Online Social Networks and E-Commerce - MIT Computer Science ...

Clarence Lee and Shirley Fung
Critics may argue that the reason why there are many different standards is that not all information has
the same level of sensitivity, and should not deserve the same kind of protection. However, as data
become more connected through data mining and other kinds of data analyses, it would become difficult
to determine which provision is applicable. In the digital age, passing and connecting of data is a lot easier
than the age of paper records. No longer protected by practical obscurity, sensitive digital information can
flow to other kinds of information very quickly. It is often hard to separate things such as an individual’s
internet logs and library records.
Alternative Policies
Recordable online activity with the influx of personal data in social networking Web sites has changed the
way that we should view privacy on the Internet. Some may argue that online activities should not be
protected at all, because society no longer has an expectation of privacy on the Internet whatsoever.
Nevertheless, it is hard to believe that society is ready to abandon all expectation of privacy just because
any activity is logged on the Internet. Perhaps we can no longer use the same metaphors to describe how
different kinds of digital information are protected. It is important to reconsider what online activities are
in the views of the Fourth Amendment.
In the judicial opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court case Katz vs. United States, it is clear that electronic
surveillance of data stored by a third party is still considered a legitimate intrusion because "the Fourth
Amendment protects people, not places” (Katz vs. United States, 1967). If this is so, it becomes a question
of whether consumers have a reasonable expectation of privacy with their online data and activity. In a
small survey conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, all respondents, eight students and
staff members expressed discomfort of the government being able to obtain information stored by
Amazon and Facebook.
Students agreed that if the information is public, the government has fair game to use that information
against the individual. However, for the information that is regarded as private, respondents were agreed
that the government should not be able to get the information easily. One of the respondents said that
government intrusion on your Facebook data “is like eavesdropping on communications, friends talking
with friends. The government is not really your friend.” The respondent added, “This is like wiretapping,
they need probable cause, it’s the same thing as email and phone records. If they can show that, then I
would be okay with it.” In regards to purchase and browse history on Amazon, the respondent also had an
expectation of privacy, and said that he “wouldn’t want [Amazon] to publish what I bought or browsed to
everyone on the Web.”
Perhaps our online activity is merely an extension of what we do in our own homes, and we should be
given the right to be left alone. Just because we now have the luxury to chat with someone across the
globe, this does not mean that we ought to give up the right to privacy that we have as if we were just
talking to our friends at home.
Page 29