This paper explores the complex relationship between securing the rights of citizens to privacy and national security priorities under conditions of government mass surveillance. The inquiry examines the conflict between those who support and those who stand in opposition of government surveillance, and is framed around the question of whether changes in technology and the concept of nationalism help inform our understanding of the increase in surveillance post-9/11. From a peace and conflict studies perspective, the work analyzes how the rise of nationalism in the post-9/11 era and the protracted wars against terrorism, in combination with the growth of technological power, have impacted the relationship between state-surveillance and democracy. Findings identify protracted warfare, technology and corporate profits as conflict drivers within the surveillance system, which gives rise to moral dilemmas and structural polarizations in the political culture and institutions of the state and society. The analysis concludes that these dilemmas systematically create an imbalance of power between the citizen to the state, and cannot be fully addressed unless the efficacy of war is critically questioned.

The purpose of the study was to determine consumer attitudes toward privacy and the influence of demographic factors on these attitudes. The study also sought to determine the willingness of participants to disclose selected individual information items and determine the awareness and acceptance level of technological innovations such as radio frequency identifiers (RFID) as they relate to privacy. A quantitative instrument was developed and a convenience sample of university students (N=203) was tested. Results showed that educational background played a role in the way participants perceived the applications of RFID.

The purpose of the study was to determine how the Fourth Amendment is treated in the age of the internet. To determine the degree of the significance of this relationship a comparative approach is used. Court opinions from cases involving other technological innovations and the Fourth Amendment were examined and their reasoning was compared to that of cases involving the internet and the Fourth Amendment. The results indicated that contrary to some fears that the internet would require a different approach with respect to the law it actually did not present many novel barriers to its application. The principle conclusion was that the reasoning used in cases involving older technologies, namely the test outlined in Katz v. United States, was consistently applied even in the age of the internet.

This project reviews Arrowhead Credit Union's Information Security Program structure and contents.