Privacy; what is it, and what role does it serve in your life? To what extent do you crave privacy, and value it as one of your key human values? How do you view privacy? Do you see privacy as a withdrawal from publicity, or do you see privacy as a way to make sure that you are anonymous from those from which you do not choose to associate yourself with? Is privacy simply anonymity, or are the two separate? If they are separate what is difference? And, if they are separate, which is more important, and which would be the one to give up for our safety if necessary? Privacy is a monstrous debate in terms of “sacrificing our safety” in the post-Snowden United States, and everybody seems to have an opinion on it. However, the key to this debate is getting down to the facts, putting it all on an even playing field, and evaluating the situation. 

Firstly, what is privacy? Scholar Rafael Cappurro states firmly, “The concept of privacy cannot be adequately determined without its counterpart, publicness.” (Digital Whoness: Identity, Privacy, and Freedom in the Cyber World 11) He then goes on to explain that privacy and publicness is not a set in stone ideal but one that is determined by one’s social and cultural structures. To understand more deeply, we look towards what exactly is the difference between privacy and anonymity. Scholar Jeffery Skopek argues that “Privacy involves hiding the information, whereas anonymity involves hiding what makes it personal” (Reasonable Expectations of Anonymity, 694). The two key words in his argument being information, and personal. When you are hiding information about yourself that information is still concrete, but does not go public; while if you are hiding your identity the information still is public while the actual person to whom it is accredited does not in the eyes of the public. 

Next to determine whether or not it is ok to breach our rights online, we turn to legislation. According to scholar Jeffery M. Skopek, “The meaningful question in this area is no longer what information the government can obtain about us, but rather what information is beyond its reach. The reason for this is that the Supreme Court has concluded that the Fourth Amendment’s (the right to not be subject to improper search and seizure) protections do not apply to any information that has been exposed to the public or third parties. This includes information about our public movements, Internet usage, cell phone calls, and so on.” Though this does not apply exactly to the Ulbricht case as Ross was operating by alias, the interpretation of this is, anything that you put online, or share with anyone in any way, the government is able to document it, and keep it for their records. 

So when we are asking what would be “sacrificed” for our “safety” are we asking that the government would be able to access our information and identity, or are we asking that the government would not be able to access our identity, but still have our information? The line is thin between the two. If the government were to be able to access our information, but not have our identities, there could be a panic created that no one could be trusted as your neighbor could be the one who is the threat. However, if we give up all of our information, and our identities, do we then violate the fifth amendment (the right to not have to incriminate oneself) by incriminating ourselves with the information we have given even if it is for petty crimes, or small jokes made that our taken out of context. In other words, do we allow ourselves to be under constant surveillance twenty-four hours a day seven days a week. However, the deeper argument here is: is this necessary, and should we allow the government to have access to our digitial selves? I say no.

The event which sparked my interest in this topic was the arrest of Ross Ulbricht on suspicion of alleged participation in narcotics trafficking conspiracy, continuing criminal enterprise, computer hacking conspiracy, and money laundering conspiracy. The background of this begins with the “Dark Web”. The Dark Web is also known as the “unindexed internet”; sites that are not registered or known by the government, operated on private servers, virtually unfindable by man alone. In relation to the “Clear Web”, or the “indexed internet”, the Dark Web is essentially looking under the hood of the Clear Web’s car. In fact, the Dark Web is enormously bigger taking up what is believed to be 97% of the internet. On the Dark Web anything may go, however it is mostly used by journalists and military personnel to communicate securely, and privately without any chance of being traced back to them. Essentially the Dark Web is a way to get off the grid. However, in the case of Ross Ulbricht, something else became suspect when he was arrested. What is known about Ross’ case is that someone under the alias of Dread Pirate Roberts was operating as the administrator of Silk Road, an online marketplace, much like amazon, in which users can purchase drugs, and services such as fake identifications, free Netflix accounts, etc. It is used by operating on a software called tails which reroutes your computers locations through a network of thousands of computers and masks your IP address. Through cryptic messages, and the use of bitcoin, the exchanges made on the Dark Web are essentially untraceable. 

