into someones private life but you should have a reason and already be suspicious. Also you I think you must have a warrant to do so. I think we should re-vote on the issue as a country to whether we want privacy or safety. But in order for this to be effective we need more of the young people to vote on the issue, because in a recent article the numbers were low. i think re-voting the issue will fix this problem if more young people vote.
this article is just another showing of how the government's scope is not in the right. they are more worried about the emails we are sending than the problems that cripple our society. we think that when we vote we are getting what we want, but really it almost seems like the democracy is being run indirectly, putting up a facade that makes us believe we are getting what we want.
Within this article, the author does go into the associated agencies that Edward Snowden working with, and it does put stress on the significance of what he did and what the government is doing with Yahoo! I see that Yahoo! is trying to use the 4th Amendment as their shield, but with the laws that are currently in place, the searches seem to less blow through the 4th Amendment rights and rather circumvent them. Compliance indeed would be the best option for such companies.
After reading the article, it really ties in to what we learn in chapter one how the government can get hold of the media, through linkage institutions. Since everything that can be broadcasted on the media, means that a lot of people would be able to see it, but the information that is provided is able to be monitored and controlled. But from that being said, that means that a lot of things that is displayed throughout the media can be traced back to us within the seconds we allow them to when we want to look up information or when we want to post some picture, fanfiction, commentary, school reports, etc.
I think Yahoo did the correct thing in my opinion, they fought for our rights, or for their rights in that matter. I believe that the government shouldn't be allowed to force companies to give out their users information. It would be alot different if they had suspected of the person being a terrorist then I could see why they would ask for company for the personal information, and yeah every thing you do on the internet will most likely be everywhere there should be some rules to an extant. the connection I've made with this article and the things we talked about in class are 1) the media and how is spreads things out. 2) the policy making cycle, about how once an issue reaches the media they have to change things. And it never stops.
The privacy of the people should be respected, however, the government spying scandals bring to light that anything one puts on the internet can easily be accessed by other people. This scandal clarifies that you must be careful what you put on the internet. Also, the the policy making society is clearly evidenced here. People found out about and issue, and linkage institutions picked up on it, spreading it through the media. This issue worked it's way up the policy agenda, and eventually the policy was changed. This also reminds me of the patriot act, where the peoples privacy can be violated.
After reading the article, a big thing I can connect to from our previous lesson is the media. The media (Yahoo in this case) is being targeted by the government to let them see the users data on the site, which they are declining to let them see. I applaud Yahoo for doing this, but it should be known that anything on the internet is more than likely something the government has already seen. Although it is nice that Yahoo is fighting back for what they believe in, by telling everyone through media what is happening.
People need to be aware that whatever they put onto the internet can be seen by the government at anytime and shouldn't be sending or posting something that they don't want to be seen. Although it is an invasion of privacy and shouldn't be that way, it is. I see why the government wants to do this and what they wanted by passing the Patriot Act, but only to a certain extent.
This article is similar to how in class, we discussed how after 9/11 people would suspect anyone of being a terrorist if they had a turbine on or didn't look american and that often caused discrimination in society. Another example of invading someones privacy is like a "DWB" or Driving While Black where officers would pull people over just because they had a darker skin tone and suspected that they were doing something wrong.
I don't think some Americans understand the concept that anything they post or download onto the internet can and will be seen by anyone who uses it. Whatever's on there stays there forever. With media being a huge linkage institution, its a lot easier to get the word out about politics and gets the people informed about what decisions need to be made based off the policy agenda. The government should not have the access to force companies to give all their information to them unless they seem highly suspicious when using the internet.
You should always assume everything you post on the internet or social media can be seen by everyone. Although, certain things that are meant to be private and personal should not be monitored by the government. I feel like that is a huge invasion of privacy. It makes sense to look into these things with probable cause, but not to an average citizen. This "spying" is in violation of the Fourth Amendment and should not be tolerated.
