Social wrong: privacy
Introduction
In this video we will introduce ourselves. And who did what in this group.
|
Why this social wrong
In the first lesson we already agreed on the subject. It was gonna be privacy. We came to this subject because we all saw a news report about a new law in the Netherlands. This law was the cause of many discussions around the country, Because it would effect everyone’s privacy rights. So we thought it would be interesting to have an up to date and controversial subject.
(The law proposition was called "the Sleepwet") |
Social Wrong Article
When we were scrolling through the human rights we noticed how many care is taken to protect the rights of the citizens in the Netherlands. There is barely any human right that is being violated here. However, we discovered one human right, the right of privacy, on which we could ask ourselves the question; is this right protected in our society? Is our privacy actually protected in the Netherlands? And if not, should that be a social wrong? In this report we will both explain the abuse of the human right and our opinion about it.
Nowadays privacy is a ‘hot item’ on the news. New laws are being passed on by the government about the personal data of people. The government wants to heavily increase the authorisations of the secret services in our country. The bill for this law describes how the AIVD (Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst) and the MIVD (Militaire Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst) are allowed to tap data traffic and phone conversations on a large scale. They can even store and analyse this information! This would mean a heavy restriction on our privacy.
Another example is the SyRI (System Risk Indication). This is a system in which the personal data of people can be combined and connected so that the government can check if you are doing everything according to their rules. And the worst part is that the bill about this system went through the First and Second Chamber without any debate!
The question is whether these examples are actually an abuse of the right for privacy. In order to answer this we need to understand how the right of privacy works. Say for instance you were reading through a letter with personal information and accidentally left it in a public place. Then someone picks it up and reads through it. This is actually not a violation against the right of privacy, because there was a no ‘reasonable expectation’ according to the constitution. Another example of this could be how companies can use your photos you post on social media. People would say this is a violation against the right of privacy, but it is actually not. When we agree with the Terms and Conditions from for example Apple, we might also agree on the fact that they can use our information. Most people don’t even read through the Terms and Condition, but we still care about our privacy. The companies are in fact allowed to use our photos because there is no reasonable expectation.
There are however, conditions in which the right of privacy is being violated. When a neighbour for instance eavesdrops on a private conversation you are having with someone else, it is illegal. When looking back to the examples it would be clear that the actions taken by the AIVD and MIVD are actually a violation against this human right, but because a law was passed it had become legal according the the constitution. The SyRI however, is another story. Article 13.2 states: the privacy of the telephone shall not be violated except with the authorisation of the Parliament. The Parliament however, didn’t even debate about this system! So the SyRI is not only a violation against the human right, but also against the law (article 13.2).
Now only one question remains: is this actually a social wrong? The opinions on this topic can go two ways. On one hand you could say that this is a violation against the right for privacy and is therefore a social wrong. On the other hand you could say this is not a social wrong, because the information that is extracted could be used to find criminals and terrorists and that could ensure the protection of the right of security. The opinion on this matter, especially on the topic of the law about increased authorisations of the AIVD and MIVD. Their were even in our group mixed opinions about this. The law was actually supposed to become legal on the 1st of January. The date on which the law would become legal was postponed to the 1st of March since the opinions were really divided. A referendum will be organised on the 21st of March about this topic. Only then will be clear what the majority of the people will want. Only then can we specifically say if there is a social wrong and depending on the outcome of this referendum this can either be the violation of the right of privacy (article 10 and 13 of the Dutch Constitution) or the violation of the right of security.
When we were scrolling through the human rights we noticed how many care is taken to protect the rights of the citizens in the Netherlands. There is barely any human right that is being violated here. However, we discovered one human right, the right of privacy, on which we could ask ourselves the question; is this right protected in our society? Is our privacy actually protected in the Netherlands? And if not, should that be a social wrong? In this report we will both explain the abuse of the human right and our opinion about it.
Nowadays privacy is a ‘hot item’ on the news. New laws are being passed on by the government about the personal data of people. The government wants to heavily increase the authorisations of the secret services in our country. The bill for this law describes how the AIVD (Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst) and the MIVD (Militaire Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst) are allowed to tap data traffic and phone conversations on a large scale. They can even store and analyse this information! This would mean a heavy restriction on our privacy.
Another example is the SyRI (System Risk Indication). This is a system in which the personal data of people can be combined and connected so that the government can check if you are doing everything according to their rules. And the worst part is that the bill about this system went through the First and Second Chamber without any debate!
