Internet Security Debate Provoked by Invasive Techniques That Infringe on the Privacy Rights of Individuals – Literature review Example

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper “ Internet Security Debate Provoked by Invasive Techniques That Infringe on the Privacy Rights of Individuals” is a controversial example of a literature review on the information technology. Article 12 of the United Nations Charter defines privacy as the right of an individual to control his or her own individual information. An individual retains the right to reveal or keep such information private. Most nations recognize this as a basic human right, but the internet continues to invade our personal spaces every day. According to Moerel (2011), over 2 billion people have disclosed their personal information over the internet through such services as social networks, search engines, and Microblogs.

However, most people do not have an idea of how this information is used by the site owners and what it implies for their privacy. In this paper, we explore the privacy debate caused by intrusive techniques used by internet companies, governments, and individuals that infringe on the privacy rights of individuals. According to Rooney (2011), any individual working in today’ s technological world has his privacy under constant threat of being violated.

Internet services such as Google maps that can track an individual to the specific location, the curtailment of the right to surf the internet anonymously, video and voice surveillance, GPS tracking are some of internet privacy issues that remain unresolved. When people set-up their accounts to use particular internet services they expect the information they enter to be held confidentially. The lack of a universal standard for privacy means each domain on the internet applies its own proprietary standards which in most times end up compromising sensitive information. According to Crump (2003), the complexity of the internet makes it almost impossible to ensure privacy is not infringed.

Secondly, the internet, especially social network brings about new legal challenges to all internet users. Governments have to enforce laws, but make sure they do not infringe on privacy rights. Internet companies have to collect important commercial information while ensuring user privacy. Users, on the other hand, have to know how much to divulge, but at the same time ensure the information passed on is protected. Innocent User’ sWhen every person logs on the internet they feel safe as they are using it as it should be used.

When a person accesses his personal accounts he feels that nobody else can be able to see what he or she sees, however, this is far from the truth. Constantly, our usage of the internet is being tracked. However, a large number of consumers of internet services are unaware of the amount of personal information there are handing into domain owners (1). In the views of Miyazaki (2008), most internet users view the internet as a one-way street.

People believe that the internet is purely a source of information and entertainment. They surf to get news, to view their friends’ updates on social media, to view videos, and download stuff. In reality, the internet is a two-way street; people get entertainment and information, while the website owners also get information about a person's internet usage patterns and personally identifiable information. Some people maintain that domain owners get more information than the users, however, this cannot be ascertained.


Barnes, Jn.d, Internet users' privacy concerns may mean cookies start to crumble, The Guardian

Chawki, M 2010, Anonymity in cyberspace: finding the balance between privacy and security. International Journal of Technology Transfer and Commercialization, issue 9, no. 3, pp.183-199.

Crump, C 2003, Data retention: privacy, anonymity, and accountability online, Stanford Law Review, pp, 191-229

Gonchar, M 2013, What Is More Important: Our Privacy or National Security? New York Times, September 17, accessed on 21 January 2013,

Lee, D 2012, Web software firm taunts UK data regulator over cookies, BBC News, September 12,

Melik, J 2012, Internet privacy: Genuine concerns or paranoia? Business Daily, March 25,

Miyazaki, AD 2008, Online privacy and the disclosure of cookie use: Effects on consumer trust and anticipated patronage. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, vol 27, no. 1, pp. 19-33.

Moerel, L 2011, The long arm of EU data protection law: Does the Data Protection Directive apply to the processing of personal data of EU citizens by websites worldwide? International Data Privacy Law, issue. 1, no. 1, pp 28-46.

Murphy, D 2013, Firefox 22 to Disable Third-Party Cookies by Default PC Magazine, February 24, Accessed on 21 January 2013,,2817,2415810,00.asp

Neal, WR 2013, TOR Users Exposed: FBI Blamed For Malware Identifying Anonymous Network Users, International Business Times, August 5, accessed on 21 January 2013,

Noble, J 2013, U.S. debates security vs. privacy 12 years after 9/11, USA Today. September 11, accessed on 21 January 2013,

Rooney, B 2011, UK Publishes EU “Cookie” Directive Guidelines, Wall Street Journal. Retrieved December, 13, 2011

Shinder, D 2011, Online anonymity: Balancing the needs to protect the privacy and prevent cybercrime Online anonymity: Balancing the needs to protect the privacy and prevent cybercrime, IT security, September 20, 2011, accessed on 21 January 2013,

Sullivan, B 2013, Privacy vs. security: 'False choice' poisons debate on NSA leaks, NBC News, July 6, accessed on 21 January 2013,

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us