I am a firm believer in American individualism. I resent the idea of even having a government, for as long as government exists no one person truly has freedom. However I recognize the fact that government protections are necessary, and that the world can't function without institutions to create order. Having unlimited access to the internet information of any citizen is overstepping the government's bounds. You can't treat people like criminals before they've done anything. This control puts far too much power in the hands of the government, and it makes me sick to know I'm being watched even if I have nothing to fear.
This article shows us how much the government tries to do to make sure that no one is a terrorist in our country, but spying on people is taking away our right to privacy and freedom of speech. It's taking away our freedom of speech because if we say something over email or text or even over the phone then they can decide if its terroristical or not.
This relates to the patriot act and the policy making cycle. Privacy is the citizens right. The government is violating this right by spying on us through media and our private accounts. This needs to be taken care of now.
I think that because of the 9\11 incident, the government became more involved in peoples lives. The patriot act was passed very quickly because of the incident that happened in september of 2001. I do not agree with the fact that the government has permission to look over all of our personal messages, photos, posts, etc... but if this is what it takes to keep the U.S safe from any future terrorists than I think we can get over it.
I think that if the government asks a company to do something, they should do it. The government keeps the way it monitors things a secret to outsmart the potential enemies. If an enemy knew that the government would check their Yahoo then they probably wouldn't reveal anything on there, but if they didn't know they might let something slip. I don't have a problem with the government being able to see my accounts because I have nothing to hide.
This whole situation is really tricky. In the end it depends which one is worth more to us, security, or privacy and independence from government spying. I understand the views on both sides. The government wants big companies with information about foreign affairs to help spy on other countries and threats. On the other side, people feel threatened by the idea of government forcing information from companies, and spying on citizens. Maybe a limit should be set in stone for how much spying the government can do, and that it must be closely watched by a group who's sole purpose is to prevent government from spying to much.
ReplyDeleteSome of the things that I connect with in this article are, Scope of government, and The Patriot Act. I see the scope of government getting larger then it needs to be when it comes to personal privacy, I don't think any smart terrorist organization is going to search something that would blow their cover. Like The Patriot Act gives the government the authority to see anything that they see is a terrorist threat. But how is someone searching something on Yahoo! going to give the government any leads?
ReplyDeleteSo, it says that " the government demands are lawful and compliance with them is obligatory", but does that gives them the right to spy and to violate the user fourth amendment of the users? I think that the company was in the right because they are suppose to respect and protect their customers privacy instead of paying a fine of thousands of dollars for being loyals to their users.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I immediately made a connection to was the objective in our textbook about the "scope of government". Here the NSA is pushing the line on how much the government should be involved. Clearly the Yahoo Corporation had a right to claim the government was doing unreasonable searches on their clients, which complies with the American Individualism. I personally feel Yahoo was in the right for not handing over the information, but if the NSA had given a reasonable cause to justify the need for information that is a whole different story. One question I still had was if Yahoo still had to pay the fines?
ReplyDeleteThe whole time I was reading this I was thinking about Facebook Messenger this app started out a few years ago and has gotten bigger and bigger but here recently the people who have downloaded the app have experienced problems with their phones. The app can take your location and put it in a database for Facebook to view it can also do this with pictures and any other data on your phone, without your permission. Now I understand that this sort of data can be seen as a security threat but lets take all of these politicians and look at their internet viewing pages or their skype calls or even their emails! This is an example of indirect democracy where we don't get to decide on everything but we think we do. Another realization I came to was the Elite Theory, the people with the money right now are controlling the issue and we have no power or opinion.
ReplyDeleteThis post can be linked to the USA Patriot act which allows the government to conduct active surveillance on suspected terrorists. However, enacting the Patriot act can be a tricky situation. By demanding that companies such as Yahoo, Google, Facebook, and Microsoft hand over all of their users' data, that is infringing on the Fourth Amendment rights. By the NSA attempting and eventually succeeding in obtaining data from millions of users, not only in America, but globally, they violated the rights of everyone who used any of these services.
