In would automatically delete all the information on it.
In today’s technology advanced crime has evolved far from simple theft and burglary, with the power of the internet also comes with the responsibility to control and regulate it. In 2015 a terrorist attack occurred in San Bernardino, California. There were 22 injured and 14 killed. The only evidence found by the FBI Response Team was three phones. Two of which were smashed the data not retrievable and only one iphone 5c was in working condition. While Apple Inc was compliant in giving all the information on the account backed up on the system, the FBI could not unlock the phone. The phone had a 10 try limit. If succeeded then the phone would automatically delete all the information on it. The FBI then asked Apple to create a software that would permit them to have more than 10 tries. This way they could simply have as many tries as they need. However, Apple refused to create such a programm. Apple then replied with “The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices. In the physical world, it would be the equivalent of a master key, capable of opening hundreds of millions of locks — from restaurants and banks to stores and homes. No reasonable person would find that acceptable.”(Tibken, 2016, para. 6) In response the FBI tried to sue Apple but the case was dismissed after the FBI found a new way into the phone. This does raise a good question. Which should have more priority public security or online privacy? And to what extent should the government monitor the internet? (Tibken, 2016, para. 6) It is the duty of of our government-federal, state and local to monitor our internet content. But it is how and how much they monitor that is the key. With the advancements of technology schools are now primarily using laptops instead of textbooks. Along with new technology comes with new responsibilities for the school districts. Computers give more tools and opportunities for research and learning While having laptops in schools does expand ways of learning it also can cause more implications. Such as what content can a student accesses and, who can accesses their personal information. In some cases schools are not very clear about using tablets and laptops. One study showed that “Twenty-three percent of parents did not know whether or not they had received written disclosure about their school’s edtech practices, and 57 percent were sure they had not. That adds up to 80 percent of surveyed parents who did not have clear, readily accessible disclosure, suggesting a breakdown of communication between schools and parents.” Another problem is regulating what students can say or post with the laptops without imposing on the first amendment. For example “To what extent they enjoy privacy in their communications? When students post or attempt to view or download information on the Internet or send and receive e-mail messages, can the school district intervene and restrict the communication?” (Riker D, Technology in the Schools: Legal Implications for Students) It’s really hard for the schools to block every inappropriate website or picture without blocking others that are appropriate. Each state should have different but not drastically different laws on internet privacy, Not everyone has the same opinions so it’s good to have diversity among the states. In Illinois they were considering allowing the consumers to know what information was being collected by companies such as Google and Facebook, and then as to which businesses they shared it with. With how much our technology can do these days the tracking of locations and use of microphones in devices that connect to the internet like mobile phones, smart TVs and personal assistants like Amazon’s Echo. If laws such as these were actually to be enforced they could end up guiding the rights of consumers far beyond Illinois. Following in the footsteps of other states would be very likely because its difficult for companies to make individualized state and country specific, localized programs.( 2018. State by State Internet Censorship Bills.) Other states are also pushing for more bills on internet privacy. California and Connecticut, for instance, recently updated laws that restrict government access to online communications like email, and New Mexico could follow soon. Last year, Nebraska and West Virginia passed laws that limit how companies can monitor employees’ social media accounts, while legislators in Hawaii, Missouri and elsewhere are pushing similar bills for employees, as well as for students and tenants. “More and more, states have taken the position that, if Congress is not willing or able to enact strong privacy laws, their legislatures will no longer sit on their hands,” said Chad Marlow, a lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union. Online privacy is the rare issue that draws together legislators from the left and the far right. At the state level, anyway, some of the progress has come from a marriage between progressive Democrats and libertarian-minded Republicans, who see privacy as a bedrock principle, Mr. Marlow said. States have often been a kind of regulatory laboratory. Be it tax cuts, emission regulations, gay rights or gun laws, advocates on both the left and the right have long worked at the state level to push agendas that Washington is too busy or to handle. Like the CDA, these state bills raise serious free speech concerns. They all overlook the unique nature of the online medium, and many censor speech that is protected by the Constitution for adults and older minors. Laws that try to keep adult materials away from minors end up reducing all online content to that which is suitable for children — the Supreme Court declared this outcome unconstitutional in Reno v. ACLU. Similarly, the use of blocking software at libraries prevents both adults and teenagers from getting access to valuable speech like sex education materials, abuse recovery discussions, and speech about lesbian and gay issues.The draconian effect of state censorship bills doesn’t stop at state borders. A message you post to the Internet today in New York City could travel the fifty states and the globe by tomorrow. You’d better be careful that the message isn’t “indecent” in Oklahoma, “annoying” in Connecticut, or “vulgar” in Georgia.These state laws pose a cumulative threat to online speech that may be even more powerful than the CDA, because every online user must comply with every state law — or risk prosecution if their speech is accessed in a state that makes it illegal.In addition to violating the First Amendment, many of these state censorship laws violate the Constitution’s Commerce Clause because they criminalize online conversations that occur entirely outside the state’s borders and burden interstate commerce. Earlier in this century, the Supreme Court struck down burdensome state laws that regulated the length of railway trains. As the court recognized when striking down the NY censorship law in ALA v. Pataki, the Internet is much like the railroad system, because it is used to transport speech and information all over the country. The New York law, like similar state laws, violated the Commerce Clause because it would have required a Texan who posts a web page or message to abide by New York standards, even if no one from New York ever saw the page or read the post.The court in ALA v. Pataki held that internet users must be protected from “inconsistent legislation that, taken to its most extreme, could paralyze development of the Internet altogether.” (Gallington, D. J.2018, September 18). The US’s National Security Agency (NSA), its wiretapping agency, has been monitoring communications between the US and foreign nationals over the internet for a number of years, under a project called Prism. Some of the biggest internet companies, from Apple to Google to Yahoo, are involved. The US government confirmed the existence of the scheme and its application on Thursday night.The NSA – and so the US government – has been careful to avoid any suggestion that the monitoring is being carried out indiscriminately on US citizens, because that would potentially breach the fourth amendment of the constitution against “unreasonable search”. The legal framework for online privacy thus rests largely on two federal laws, a subdued federal regulatory approach, a mixture of state laws, and contradictory case law from the courts:In 1986, Congress significantly updated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), originally enacted two decades earlier in 1968 to prevent telephone wiretapping. The law protects the privacy of much online communication, such as e-mail and other digital messaging, but far from all of it. The law offers little privacy protection to electronic communication in the workplace, which courts have further restricted. The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 was passed amid complaints that websites frequently sought too much personal information from children. The law requires website operators to maintain privacy policies, grants parents powers to control information gleaned from their children by websites, and grants regulatory power to the FTC. Throughout the 1990s, the FTC studied and recommended proposals for new Internet privacy laws. The commission made such recommendations again in its annual 2000 report on the issue, but in 2001 new FTC leadership called for more study of the issue and a continued emphasis on self-regulation by business. Passed in response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks upon the United States, the Patriot Act of 2001 appeared likely to significantly impact online privacy. The law dramatically increases federal police investigatory powers, including the right to intercept email and track internet usage. Courts have offered mixed verdicts on anonymity on the internet. In 1997, Georgia was prohibited from enforcing a statute that barred anonymous communication in ACLU v. Miller. In subsequent cases, courts have allowed plaintiffs to force disclosure of the identities of anonymous users of Internet message boards, but some have required that strict evidentiary standards are met by plaintiffs first. (Speidel, R. 2017, October 17).