Filtering

Online Privacy Protection Software

We shouldn’t need it but I’m afraid we seem to live in a world where privacy is no longer guaranteed. It’s a lot to do how the internet has developed (of course it’s also the way society has developed too!) – in that I mean technically. HTTP is the core of internet communication. Unfortunately it’s also completely insecure and transports all our data in clear text.

That’s how it sits at your local ISP, in their logs – your internet diary, every move you have made online for the last two years. Governments, agencies routinely use this information in their various enquiries. Ask me again if you need something to maintain your privacy then !

Do we need online privacy protection software when we’re online ?

The 4th Amendment and our Expectation of Privacy

The 4th amendment insists on ” The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The expectation of privacy includes no seizure without a warrant, provides the foundation for businesses, and is the reason why the Privacy Act was created. Let’s continue on this journey and see how privacy has impacted our society.

The 4th Amendment states that their should be no violation without probable cause. No one should be forced to give up their privacy unless a situation and a warrant are issued. This is important to ensure that people are not forced to give up private information. It states that only if there is probable cause and a warrant is issued, private information shall remain private. Now that we have covered what the 4th amendment stands for we can discuss how business is conducted under this amendment.

Businesses are required to follow the 4th Amendment. When you are hired for a position with a business or company, they cannot violate your privacy unless they have probable cause. If your boss has probable cause they can have you prosecuted or fired, but they cannot violate your privacy. The 4th amendment also protects the privacy of the business, only needing to share information with employees on a need to know basis. Now that we have covered the 4th Amendments influence on businesses, we can begin to understand why the Privacy Act was created.

The expectation of privacy goes past the 4th Amendment today and lies in every household in America. Most people are unfamiliar with the 4th Amendment or only think about it on an authority level. The 4th Amendment is the reason why the Privacy Protection Act was created and reinforced today. People want their information protected and they want to feel safe especially on the internet. Today, consequences are paid for any breech in the expectation of privacy thus, instilling the basic foundation of the 4th amendment in today’s society.

Most people we’re simply unaware that the 4th amendment influenced the creation of todays Privacy Act. The expectation of privacy includes no seizure without a warrant, provides the foundation for businesses, and is the reason why the Privacy Act was created. The next time you think of the Privacy Protection Act, remember that our forefathers set it up in the 4th Amendment in the Constitution of United States.

The Internet Censorship Debate

As with most things are life, there are always positive and negatives. This is especially the case with the Internet and leads almost inevitably to the Internet Censorship Debate.

It is inarguable that the internet has changed the world. It has made the way we research easier; we have the wonders of the world at our finger tips; delight and desires realised at the touch of a button and it has revolutionised the way we shop and keep in touch with one another. This is especially helpful for those in remote places who long to keep connected to the rest of the world.

But there are negatives to the World Wide Web. It is now easier to access inappropriate material and the internet is a scouring ground for criminals to prey on the young and vulnerable.

As the internet has become more mainstream and embraced by society, the powers that be have censored the internet. All countries have some form of censorship imposed upon them; some may be rather lax whilst others take firm control over what can be viewed over the World Wide Web.

No one is disputing that the internet can be a dangerous place full of uncertainties. But the level of censorship that government applies can be questioned.

Within certain countries the internet is totally restricted, the government decides what can and can not be viewed. Impossible, I hear you cry! But it is true. In these countries the government control all computers that have internet connection capability. Now, this obviously is the extreme of internet censorship.

But the government will obviously always argue that censorship is for the good and the welfare of the public. Protecting the young and the vulnerable is the reason for censorship. Yet, when there are no clear definitions of what is offensive or harmful, and then the debate flares. internet censorship debateInternet censored

The reason that there is such a debate over internet safety is down to the impact that this censorship has over the basic human right of Free Speech.

Some argue that censorship of the internet limits free speech and this goes against basic human rights. This is true, however there are laws relating to Free Speech that concern speech when it id classed as harmful, offensive or insights hate.

The problem arises, however, when considering what is classed as offensive. Everyone has a different view point built up by their own beliefs and experiences. If the internet was censored due to what every person found offensive, I doubt that there would be anything left.

This is where the internet debate begins to get stuck. Depending on the individual’s viewpoint depends on whether internet censorship is a positive or negative regime.

UK Internet Censorship

The United Kingdom has a quiet relaxed approach to the internet and censorship compared with other countries.

The main area of censorship within the United Kingdom related to images of child abuse. This clearly is something that the general public do not want to see and so there are not a lot of problems with this side of censorship. If a site has been blocked for containing these images, rather than a warning sign being displayed, there will just simply be a sign saying “error”.

So how does UK Internet Censorship Work?

The United Kingdom is censored through a filter called “cleanfeed” which uses data provided by the Internet Watch Foundation to ensure that any banned sites are inaccessible.

The Internet Watch Foundation is a nongovernmental charitable body which offers an online service for the general public.

The role of the Internet Watch Foundation is to report any materials found on the net that are offensive. The group work in conjunction with the police to ensure that the filter and the people responsible for such violations are stopped.

The Internet Watch Foundation was originally set up to focus on the organisations that produce and post child pornography. Recently they have had their remit expanded to cover any posts on the internet that were deemed racist or criminally obscene.

The Internet Watch Foundation are run independently and mostly by volunteers. This is to reduce the possibility of corruption. The Internet Watch Foundation collates all websites that have any material that fall into the aforementioned areas and put them on a blacklist, preventing them from being viewed in the United Kingdom.

In recent years there have been some incidents of UK Internet censorship that have had implications upon the Internet.

One of which being the murder case of Baby Peter, a 17 month old baby. In 2008 and 2009, the media was barred from publishing the names of the people involved in the case, both those accused of his murder and those who should have spotted the neglect. The explanation behind this was to protect the case and the witnesses as fears of reprisals from the general public who were outraged to learn of the murder.

Any websites found to be publishing the names of defendants and the child was subjected to a police investigation for trying to initiate a hate campaign.

This made some of the media, and general public, question just how free speech is in the United Kingdom, and whether the true reason was to protect the case or to protect those who were neglectful of their duty of care towards the child. The presumption is that the UK is a fairly liberal society but maybe UK Internet Censorship is not as relaxed as we imagine.