ReplyDeleteThis is when a right to privacy for U.S. citizens gets very tricky with the advent of modern technology and with internet becoming more and more the definition of communication. Citizens publicize themselves through facebook and twitter or other social media sites in which entails the "un-privatization" of peoples' lives. The internet is essentially a public marketplace of information, goods and data and just like any urban area, it is slowly being filled and watched by police and cameras. Just like private property for industry giants are inspected by the FDA and other organizations, so are the industry giants such as Yahoo and Google to be searched. It is the same regulation by which the government conducts physically only now on an interweb level. I do agree that the government has the right to search these industry giants to exploit things that shouldn't be happening for the safety of citizens and use this power within practical, non-abusive bounds. There is definitely a gray area that I haven't addressed that is up for debate that could sway me the other direction, but for the sake of taking a stand, there it is.
ReplyDeleteJohn, The Internet IS a public market place. It IS a place that everyone is on. But, you see, the police, the FBI, the NSA, They already have penetrated, obtained and can search through every single piece of data. Even this comment i am writing, they can look at. nothing you post on the internet is safe. For the part about the government having the right to search these industrial giants, I have to disagree with you. Take your twitter or instagram for example, do you want the federal government scrolling through your photos, or tweets? why would you want that? It is not only morally wrong, but violates your right of privacy. But for the sake of taking a stand, this is mine.
DeleteThis article is an example of the right to freedom of the press. In particular, releasing information on the government's internet spying, "This is hopefully a major step in having greater transparency about the secret world of surveillance." An uninformed public is a weak public in my opinion. And Yahoo! letting it be known that the government tried to force them to comply with their desires is definitely practicing freedom of the press. Yahoo! may also be more of a Republican business because they argue that "warrantless surveillance placed too much power in the government's executive branch." The Republican party believes that the government has too much power and so does Yahoo! in regards to internet surveillance.
ReplyDeleteI think its wrong that the government wants big companies to give up information such as Facebook, and Google, that way the government can spy on other countries. From my understanding of the article I thought that Yahoo did a hard choice not giving the government what they had asked for. I don't think that many people like the thought or the idea of the government taking information from those large companies and spying in on people.
ReplyDeleteI believe the US should vote on a law where the government can only spy to certain limitations. With agreeing on specific limitations of intruding citizens privacy, there would be less controversy about not abiding by amendments of the constitution.
ReplyDeleteWhat worries me is how we have such a small percent of youth in the voter turnout rate. I'm willing to bet mostly younger people are most interactive in social networking sites than people 65+. So, how would our voice really get heard in this case?
DeleteI have mixed fellings about which side I agree with. I do beileve that eveybody's buisness is is there owns, but if the government is telling the truth about terroist being active on Yahho then, Yahoo should comply to the U.S government.
ReplyDeleteI disagree on the fact that the government has lied to society about many things to get what they want. Really the government could say that there are terrorists on anything and make people hand over information. I think Yahoo! was right in trying to fight giving over their information because it's not theirs to share.
DeleteThat's the thing, the government neither knows, nor even strongly suspects terrorist activity, they simply want access to the information to collect any foreign intel. They're searching through a vast number of private documents to find something that very possibly isn't even there.
DeleteI would agree, mainly because I would rather be safe than sorry on this issue. Does a personal e-mail mean more to me than a few hundred American human lives?
DeleteI agree I have mixed feelings on who to side with.
DeleteI think it is kind of ridiculous that the government is asking for every Yahoo! users information. I think that if the government is suspicious about someone on Yahoo! then they should ask the company for that person's information not everyone on the site. People are trusting the company when they sign up not to give their information to everyone and it is definitely a privacy problem.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with your idea. The government should not be allowed to ask for everybody's account information.
DeleteI think that it is wrong that the government wants big online companies to give up data and user information. Yes the government has control of everything but going to court over such a little thing like not paying a fine and then doubling it is stupid. I dont think that, that reason is good enough to take a company to court for. Its unreasonable. If there is an act of terriorism on Yahoo then Yahoo is in the position to tell the government but there is no proof that there was an act of terriorism on Yahoo.
ReplyDeleteIf they were really wanting someone to be brought down for terrorism against us they have the right to arrest them..... SO why have the need to look through our personal lives? I have nothing to hide but some people do, SO get those peoples names and leave the rest of us out of it.
