The issue of internet privacy and the struggle between the provider/ business and the consumer is multi-layered. There are numerous aspects of this issue that lie in favor of both sides: those being for more privacy regulations benefitting the consumer and those for regulations in favor of businesses. Both have their own differences, as well as their own valid points. However, the lack of regulations could cause the potential for harm and/or infringe on the privacy of the individual if handled incorrectly.

The argument over internet privacy has its origins within the birth of the Internet. Back when the Internet was simply an ARPANET project in 1973 there were already concerns by engineers over unauthorized intrusions to the system (A history of Internet security). From this point, the Internet would evolve and change. The security and legislation involved would also need to change. In 1986, “Congress [enacted] a comprehensive bill establishing legal sanctions against data theft, unauthorized network access, and some other computer-related crimes,” (A history of Internet security). It was called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Laws such as this one attempt to protect the user accessing the World Wide Web, however with the way it constantly changes and evolves, this is a difficult task.

Thus, the issue of improperly handled or misguided regulation arises. For example, an argument concerning this issue involves Congress’ repeal of, “Obama era laws which inhibited the sale of consumer data by internet service providers” (Fung, “What to Expect”). Congress and the ISPs argued that the FCC was being overly strict in regard to their regulations towards broadband providers and not so towards other companies like Google and Facebook (Kang). This prompted the repeal of laws passed by the Obama administration that would have, “banned Internet providers from collecting, storing, sharing and selling certain types of personal information” (Fung, “What to Expect”). Senator Jeff Flake, who introduced the resolution, argued that, “It is unnecessary, confusing and adds another innovation-stifling regulation” (Kang). The argument in question is that congress sees these regulations as a damper on the “83 billion-dollar online advertising market” (Fung, “The House”). The government is trying to appeal to businesses and those who are concerned with the economy. This however is to appease consumers in to a sense that the resolution is for their benefit, when in reality their whole goal is to make telecom companies happy. The money involved in this situation has caused officials to become biased towards a profitable and strong economy rather than security for the people they represent. 

While the regulations may have been stricter on telecom companies, the protections that were provided to consumers and the security they felt should have been tantamount in these politicians’ minds. Allowing companies even the potential opportunity to sell or distribute user data is wrong. It is an invasion of consumer privacy and on morals alone should have been one of the major deciding factors when debating this resolution. While fairness in business is important, it should not take precedent over consumer privacy and safety. A company such as Verizon could make a significant profit when distributing user data to advertisers and other businesses. However, when companies have already written themselves into a corner with “restrictions that they have placed on themselves in their own privacy policies”, why even bother with the resolution (Fung, “What to Expect”). 

In addition, when the State Attorney Generals still have the ability to, “sue companies whose data practices could be unfair to other businesses,” what benefit do companies see when they create a gray area with this legislation (Fung, “What to Expect”). What makes it even worse is “if the FCC were to ignore some actions by ISPs, and they in turn relaxed their own privacy policies, they could share web usage data that could potentially reveal a user’s identity” (Fung, “What to Expect”). Not only is this dangerous if done illegally by businesses, the potential threats created when an ISP gets hacked are even more frightening. The risks are too great to justify the danger to consumers. 

Businesses claim to use this data to provide, “unique advertising experiences for the user” (Shields). An act introduced into Congress in June 2017 called the BROWSER Act aimed to provide consumers the ability to opt-in to monitoring by businesses and advertisers. This caused an understandable issue among businesses. They claimed that this would severely impact the economic structure of the internet and create a great imbalance in the quality of products/ experiences companies could provide users. The Internet Association, a group consisting of numerous internet based corporations such as Amazon, Google and Facebook, issued a statement regarding the Act. “We, along with a broad swath of the American economy, are aware of the BROWSER Act and are tracking the proposal. This bill has the potential to upend the consumer experience online and stifle innovation” (Theran). The act would give the consumer a much-needed voice as to how their data can be used. While the Internet Association is right about the impact on how products are catered to users, the massive economic impact is disputable. While it may dampen an aspect of their business, it could in no way “completely derail” them as mentioned by Scott Howe, of data company Acxiom. (Shields). The opponents to my view on this, the businesses, have only their own statistical data as evidence. Which of course is heavily biased due to it being their own level of profits. In addition, their group, the Internet Association, is going to feel negatively towards any form of legislation, large or small, that interferes in any way with how they conduct business. That is why they attempt to appeal to the logos of their supporters, other internet based businesses and business-oriented individuals. They want to show that supporting them helps strengthen the economy and helps businesses, while supporting the legislation could be detrimental to a large majority of companies and workers. While many may argue that internet privacy may be compromised for the common good, having even the slightest potential for danger makes that argument a tough one. While there are benefits such as the detection of potential terrorism or crimes, leaving a consumer’s data open or available to be shared and accessed by anyone increases the potential for danger. Business is great, but when it infringes on the privacy and security of the people who support it, there is a serious issue.

