Much has been in the news lately about encryption technology and its impact on law enforcement and civil liberties . More recently, the battle between Apple and the Department of Justice on the rights of privacy and encryption on phones shooters San Bernardino was overthrown in the news, in the wake of the global discussion that followed the terrorist attacks from Paris.
Although the technologies are different, the underlying issue is the same: If citizens have the right to use technology to improve privacy, such as encryption, anonymous browsing and messaging tools such as Tor or VPN Telegram and even personnel such as Hotspot Shield? Much ink has been spilled and will-try to answer this question in a manner that balances the rights of individuals against the government's responsibility to keep people safe
against Tor VPN -.? What is the difference
most people do not understand the difference between privacy technology such as Tor and VPN (Hotspot Shield). Tor, an acronym for "The Onion Router" is an anonymization service. It obscures your Internet traffic so that it can not be traced back to you Tor has a global network of relays run by volunteers that used to transport and encrypt your traffic, making it impossible to connect your business to its final destination. Tor is free to install and use, but because of its distribution network byzantine, it is quite slow.
VPN such as Hotspot shield, on the other hand use a proxy to hide your IP address. This means that any website you visit can only see the IP address of the VPN server, not the IP address original VPN also encrypt your traffic, which makes waterproof your information to hackers or nosy VPNs are very common;... remote workers who telecommute use VPN to connect to the network from their employer that means they are generally not blocked by Internet service providers. VPNs are much faster, but they usually require a monthly or annual fee subscription.
Why Privacy Matter?
It is easy, in the wake of these tragedies, take an absolutist approach when it comes to Internet privacy and insist on transparency for all users; after all, if you do not do something wrong, you should not have anything to hide.
But it goes against the fundamental human rights and violates the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans under the Constitution. This amendment guarantees the people's right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." This amendment is considered an essential bulwark against government spying. This is the argument animating civil liberties groups, who see a slippery slope into a digital tyranny if the privacy rights on the Internet are abbreviated. the Supreme Court heard several cases on the same issue.
from the point of view of human rights, privacy on the Internet is an essential tool for political dissidents living under dictatorial regimes that suppress open communication and apply censorship. These diets strictly control the Internet in an attempt to stop political activity and opposition. North Korea, China, Cuba, Vietnam and Iran all tightly restrict access to Internet and censor communications. In these countries, privacy and encryption software are the only tools that enable prisoners and dissidents to communicate with the outside world.
What is the solution?
Too often, people who are concerned about safety, especially in this era of increasing threats of terrorism, consider limiting access to tools that can be used by bad actors to commit acts bad, is the best way to protect the country, even if it means restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens.
The same is also applied to other dangerous tools; weapons are an excellent example. Many believe that the strengthening of control on arms, or even ban outright prevent criminals to carry out their destructive actions. But weapons are far from the only mortal implement available to those who wish to do murder knives, baseball bats, broken bottles, even cars can be deadly weapons in the hands of bad actors. Does this mean our society should deny access to all the potential to do harm in an attempt to enforce the Utopian harmony?
The sensitive approach to tools such as virtual private networks and encryption technology is to recognize that these parts and themselves are not harmful, and in fact, guarantee basic rights and constitutional rights for their users. Their ban on behalf of potentially prevent a future attack is the beginning of a slippery slope towards overreach of government and tyranny. It is better to trust in the good intentions of the vast majority of our citizens and to err on the side of the protection of individual rights to lean toward censorship and invasion of privacy.
What do you think? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
0 Komentar