DeleteThese issues are fairly similar to the ones related directly to the patriot act, as far as the issues of privacy and due process. Of course, at the very least superficially, these actions are taken by the government to promote national defence as well as maintain order in the nation, but as the defensive author, Selya, says, we have to expect that the government operates in good faith. Although she's right that that's true with a regular warrant as well, due process is an integral part of our system. Proving the legality after the fact is not how we should operate. And perhaps it should also be considered that maybe, even though it's legal now, maybe it SHOULDN'T be. This kind of thing is another reason more people should vote so they can defend themselves and their information in issues like this by voting for people who won't compromise it.
ReplyDeleteThats a very good point, this is another instance of when the people complain and complain about an issue and how the government is out to get them, and then when given the opportunity they chose to take no part in the political process. A bit of a contradiction, and one of the major problems with our society.
DeleteI fully agree. I honestly doubt that taking the public's private information is something we have to take in "good faith". Who's to say that argument will stand the test of time? Maybe that's what the government intends, but once they get our information, what could evolve in uses with it from there?
DeleteI never thought of it as detailed as that Israel, and really agree that these are some of the reasons why more people should vote, it seems some people just let whatever happens until there's something wrong already and the government starts looking a bit sketchy to the people who disagree to what their doing
DeleteI honestly could care less if the government was looking in on my personal life, as long as I don't end up on the evening news. Our government has a right to protect us, and if that means reading in on a few e-mails or logging into our facebook or Yahoo! accounts every once in a while to stop terrorism, im totally okay with that. I have nothing to hide, so yes government! I don't care if you want to read about my e-mails from George Fox University, or my neighbor asking me for a cup of flour.
ReplyDeleteAnd I forgot to mention that this relates to the Patriot Act!
DeleteYou have a good point but i disagree. I dont like the idea of how they can keep things from us but they want into our personal lives.
DeleteIt's for protection, I get that. However, where do we draw the line? How long are we going to be okay with the "protection" excuse. It's getting out of hand. The fact that I had to point out someone's house number just to post this is a bit scary to me.
DeleteWe need to decide between security of safety vs. security of privacy. I think we shouldn't make this so black and white and instead find a happy medium between surveillance and privacy, of course leaning more towards privacy. Kudos to Yahoo! for letting the public know that the government tried to force them to release user data, although I've got the feeling they're doing this more so that the public gets angry at the government rather than Yahoo! should they ever comply. We deserve privacy but we really need to educate people far more on what's really private or "confidential" on the internet, especially with social networking sites.
ReplyDeleteI think that spying on us is wrong. If they think that someone is trying to hurt us then by all means look but you can't just look at our personal stuff because you wan't to. You have to have a reason for it, Yahoo did the right thing by saying no to them.If they can look at our personal stuff why cant we look at theirs? How are we supposed to trust the government when they go behind our back all the time and not tell us anything.
ReplyDeleteThere are two sides to the argument here, both which have very solid points in my opinion.The security and safety of our nation and its citizens is of great importance and should be a priority for the government, and the requests to have access to the information of web users is not completely unwarrented or ridiculous. But then again neither is the argument for privacy and to resist government access to their information. The primary issue I have with this argument is that the government most likely does not care about 95% of the information they gain from an average American in this way, and the 5% that they do care about is information they probably already had access to in the first place. Wanting privacy of information is one thing, but to get extremely angry about something like this, you have to wonder if they have something to hide.
ReplyDeleteI feel like hysteria has a little to do with how uptight our government is with keeping watch over us. After the events of 9/11 they have been very VERY secretive to keep us safe, but how can we know whether or not their actions are justified if they don't tell us? Would we be as safe if they told us everything? Are they really looking at the big picture or just being annoying parents? Too many questions to answer Jared. I'll let you decide however on how to think of these questions.
