Americans Do Not Value Privacy

In his paper, Fried writes that trust is bought through “moral capital” (Fried 484). This moral capital is bought by revealing information that might otherwise be kept private to a friend, loved one, or individual whose trust the informer would like to gain. Moral capital is the trust that an individual will treat another with morality meaning, according to Fried, that they will“[respect] the basic rights of the other” (Fried 479). Fried also states that, “There can be no trust where there is no possibility of error,” suggesting that without privacy there can be no trust as privacy creates the risk of confidential information being disclosed by the receiver of said information (Fried 486). The idea that privacy creates trust has only become more evident with the rise of the internet. In their paper, “Young people online and the social value of privacy,” George Mason University professor Priscilla Regan and University of Ottawa professor Valerie Steeves explore how young people’s understanding and value of privacy has been shaped by the internet. The two found that while young people understand that information posted on the internet can be viewed by family members and the public, they trust that others will follow the unwritten social rules of the internet–essentially that they will act with morality–and respect their privacy by not looking at posts not directed at them (Regan and Steeves 302). This example shows that despite the interconnectedness

As human beings and citizens of the world, everyone values their privacy. It is a right that is often looked over and taken for granted by most. Since the beginning of time, there have been concerns about individuals’ rights to privacy and their personal information remaining confidential. Our founding fathers had concerns about this which is why, “…this right has developed into

In Peter Singer’s essay Visible Man, he discusses how advancements in technology have changed the world’s view on privacy listing both the benefits and drawbacks following this. Privacy is a very big aspect for Americans and the freedom we represent. As America defines itself as a democracy, the Government ties a lot into the privacy role, attempting to keep citizens safe. Generally, having personal privacy is crucial to feeling safe and comfortable in any environment but I think the overall role of privacy should only be focused heavily by the government in regards to certain situations. Not only with the government but also in society, the means for privacy amongst peers and family have changed crucially. An individual’s privacy is based

In support of privacy, Daniel J. Solove wrote, Why Privacy Matters Even If You Have ‘Nothing to Hide.’ Solove begins his argument by introducing the nothing-to-hide argument. In general, the argument for surveillance is ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear:’ hence people’s support for government efforts and regulations to ‘protect’ citizens by decreasing privacy. Those who object this argument target its most extreme cases. For example, if you have nothing to hide, could I take a nude picture of you, own all entitlements to the photo, and share it with anyone? Absolutely not, most would say, but this objection is not exceptionally compelling according to Solove. In order to understand privacy, we must not reduce it to one single definition. Privacy is extremely complex and involves a range of different things that share common characteristics. For instance, one’s privacy can be invaded by the expose of your innermost secrets, but it may also be invaded if a peeping Tom (without the reveal of any secrets) is observing you. Your privacy may also be invaded if the government seeks extensive information about you. All of these examples cause harm related to an invasion of privacy, thus making the definition of privacy not applicable for a “one size fits all” conclusion. The underlying and most significant harm that comes from surveillance is the problem of information processing. Solove uses The Trial example to demonstrate this effect. Here, the

Modern Americans see privacy as one of the greatest freedoms. When Edward Snowden revealed the NSA surveillance program, the citizens of the United States were appalled by the extent of access the NSA had to personal information. However, according to Dan Tapscott in his essay, “Should We Ditch the Idea of Privacy?” we post just as many details daily on our numerous social media outlets. The majority of the information we freely post is not meaningful and does no harm to us by being public, yet there is a dangerous side to our open-book nature.

Social media has become a world stage for many people to display and share their accomplishments, failures, and even their shenanigans. No one seems to care anymore if their boss, spouse, or conservative grandmother knows how wild that party they attended over the weekend was, or who their romantic fling was with that week. It’s a sad fact and even though most people do it, posting ones every day move can still affect their job and personal relationships.

Privacy is what allows people to feel secure in their surroundings. With privacy, one is allowed to withhold or distribute the information they want by choice, but the ability to have that choice is being violated in today’s society. Benjamin Franklin once said, “He who sacrifices freedom or liberty will eventually have neither.” And that’s the unfortunate truth that is and has occurred in recent years. Privacy, especially in such a fast paced moving world, is extremely vital yet is extremely violated, as recently discovered the NSA has been spying on U.S. citizens for quite a while now; based on the Fourth Amendment, the risk of leaked and distorted individual information, as well as vulnerability to lack of anonymity.