The internet, being a vast library of data and knowledge, warrants constant scrutiny over the availability of its information and that of the consumer who accesses it. A TED Talk by Edward Snowden, the famous NSA whistleblower/ righteous citizen depending on your view, addressed the necessity of internet security and privacy for the individual and the world. Information, which was contained in his data leak, was presented as evidence and examples for the shortcomings of the current state of the internet and how it should be ideally changed. Starting with the presentation of information from the NSA data leak in video slides, it built a foundation for the feeling of scrutiny and invaded privacy on the part of the average citizen. Then Snowden moved on to talk, after each new slide of information, about how Americans and the world need to band together and demand security and privacy. For example, in the talk Snowden mentioned how the little guy can stand up to a national government and win. “I am living proof that an individual can go head to head against the most powerful adversaries and the most powerful intelligence agencies around the world and win, and I think that’s something that we need to take hope from” (Snowden). The speaker refers to the government and businesses as a massive beast that needs to be slain and then reformed. To him and his supporters, the internet landscape and consumer safety has already become too endangered. While this is an exaggeration of the current state of affairs it does reflect the changing tides of the platform. 

As previously addressed, the main goal of Snowden’s argument was to bring attention to the world of the dire need for internet privacy and a level of tangibility between the government, monitoring institutions, and the consumer. He argues so much for this point that he even makes a remark regarding laws or a Magna Cart of the Internet. “I believe that a Magna Carta for the Internet is exactly what we need. We need to encode our values not just in writing but in the structure of the internet” (Snowden). He addresses the goal of a future with an open government and internet privacy for the consumer. His points about encryption on websites for the safety of the user were very effective. He addressed how dangerous it is to currently use the internet with no encryption and how visible a user’s data can be. However, while he got specific on encryption and the viability and danger of the government monitoring, he did not address how to effectively combat them. He addressed the audience and told them to take action, however he only gave them a target. While I agree on many of his points, no means or viable courses of action were presented in his argument. Effectively saying that idealistic nature alone is going to get reform passed and changes made. Action does need to be taken, but different from what Snowden suggests. The much less aggressive and more sensible/ direct option is to pursue proper and safe regulation for the consumer.

While Snowden suggested taking action, he did not refer as to what should be done. He fired up citizens but did not give them a proper target. The goal needs to be proper regulation on the distribution and protection of consumer data. The consumer should be able to feel safe within the ever-expanding platform that is the internet, despite the ever-growing levels of connectivity between them and businesses as well as other individuals. Basic actions to take on this course of action do not require extreme measures, but maybe extreme circumstances. The political climate is an ever-changing, fickle beast. While consumers may be able to rally behind politicians, such as the previously mentioned Senator Jeff Flake, passing regulations would take an equally receptive body of government. So, it requires a vocal and supportive following. The supporters need to permeate the potential regulation’s extreme importance to everyday life in print and digital media. In a way, supporters can peacefully force the government to consider their proposal. The regulations themselves would protect the consumer. They would for example, contain measures regarding the distribution of their data and being informed in the even that their information is being distributed. While support for consumer regulations needs to be rallied, business regulations already have the government’s ear. The only issue is to compromise with consumers. If businesses truly have the consumer at heart, they will desire to find a middle-ground that is beneficial to them and safe to the average internet user. It will take vocal support, as with starting the regulation process, to work businesses down to an agreeable position. However, enough exposure of issues on physical, digital, and social media platforms may be enough to sway their opinion.

The current internet landscape is turbulent with many different sides vying for control. Consumer’s attempt to take on businesses and vice versa. Both want what is best for themselves. That means creating regulations that limit or increase control over different aspects of data and distribution. The preservation of privacy for the individual and the profitability of businesses are very prominent issues. However, the lack of proper regulations could cause potential for harm and/or infringe on the privacy of the individual if handled incorrectly. It is up to individuals to begin the process of proper regulations for internet privacy. However, the ideal outcome is both businesses and consumers both achieving their desired outcome of a proper balance between freedom and regulation.