DeleteThis article is in direct relation to the "scope of our government" and how much we want the government involved in our lives. When we "asked" for the Patriot Act we agreed that if it meant giving up some of our freedoms we would comply to keep our country safe. The problem with this however is that it conflicts with the enlightened understanding of our government. In the world of technology where things like swatting exists (look it up if you don't know what that is) it is very likely for a terrorist to hide himself in a mainstream source. The question we must ask ourselves and bring up to the linkage institutions is "how transparent do we want our government to keep us safe" and "how involved do we want the government in our lives". It is a very conflicted question so I don't think I can answer it right this moment, but we should definitely need to look into it.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your question "how involved do we want the government to be in our lives". This is a question that has been asked since the beginning and still remains pertinent today. I feel like every American wants privacy; but to what degree is where we all differ. It's definitely a good idea to ask the linkage institutions this question and find a way to agree on an answer.
DeleteThe fourth amendment gives us the people protection from unreasonable searches. The government should not have free access to data. Good for Yahoo for being the one to stand up. It said others like Microsoft, Google, and Facebook all turned over their data. I find it really concerning that we didn't even know about it. They had the access to the data handed over by the parties that complied and the people did not know.
ReplyDeleteI find it ridiculous that Yahoo! was the only company to immediately disobey the government's orders. I realize that It's for safety purposes, but if that's true, then why don't I feel safe? I feel violated and like the government is breathing down my neck. This issue went through the public policy cycle but I feel like the new policy hasn't fixed much and the policy impact should bring it up again; hopefully fixing the problem this time.
ReplyDeleteThis situation is kind of like the patriot act, I think the government has the right to know about a person if they suspect something but sometimes the government might search people for no reason. Like the patriot act they have no reason to believe they are involved in illegal activity. I'm not really sure who's side I'm on they both have good points and bad points on to why they made their stance.
ReplyDeleteThis kind of blatant disregard for privacy is disturbing. The U.S government got away with getting vital information from other forms of social media as a means of protection. Yahoo called them out on it, and now they're being punished for protecting the rights of their users. While 250,000 is probably not going to put a dent into Yahoo's bank, the idea of a company standing up for user privacy and being punished is an example of hyperpluralism in the U.S government.
ReplyDeleteThis is similar to the Patriot Act, and this type of thing does not surprise me from our government. I do think that sometimes they made have good reason to do so, but to me, I feel like it is just a big invasion of privacy. I think that they are doing something we know is wrong, and that's why they are having such a giant freak out and even doubling the fines.
ReplyDeleteThis goes to show the "grey area" of both Freedom of Press and the right for privacy in the United States. Where we are given these rights, there is still little loopholes found when it comes to using the internet. Yes, we as a people are given the right of press, meaning we can write about anything we please on social media or wherever else on the internet, but then there is still the government looking it over and taking it down or something along those lines ---- which breaches in with invasion of privacy; although it actually isn't. It's the same when large companies overview calls made by their employees while using a company phone, or when they look at a possible employee's Facebook or Twitter page before hiring them. While it may seem wrong, or an invasion of privacy, I believe that it isn't. If there are things you don't want other people, or the government seeing then it shouldn't be on the internet. As for them going through Yahoo! or Google searches and user logs, that is their way of protecting its citizens and being able to exploit things that could come to harm our country. Now, while some people find that it is wrong for them to go through and search these user logs, I believe that it isn't as wrong as people think it might be. They aren't abusing the power of doing this, so there is no reason as to why they shouldn't, especially if it is being done to protect our country and it's people.
ReplyDeleteIndividualism and privacy are entitlements but honestly i feel its the best choice that the government operates under the covers and keeps tabs on the media, I mean the feeling of paranoia and personal invasion might arise but at the end of the day its not like the government is a bunch of children who just go around reading up on personal affairs. Knowing that someone is keeping tabs eases the mind. Yahoo had the right to fight it is crazy to pull everyones information but i don't have anything to hide as do many other people and if sacrificing my internet information is the cost for the government to stay on to of things and collect more info to neutralize threats then i don't mind.