Privacy is an especially equivocal idea, in particularly because invasion of privacy is a concept that is arguably questionable. Privacy has been defined as the right to be left alone without unwarranted intrusion by government, media, or other institutions or individuals. While this definition serves as a quick start to the right of privacy, there are still several interpretations as to what may or may not constitute as an invasion of privacy. What one person may believe to be an innocent curiosity, another may feel as though it is a deliberate invasion of privacy. Often these disputes make their way into courtrooms and are subjected to controversy and evaluation.

Imagine someone living in a country that turns surveillance equipment on its own citizens to monitor their locations, behavior, and phone calls. Probably no one is willing to live in such place where privacy is being undermined by the authorities. For people living in the U.S., their private information has been more vulnerable than ever before because the government is able to use various kinds of surveillance equipment and technology to monitor and analyze their activities, conversations, and behaviors without their permission, in the name of homeland security. Mass surveillance has jeopardized people’s privacy and deprived individuals of their freedom, which is associated with dignity, trust, and autonomy. In the

How much are Americans hiding? With internet and social media, these days it is hard to hide any personal information.  It is as easy as searching a person’s name in Google to find out any information needed about a certain individual. This allows any records to be available to be seen online, and a person’s past to remain apart of their future, or their internet search. Europeans on the other hand, can hide whatever they want on the internet with the “right to be forgotten,” requesting Google to take off any unwanted information from their search engine at any time. As Europe pushes for this law in the United States more everyday, many citizens in the U.S. can think of things they would want erased about themselves from internet searches, but they also need to think of how much they would want hidden from their own eyes about others. Although Europe strongly supports the “right to be forgotten” and giving internet users more control over their online reputations, the United States should not acquire this law because it would go against the first amendment (the right of free speech), it would be “unfair and deceptive”(Peterson, 2015, par. 2) to U.S. citizens, and it would allow other countries to determine American’s laws or freedom.

Within the Constitution of the United States of America, the word “privacy” appears exactly zero times. Not once does the legal document that outlines the social order of the United Sates, define, or explicitly state a “right to privacy” for its citizens. Even with this fact prevailing over society, American citizens still esteem privacy in the highest regard. According to a survey conducted by the PEW Research Center, a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping America, “93 percent of adults say that being in control of who can get information about them is important… 88 percent [of Americans] say it is important that they not have someone watch or listen to them without their

In his essay “Why Privacy Matters” from The Wilson Quarterly, Jeffrey Rosen offers a compelling account of the harmful effects of eradicating our privacy. Rosen ventures into several different fields affected by the ever-growing intrusion of our privacy, offering a rich compendium of illustrations from the real world. From Monica Lewinsky’s fate under her investigation, to a Charles Schwab employee, Rosen offers a prolific arsenal of incidents where the dignity of privacy is challenged. In his descriptive examples, Rosen demonstrates a broad expertise within the field by taking his time to describe a careful characterization of each case by both implying his own personal experience

Privacy, over the years, has become something more or less irrelevant to people. People realize every social media website, every technological gadget acquired, every email, and more, is monitored by the government or by a disturbing next-door neighbor. Yet, it is as though people ignore such possibilities and move on with life. At first, the lack of privacy was due to a safety issue- understandable. Today, although it is still for safety, people with the wrong mentality have the ability to find information that is harmful to another person.

Living in a country that is known to be “Land of the free…” is not exactly what most people dream of. The United States may be known for its freedom and power, but most people are unaware of the covertness behind the government. And by now, almost every American citizen knows that privacy no longer exists. In this century and country, it really does not.

Today, individuals are sacrificing privacy in order to feel safe. These sacrifices have made a significant impact on the current meaning of privacy, but may have greater consequences in the future. According to Debbie Kasper in her journal, “The Evolution (Or Devolution) of Privacy,” privacy is a struggling dilemma in America. Kasper asks, “If it is gone, when did it disappear, and why?”(Kasper 69). Our past generation has experienced the baby boom, and the world today is witnessing a technological boom. Technology is growing at an exponential rate, thus making information easier to access and share than ever before. The rapid diminishing of privacy is leaving Americans desperate for change.