The question is whether these examples are actually an abuse of the right for privacy. In order to answer this we need to understand how the right of privacy works. Say for instance you were reading through a letter with personal information and accidentally left it in a public place. Then someone picks it up and reads through it. This is actually not a violation against the right of privacy, because there was a no ‘reasonable expectation’ according to the constitution. Another example of this could be how companies can use your photos you post on social media. People would say this is a violation against the right of privacy, but it is actually not. When we agree with the Terms and Conditions from for example Apple, we might also agree on the fact that they can use our information. Most people don’t even read through the Terms and Condition, but we still care about our privacy. The companies are in fact allowed to use our photos because there is no reasonable expectation.
There are however, conditions in which the right of privacy is being violated. When a neighbour for instance eavesdrops on a private conversation you are having with someone else, it is illegal. When looking back to the examples it would be clear that the actions taken by the AIVD and MIVD are actually a violation against this human right, but because a law was passed it had become legal according the the constitution. The SyRI however, is another story. Article 13.2 states: the privacy of the telephone shall not be violated except with the authorisation of the Parliament. The Parliament however, didn’t even debate about this system! So the SyRI is not only a violation against the human right, but also against the law (article 13.2).
Now only one question remains: is this actually a social wrong? The opinions on this topic can go two ways. On one hand you could say that this is a violation against the right for privacy and is therefore a social wrong. On the other hand you could say this is not a social wrong, because the information that is extracted could be used to find criminals and terrorists and that could ensure the protection of the right of security. The opinion on this matter, especially on the topic of the law about increased authorisations of the AIVD and MIVD. Their were even in our group mixed opinions about this. The law was actually supposed to become legal on the 1st of January. The date on which the law would become legal was postponed to the 1st of March since the opinions were really divided. A referendum will be organised on the 21st of March about this topic. Only then will be clear what the majority of the people will want. Only then can we specifically say if there is a social wrong and depending on the outcome of this referendum this can either be the violation of the right of privacy (article 10 and 13 of the Dutch Constitution) or the violation of the right of security.
Creative way to draw attention
We all like our right of privacy
But your secrets are hacked using codes and binary The government looks through your files but don’t worry They do it for your safety They look for terrorist or other an threat It could be your neighbor so we are in their debt So they don’t do anything bad with the information don’t sweat And if your information is no use to the they will just forget But do you know who really breaks the laws of privacy? It is a very successful company So if you don’t want a virus or your info leaked Read the terms and don’t download illegally Company’s can see what you look up and use that for more sales They could even hack your e-mails So be carefully on the internet Otherwise your privacy is what you lose and problems is what you get So the government is not your threat But lets now talk about the real problem at hand Don’t accept everything on the internet With all the cookies you accept you’ll get fat |
Interview
we interviewed two people about privacy. these were the interviews.
What comes to mind when you hear the word “privacy”?
When is see the word privacy I think of your right to have secrets and a place for yourself. Do you think the social life of people should be open/partly open to the government? I think it should be partly open to the government, for example: name, address, phone number etc. but it shouldn’t be on the internet available to everyone. Should law enforcement posses a warrant to access your “personal data”? Yes, the law enforcement should only be able to access personal data with a very good reason. What is the best way to protect an individual’s privacy while not pending future innovations? If the government would keep all information locked up somewhere in a place only they can reach, just like the very important scrolls in the Vatican. In your opinion should cookies be removed from websites as they access our personal data? In my opinion yes but there are also some points why they should stay. For example it helps us to be able to find someone that has gone missing. Are social media the biggest reasons for violations of the privacy of minors? Yes, because people can fake being someone while being someone the aren’t. This is also how a lot of children get kidnapped. Should the right of privacy of criminals be violated to be able to catch them? For sure! Criminals should be taken into custody as fast as possible. If the right of privacy has to be violated to catch them so be it. |
What comes to mind when you hear the word “privacy”?
As the definition would point it, it is the state of being free from public attention. Do you think the social life of people should be open/partly open to the government? I don’t think we have to hide anything. The only reason we want to keep our private life secret is because of what people say about us, or how jealous/critical they can be. If everyone focused on their live instead, opening our social lives should not be an issue. Should law enforcement posses a warrant to access your “personal data”? Yes, I think that this is fair, as long as they keep it secret too. What is the best way to protect an individual’s privacy while not pending future innovations? I don’t think there’s anything we can do. Money is a big deal in the privacy business (selling information). If selling information was not involved or forbidden, it would be a possible solution. In your opinion should cookies be removed from websites as they access our personal data? Yes. Companies should not be allowed to sell our information (if they do). No. Targeted adverts are quite effective nowadays. Are social media the biggest reasons for violations of the privacy of minors? Yes, partially because of ourselves. We put our lives on social media. Therefore we should not be surprised. Should the right of privacy of criminals be violated to be able to catch them? Once again, if we have nothing to hide and people would stop being jealous or inspect other’s life all the time, everyone could be open. Someone who wouldn’t (criminals), would be a suspect. But I do not think that we should violate someone’s right to catch them. |