ReplyDeleteIt is frusterating that the government wants all the information on the users of Yahoo and all the other internet companies. Not entirly sure what they hope to gain but it seem like by not complying because its unconstitutional and a violation of privacy to the users and the company and by stating that their lack of coroporation ¨puts the nation at risk¨ is a bit extreme and needs to come up with a better reason to be spying on people.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the government is using our social media and email to track information on us is a violation of the U.S. citizen rights to privacy. On the other hand, the request is sent for a specific and beneficial reason. It is to maintain the safety of our nation's citizens. Having the government tracking suspicious activity on areas that some may not know is being supervised will benefit the people and may prevent catastrophic events like 9/11. Similar to the Patriot Act, the request will cause some to sacrifice but the sacrifice will ensure the safety of all who are innocent. I strongly believe that Yahoo should comply with the U.S. government's request.
ReplyDeleteI have respect for people's privacy, however, if it is on a public site, what makes it necessarily private? If you have a private account for a social media site, then that's where the government is doing you wrong, which is creating the issue. This issue sounds like it can be apart of the policymaking system. The people are having an issue with their privacy and government spying. So, the word is coming out through the media, which is, in this case, Yahoo. It has to be on the government's agenda since they want the private information. Yahoo did bring this issue to court, as well, because it appears to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, the court believes that the doings are lawful. Technically, I think that it is lawful because the sites the government is trying to "spy" on are public sites used for anyone, if not everyone, to see. Yet, I still think that information that is posted for a few and not for others, should remain private. The government should be limited to certain information.
ReplyDeleteMainly I see an issue where Americans' general want for a more limited government is butting heads with that government's need to protect it's people. Generally America's individualistic attitude means that we wish for our government to have as little as possible to do with our daily lives. One must wonder whether or not this attitude is preventing our government from more adequately defending our nation, or whether or not there is a legit justification for such an intrusion into the lives of US citizens. Is the loss of privacy truly too great a cost? If not then are these trespasses truly effective?
ReplyDeleteConnecting this article to the previous lessons that we have had, The connections are 1)the media. Not only is this being spread by the media, it is also about the media and how the government is getting a hold of it. 2) the policy making cycle. The people have now seen this as a problem, and the rest of the cycle should run its course. I believe we will see more about this later on in our lives.
ReplyDeletePeople should expect that anything you put on the internet can be seen by everyone. Now with that being said there are sometimes where personal information is used. I don't believe the government should be able to see that information without a very good reason to, like if they are a terrorist or with a reasonable guess that they could be a terrorist. The government should not be allowed to force companies to hand over all their information about every user. It should be for only certain people with a reasonable cause. It still comes down to would we rather have privacy or be protected but there has got to be a option in the middle and we need to find that immediately.
ReplyDeleteI understand that the government wants to make sure that they are no attacks being planned and that we are safe but we all need our privacy. We as human beings should have that right. But I do understand anything and everything put on the internet is seen one way or another. The government should only be able to look at your information if they find you suspicious of something in my opinion because why look at someone's information when they are innocent.
ReplyDeleteI agree. We all have a right to privacy. Even though I have nothing to hide, the thought makes me sick to my stomach.
DeleteIt's sad to see that Yahoo is asking for everyone's information when they are out for one person. It's a privacy issue and it made me think of the NSA. They shouldn't have to ask for everyone's information like that. And it's ridiculous what Yahoo is doing. Are they still going to be fine for what they are doing to other companies? This is a big thing and we are making a connection to the linkage and how there is a problem and now it's on media. Things like this make you not trust the internet and giving fact information out is what parents have always said due to things like this and what Yahoo is doing.
ReplyDeleteAfter having read this article, it reminds me of a discussion that we've had in class. I remember Miss Kilcup talking about our lack of privacy and how there are people who have access to our emails, cell phone accounts, and more. I believe we have a right to our privacy and that we should only be "looked into" with good reason. Also, this article serves as an example to the policymaking system where linkage institutions get involved; media. With this news being spread, it can now be added to the list of the policy agenda, whereas a solution is to be made.
ReplyDeleteThe first connection I made with this article is the media because that's the most important part of this article. I feel like anything and everything you put on the internet, you should expect it to be seen by everybody you can think of and then some. The second connection I made with this article is the Patriot Act because your privacy is being invaded by the media and the government but at the same time, they're doing it so they're able to protect us better.