The FBI, and the government have been spying on us for years, and their powers are getting out of control; it is time to put an end to it. In the case of Ross the FBI was able to locate the servers of what they called "the most sophisticated and extensive criminal marketplace on the Internet today" (How FBI caught Ross Ulbricht, alleged creator of criminal marketplace Silk Road, 1). However, the FBI to this day has not stated how it was able to find the servers, due to as most suspect, it was done illegally. The majority of those who have speculated believe the FBI used hacking methods in order to discover the location of the servers, which would be a crime in itself. According to an anonymous researcher, “We don't know how that was done – are aware of no routine techniques that would enable that kind of intrusion. If there's technology to do that, it's very advanced,” (Silk Road bust hints at FBI's new cybercrime powers, 1). Also, a problem with arresting Ross as the Dread Pirate Roberts is, his background shows nothing like the characteristics of the administrator the FBI describes. On top of that almost every user close to Dread Pirate Roberts has testified that there have been multiple people running the account, as many as three or four at a time. Although it seems as if Ross could not have been found, he still was. So, how is it that the FBI was able to so, and is this a breach of Ross’s privacy?

I would speculate that yes, this is a breach of Ross’s privacy, however in what way? Was this a breach of his ability to remain anonymous from his online persona which was out there for those to see (though it is likely he was not the only one running it) or is this a breach of his right to have his information kept secret from those of whom he did not wish to share it with? My response would be both. Looking at this as an example, Ross attempted to remain anonymous, he had a screen alias, and wired money through multiple accounts so it could not be traced to him, and yet without any proof of Dread Pirate Roberts being solely Ross, the FBI still busted in on him while he was at his local library. 

Though his actions may have been illegal, this was never accurately determined with hard evidence, and therefore he should not have had a case at all. That right there is a breach of his ability to remain anonymous. Next, though Ross was operating on the administrative account at the time the FBI was able arrest him, he was on a private server, located overseas, nearly impossible to find without any illegal methods. This means that Ross was certainly keeping himself private, out of site from anyone being able to identify him. Yet, through likely illegal methods, the FBI was able to locate and prosecute him as being Dread Pirate Roberts; this is a breach of his right to privacy. 

 

So, the government is able to obtain all of our information, however is a search and seizure just in terms of should citizens allow it for online activity that is purposefully hidden. I would argue no. In the case of Ross Ulbricht he may or may not have been committing a crime however a significant reduction in drug violence was seen with the introduction of online drug purposes. According to Ross, what was being offered was, "creating an economic simulation to give people a first-hand experience of what it would be like to live in a world without the systemic use of force" of the kind imposed by "institutions and governments." And stated, "I want to use economic theory as a means to abolish the use of coercion and aggression (sic) amongst mankind," (How FBI caught Ross Ulbricht, alleged creator of criminal marketplace Silk Road, 1). This economic situation not only made it so that he could not be found but so that anyone who uses the proper procedures on the Dark Web cannot be found either. Therefore, if the government does discover you without you giving yourself up, it would have to be by a random less than one percent chance, or by illegal means. However, is this just in terms of protecting our safety? I argue no because then going online and doing this sort of business on the Dark Web would be one incriminating one’s self, which would then violate the 5th amendment. 

Next I review upon the Union of Concerned Scientists, to look at how this oppression of our freedom to express ourselves fully online can limit our ability from the truth of the world. The purpose of this is to show how the government would treat even our top scientists in a situation as such. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, “Federal scientists play an important role in our democracy by providing critical expertise to decision makers and the American people. To fulfill this responsibility, they must be able to communicate freely with the media, the public, and their peers.” What these scientists are saying is that the federal government puts censorship on what they are able to express to their peers, and to the public. This shows that the federal government does believe in censorship of information which they decide they do not want others to see. Is this just? I would argue no. We live in a society in which we are legally given the right to express ourselves in any which way we please, yet our federal scientists are not given this same right as the government does not want them telling the public. My argument here is, if the government does not have to share everything they are doing with the public, why does the public have to share everything they are doing with the government? According to Skopek they are not protected by the fourth amendment as they do share their information with a third party; that being the scientists. So, if the government decides that they do not have to share their information I would argue that we do not need share our information with them.

To conclude, our privacy and anonymity are two separate things. One being that our identity and information are together but not shared, and the other being our information is shared and our identity is not. According to the supreme court, information we put online under our name is not eligible to be protected by the fourth amendment. In the case of Ross Ulbricht, his rights were very likely breached, and after looking at the case of the Union of Concerned Scientists we know the government would be more than willing to attempt to censor people such as Ross Ulbricht. In this statement I will say, that the violation of our privacy and anonymity, is not only illegal, but also unjust. 
