Americans’ Worries About Internet Privacy Go Beyond NSA Surveillance

The average citizen has other fish to fry when it comes to living on the Web.

Even though the spotlight continues to shine over government surveillance, Americans face other types of potential privacy threats online.
National Journal
Marina Koren
Sept. 5, 2013, 9:55 a.m.

Amer­ic­ans are stock­pil­ing their pri­vacy. Ac­cord­ing to a new Pew sur­vey, 86 per­cent of In­ter­net users across the coun­try have taken meas­ures to de­lete or mask their di­git­al foot­prints. They clear their cook­ies, en­crypt emails, and log on to net­works that ob­scure their IP ad­dresses.

Pre­sum­ably, the re­cent drive to hide our tracks on the Web stems from a string of news re­ports de­tail­ing just how much of the av­er­age cit­izen’s on­line activ­ity the U.S. in­tel­li­gence com­munity can tap. But some of the most in­ter­est­ing num­bers from the na­tion­al sur­vey aren’t re­lated to the threat of di­git­al snoop­ing by the gov­ern­ment.

A siz­able 21 per­cent of In­ter­net users have had their e-mail or so­cial-me­dia ac­counts hacked. Re­cent hacks of ma­jor pub­lic­a­tions and cor­por­a­tions’ web­sites and Twit­ter ac­counts show that, these days, no one is safe, not even the king bee Mark Zuck­er­berg, whose Face­book page was com­prom­ised last month to re­veal a se­cur­ity flaw.

For the av­er­age cit­izen, such hacks usu­ally come from crim­in­als with an In­ter­net con­nec­tion. El­ev­en per­cent of users said they’ve had per­son­al in­form­a­tion, such as their cred­it-card or bank in­form­a­tion and So­cial Se­cur­ity num­ber, stolen on­line.

Half of In­ter­net users are wor­ried about the trove of per­son­al in­form­a­tion about them — birth dates, phone num­bers, ad­dresses — float­ing around on the Web. But what are av­er­age cit­izens really do­ing about it? They could add a few ex­tra num­bers or spe­cial char­ac­ters to their dozens of pass­words, but even that is ul­ti­mately fu­tile. A re­port by De­loitte found early this year that more than 90 per­cent of user-gen­er­ated pass­words are vul­ner­able to hack­ing.

What hap­pens on the In­ter­net doesn’t al­ways stay on the In­ter­net, either. Thir­teen per­cent of sur­vey par­ti­cipants said something they pos­ted on­line has got­ten them in trouble with fam­ily mem­bers or friends off the Web. About 12 per­cent have been stalked or har­assed on­line. Six per­cent have taken a hit to their real-life repu­ta­tions be­cause of events that tran­spired on­line, and 4 per­cent have found them­selves in phys­ic­al danger as a res­ult of on­line activ­ity.

Ac­cord­ing to the sur­vey, 68 per­cent of In­ter­net users think cur­rent laws are not suc­cess­ful enough in pro­tect­ing their pri­vacy on­line. But for the most part, it seems like many users have ac­cep­ted the in­ev­it­able risks of liv­ing on­line. Even as they make moves to pro­tect their on­line activ­ity, 59 per­cent of In­ter­net users don’t think it’s pos­sible to re­main com­pletely an­onym­ous.

Then again, a dif­fer­ent stat­ist­ic sug­gests Amer­ic­ans may be more apathet­ic about their pri­vacy on­line than this Pew sur­vey sug­gests: 47 per­cent say the me­dia shouldn’t re­port on the gov­ern­ment’s clas­si­fied an­ti­ter­ror­ism ef­forts, which in­cludes secret sur­veil­lance of av­er­age cit­izens.

What We're Following See More »
STAFF PICKS
These (Supposed) Iowa and NH Escorts Tell All
4 hours ago
NATIONAL JOURNAL AFTER DARK

Before we get to the specifics of this exposé about escorts working the Iowa and New Hampshire primary crowds, let’s get three things out of the way: 1.) It’s from Cosmopolitan; 2.) most of the women quoted use fake (if colorful) names; and 3.) again, it’s from Cosmopolitan. That said, here’s what we learned:

  • Business was booming: one escort who says she typically gets two inquiries a weekend got 15 requests in the pre-primary weekend.
  • Their primary season clientele is a bit older than normal—”40s through mid-60s, compared with mostly twentysomething regulars” and “they’ve clearly done this before.”
  • They seemed more nervous than other clients, because “the stakes are higher when you’re working for a possible future president” but “all practiced impeccable manners.”
  • One escort “typically enjoy[s] the company of Democrats more, just because I feel like our views line up a lot more.”
Source:
STATE VS. FEDERAL
Restoring Some Sanity to Encryption
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

No matter where you stand on mandating companies to include a backdoor in encryption technologies, it doesn’t make sense to allow that decision to be made on a state level. “The problem with state-level legislation of this nature is that it manages to be both wildly impractical and entirely unenforceable,” writes Brian Barrett at Wired. There is a solution to this problem. “California Congressman Ted Lieu has introduced the ‘Ensuring National Constitutional Rights for Your Private Telecommunications Act of 2016,’ which we’ll call ENCRYPT. It’s a short, straightforward bill with a simple aim: to preempt states from attempting to implement their own anti-encryption policies at a state level.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
What the Current Crop of Candidates Could Learn from JFK
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

Much has been made of David Brooks’s recent New York Times column, in which confesses to missing already the civility and humanity of Barack Obama, compared to who might take his place. In NewYorker.com, Jeffrey Frank reminds us how critical such attributes are to foreign policy. “It’s hard to imagine Kennedy so casually referring to the leader of Russia as a gangster or a thug. For that matter, it’s hard to imagine any president comparing the Russian leader to Hitler [as] Hillary Clinton did at a private fund-raiser. … Kennedy, who always worried that miscalculation could lead to war, paid close attention to the language of diplomacy.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Hillary Is Running Against the Bill of 1992
4 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

The New Covenant. The Third Way. The Democratic Leadership Council style. Call it what you will, but whatever centrist triangulation Bill Clinton embraced in 1992, Hillary Clinton wants no part of it in 2016. Writing for Bloomberg, Sasha Issenberg and Margaret Talev explore how Hillary’s campaign has “diverged pointedly” from what made Bill so successful: “For Hillary to survive, Clintonism had to die.” Bill’s positions in 1992—from capital punishment to free trade—“represented a carefully calibrated diversion from the liberal orthodoxy of the previous decade.” But in New Hampshire, Hillary “worked to juggle nostalgia for past Clinton primary campaigns in the state with the fact that the Bill of 1992 or the Hillary of 2008 would likely be a marginal figure within today’s Democratic politics.”

Source:
STAFF PICKS
Trevor Noah Needs to Find His Voice. And Fast.
5 hours ago
WHY WE CARE

At first, “it was pleasant” to see Trevor Noah “smiling away and deeply dimpling in the Stewart seat, the seat that had lately grown gray hairs,” writes The Atlantic‘s James Parker in assessing the new host of the once-indispensable Daily Show. But where Jon Stewart was a heavyweight, Noah is “a very able lightweight, [who] needs time too. But he won’t get any. As a culture, we’re not about to nurture this talent, to give it room to grow. Our patience was exhausted long ago, by some other guy. We’re going to pass judgment and move on. There’s a reason Simon Cowell is so rich. Impress us today or get thee hence. So it comes to this: It’s now or never, Trevor.”

Source:
×