ReplyDeleteThe internet in general is a very public place, so everything and anything you put on there can most likely be seen by other people around the world in some sort of way. However, I don't believe the government has the right to invade people's privacy by forcing companies to hand over user information. It's wrong and it makes me feel really comfortable knowing someone can see my personal information. The government needs to realize that we do have a right to privacy and they need to stop violating it.
ReplyDeleteAs i read this article i found out and could relate to where the government is allowed to excess what your saying and communicating with others online. It is like the same as text messages that we have learned in the past. I do not believe the government should always be allowed to hear or see what your up too without a good reason to go check and see if you are endangering the national security in some way. I also do not believe the government should be allowed to force companies to hand over there information without a reasonable cause.
ReplyDeleteWhy does the government want so much power? It does feel like they are breathing right down my neck and that if we do something wrong we get punished by paying money. The media always makes a big deal out of everything the government does. Not all of it is bad. Honestly I wouldn't care if the government looked into my email or looked at facebook because I got nothing to hide. But! On the other hand it doesn't make me feel so great about myself because I feel like I have been personally attacked in a way by the government.
ReplyDeleteThis is very similar to the Patriot Act. Government invades our privacies not because they want to but because they have a duty to protect this nation from threats of terrorism, that is a very good reason for Government to do this kind of thing. As for Yahoo not complying to government's request, they have a point in doing so but they could have endanger America by being stubborn. This also connects to Media as people will be reading this and be informed of the issue and how should they react to it.
ReplyDeleteThis article connects to the scope of government and how much power they hold. Here the government is trying requesting Yahoo user information. This is pretty much going against the peoples' right of privacy and personal information. Why should the government who seems to hold access to such a grand scale need Yahoo user information? I feel like government is trying to hard to keep surveillance in check. I feel like there are much more effective ways to keep watch of suspicious actions then requesting Yahoo user info. The government is trying to get control of too many things that they seem to forget about things like the right to privacy.
ReplyDeleteTwo concepts that I can connect this article to are the scope of government and a flaw within our policy making system. We all disagree with how much power our government should have. I believe that social injustices occur all the time, and there should be a high power to set things straight, but the "need" for personal information isn't necessary without cause. I believe that if you are stupid enough to talk about a planned terrorist attack over any type of social media, then the government will find out either way, but the need for more data is uncalled for. I also believe that there is a flaw in the system if the government wont budge to change it policies even though the people find their actions to be unlawful. I feel it's time for change within our law making system because we should be able to protect out privacy.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this is wrong and we should have our right to privacy. Yahoo did the right thing in fighting for what they believed in. There are certain cases where i think you should be able to view into someones private life but you should have a reason and already be suspicious. Also you I think you must have a warrant to do so. I think we should re-vote on the issue as a country to whether we want privacy or safety. But in order for this to be effective we need more of the young people to vote on the issue, because in a recent article the numbers were low. i think re-voting the issue will fix this problem if more young people vote.
ReplyDeletethis is true. what the government is doing is wrong, and if we want a change we need to unite as a people and vote
Deletethis article is just another showing of how the government's scope is not in the right. they are more worried about the emails we are sending than the problems that cripple our society. we think that when we vote we are getting what we want, but really it almost seems like the democracy is being run indirectly, putting up a facade that makes us believe we are getting what we want.
ReplyDeleteWithin this article, the author does go into the associated agencies that Edward Snowden working with, and it does put stress on the significance of what he did and what the government is doing with Yahoo! I see that Yahoo! is trying to use the 4th Amendment as their shield, but with the laws that are currently in place, the searches seem to less blow through the 4th Amendment rights and rather circumvent them. Compliance indeed would be the best option for such companies.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, it really ties in to what we learn in chapter one how the government can get hold of the media, through linkage institutions. Since everything that can be broadcasted on the media, means that a lot of people would be able to see it, but the information that is provided is able to be monitored and controlled. But from that being said, that means that a lot of things that is displayed throughout the media can be traced back to us within the seconds we allow them to when we want to look up information or when we want to post some picture, fanfiction, commentary, school reports, etc.
