Introduction
Privacy is a term that is inseparable from living in society, it is something that each person has the right to. During life, each individual learns what it means to have privacy, to be able to freely keep to themselves, and have a sense of personal space. In a similar vein, they learn that people besides them have their own private lives and that this fact should be respected. In the constantly interconnected world of today, many people also raise concerns about online privacy, as an extension of people’s usual freedoms. However, the questions of privacy and personal security come into a much brighter light when one discusses them in the context of government intervention and monitoring. The Department of Homeland Security, or the DHS for short, is an organization in the US that is tasked with preventing cases of terrorism and protecting the citizenry from potential threats.
This organization is important to the discussion of privacy, as it mainly operates by gathering data on people, and examines the population for any potential danger. In an online sphere, this often means investigating private conversations, gathering biometric and personal data other companies collect, as well as attempting to coerce people into sharing as much of their personal lives with the government. The practice of data collection, as well as DHS’s general access to people’s information, is a heavily debated topic.
Some argue that the privacy of individuals and the potential implications of unrestricted data access is more important in this discussion, while others debate that national security and safety must come first. In this discussion, my personal position leans more towards the latter, as I feel that the protection of the many against potential threats should always come first, regardless of the data that will be collected to reach that goal. To support this assertion, the topic of privacy online will be discussed, as well as the kinds of potential dangers that can come from the internet.
Privacy in Online Spaces and Access to Data
Privacy has long since been a big part of the internet sphere. During its inception, the worldwide web was considered a part of counter-culture, a space free from government interference or unnecessary monitoring. The freedoms and options that were presented to people online have facilitated the quick growth of internet technology, as well as defined the outlook many hold on it today. However, with the changes in technology, generational and cultural changes also occurred, creating new ways of approaching the online sphere and interacting with it. One of the consequences of the internet’s mainstream success was the popularization of social media and other platforms where people could share personal information. With the appeal to the general public also came big companies, their advertisements, and their services.
The drastic changes, in turn, slowly changed the perception of privacy on the internet, especially among the younger population. People became much more enthusiastic about sharing the details of their private life and personal details with strangers. The overall difference in the perception of privacy is what has brought people to the discussions of today, where major political, corporate, and social players all have a hand in obtaining people’s personal data. In regards to the DHS, this means that the work of obtaining information about individuals has become much easier over the years, and the increasing catalog of information collected from users further simplifies this job.
Potential Dangers to Public Security
Extremists
It is no secret that people of all kinds gather on the internet. With spaces attracting a different variety of individuals, there exists a space for any person to find a community of likely-minded strangers. This tendency, however, cannot be always seen as positive. Those with radical political or social opinions, especially members of hate groups or other dangerous people often gravitate towards online spaces as their main place of residence, a corner of the world where they can be heard and even supported (Klausen et al.). This means that some parts of the internet can effectively become a gathering space for extremists, or facilitate the emergence of hate groups. The ability of the internet to give people both relative safety and a platform can often serve as a breeding ground for harmful ideology.
In these cases, it might be necessary for the government or other affiliated organizations to interfere, or monitor the activity of such groups, both as a way to better understand their development and as a necessary precaution against their activity. To give an example, online discussion boards and forums, such as 4chan, or older social media, like Facebook, have nowadays become the main hub for conspiracy theorists and alt-right fascist groups (Conway et al.). The ideas spread there can be harmful to the population, cause unrest, and are designed to coerce people into using violence as a way of protecting against a non-existent threat. The DHS specifically works to protect the population from such people, meaning that it should have the ability to monitor their behaviors.
Terrorists and Shooters
On a similar note, it can be said that the internet has contributed to the mass shooting problem that the US faces today (Lankford et al.). It has been seen over the years that some people glorify and document the actions of mass shooters, creating social circles where their deeds are seen as both justified and righteous. The tendency of online spaces such as this to form also creates copycat shooters, those that see the appraisal other shooters get and desire to follow suit.
Additionally, niche online communities can often detrimentally affect a person’s mental wellbeing, exacerbating any other possible life issues they might have and contributing to their likelihood of becoming a threat to the public. Radicalization pipelines are a large danger to the online sphere, and their creation is one of the reasons the world wide web needs to be monitored in some capacity. Adding to this discussion, if one examines the history of previous mass shootings, it should be noted that the perpetrators often use the world wide web as a platform to outline their ideas, or even make public announcements about their future actions (Nagin et al.).
In an effort to combat exactly these types of situations, the intervention of the DHS is a necessary procedure, one that can thwart a shooter’s plan before it has the chance to be put into action. There is currently a considerable body of evidence to see the DHS’s previous successes in stopping gun crime, and many cases have been prevented specifically by regulating the online sphere.
Conclusion
In closing, it can be said that the topic of online privacy and security is both extremely important and difficult to approach, making it all the more crucial to find an approach most people can get behind. In allowing the DHS to monitor and keep track of online activity, the freedoms of individuals are sacrificed for the benefit of the majority. As society operates on the basis of making as many people as possible safe, secure, and happy, the use of special services to protect the population can be justifiably called necessary.
Works Cited
Conway, Maura, Ryan Scrivens, and Logan Macnair. “Right-Wing Extremists’ Persistent Online Presence: History and Contemporary Trends.” (2019). Print.
Klausen, Jytte, Christopher E. Marks, and Tauhid Zaman. “Finding Extremists in Online Social Networks.” Operations Research 66.4 (2018): 957-76. Print.
Lankford, Adam, Krista Grace Adkins, and Eric Madfis. “Are the Deadliest Mass Shootings Preventable? An Assessment of Leakage, Information Reported to Law Enforcement, and Firearms Acquisition Prior to Attacks in the United States.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 35.3 (2019): 315-41. Print.
Nagin, Daniel S., Christopher S. Koper, and Cynthia Lum. “Policy Recommendations for Countering Mass Shootings in the United States.” Criminology & Public Policy 19.1 (2020): 9-15. Print.