ReplyDeleteI think Yahoo did the correct thing in my opinion, they fought for our rights, or for their rights in that matter. I believe that the government shouldn't be allowed to force companies to give out their users information. It would be alot different if they had suspected of the person being a terrorist then I could see why they would ask for company for the personal information, and yeah every thing you do on the internet will most likely be everywhere there should be some rules to an extant. the connection I've made with this article and the things we talked about in class are 1) the media and how is spreads things out. 2) the policy making cycle, about how once an issue reaches the media they have to change things. And it never stops.
ReplyDeleteThe privacy of the people should be respected, however, the government spying scandals bring to light that anything one puts on the internet can easily be accessed by other people. This scandal clarifies that you must be careful what you put on the internet. Also, the the policy making society is clearly evidenced here. People found out about and issue, and linkage institutions picked up on it, spreading it through the media. This issue worked it's way up the policy agenda, and eventually the policy was changed. This also reminds me of the patriot act, where the peoples privacy can be violated.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the article, a big thing I can connect to from our previous lesson is the media. The media (Yahoo in this case) is being targeted by the government to let them see the users data on the site, which they are declining to let them see. I applaud Yahoo for doing this, but it should be known that anything on the internet is more than likely something the government has already seen. Although it is nice that Yahoo is fighting back for what they believe in, by telling everyone through media what is happening.
ReplyDeletePeople need to be aware that whatever they put onto the internet can be seen by the government at anytime and shouldn't be sending or posting something that they don't want to be seen. Although it is an invasion of privacy and shouldn't be that way, it is. I see why the government wants to do this and what they wanted by passing the Patriot Act, but only to a certain extent.
ReplyDeleteThis article is similar to how in class, we discussed how after 9/11 people would suspect anyone of being a terrorist if they had a turbine on or didn't look american and that often caused discrimination in society. Another example of invading someones privacy is like a "DWB" or Driving While Black where officers would pull people over just because they had a darker skin tone and suspected that they were doing something wrong.
ReplyDeleteI don't think some Americans understand the concept that anything they post or download onto the internet can and will be seen by anyone who uses it. Whatever's on there stays there forever. With media being a huge linkage institution, its a lot easier to get the word out about politics and gets the people informed about what decisions need to be made based off the policy agenda. The government should not have the access to force companies to give all their information to them unless they seem highly suspicious when using the internet.
ReplyDeleteYou should always assume everything you post on the internet or social media can be seen by everyone. Although, certain things that are meant to be private and personal should not be monitored by the government. I feel like that is a huge invasion of privacy. It makes sense to look into these things with probable cause, but not to an average citizen. This "spying" is in violation of the Fourth Amendment and should not be tolerated.
ReplyDeleteI am a firm believer in American individualism. I resent the idea of even having a government, for as long as government exists no one person truly has freedom. However I recognize the fact that government protections are necessary, and that the world can't function without institutions to create order. Having unlimited access to the internet information of any citizen is overstepping the government's bounds. You can't treat people like criminals before they've done anything. This control puts far too much power in the hands of the government, and it makes me sick to know I'm being watched even if I have nothing to fear.
ReplyDeleteThis article shows us how much the government tries to do to make sure that no one is a terrorist in our country, but spying on people is taking away our right to privacy and freedom of speech. It's taking away our freedom of speech because if we say something over email or text or even over the phone then they can decide if its terroristical or not.
ReplyDeleteThis relates to the patriot act and the policy making cycle. Privacy is the citizens right. The government is violating this right by spying on us through media and our private accounts. This needs to be taken care of now.
ReplyDeleteI think that because of the 9\11 incident, the government became more involved in peoples lives. The patriot act was passed very quickly because of the incident that happened in september of 2001. I do not agree with the fact that the government has permission to look over all of our personal messages, photos, posts, etc... but if this is what it takes to keep the U.S safe from any future terrorists than I think we can get over it.
ReplyDeleteI think that if the government asks a company to do something, they should do it. The government keeps the way it monitors things a secret to outsmart the potential enemies. If an enemy knew that the government would check their Yahoo then they probably wouldn't reveal anything on there, but if they didn't know they might let something slip. I don't have a problem with the government being able to see my accounts because I have nothing to hide.
ReplyDelete