Everything's An Argument Analysis

In this day in age, the internet is considered the greatest resource for discovering information. If you have a question you can just ask Siri or type it into Google, but the internet also gives information about one’s own self. By monitoring someone’s internet, you can find out facts about their personality or even their confidential information. With the internet being considered a powerful resource, the United States has begun monitoring internet content. The U.S. government should monitor internet content concerning the safety and privacy of American citizens.

"The Internet Is a Surveillance State" is an article written by Bruce Schneier and first appeared on cnn.com in March of 2013. In this article, Schneier attempts to validate the idea that big companies and the government utilize the internet to accumulate information on the general public. Schneier provides the reader with hard evidence and supporting details throughout the article to confirm his claim. The purpose of this essay is to analyze the claim, along with the evidence and supporting details, Schneier offers in his article. Furthermore, this essay will determine if Bruce Schneier was able to make an effective argument based on the information he presents to the readers.

The Internet was first used in the nineteen sixties by a small group of technology professionals. Since then the internet has become an essential part of today’s world, from communicating through texts and emails to banking, studying, and shopping, the internet has touched every aspect of our lives. With the growing use of the internet, protecting important information has become a must. While some believe they have the right to privacy, and feel that the government should not be at the center of their lives. Others feel that the Internet has evolved into a weapon for our enemies, and believe the government must take action by proactively

Did you check your Facebook today? How about your E-Mail? If not, you may be missing something even now! In today’s fast-paced world of instant information, if you aren’t on the internet, you’re almost certainly uninformed. Networks and the internet make up an alarmingly large part of our life. We get our news (both personal and public) via the internet, we talk to friends, shop for things, pay our bills… but how vast is the monster that does all of this? This question, along with many others, is essential in the debate that rages on today: censoring the net. There are governments, not excluding our own, who believe in to some extent controlling who can access certain websites, and which are available to the general public. The very idea

Daniel Solove, a professor who specializes in internet privacy law, wrote this book to give his personal take on how the internet was transforming the way people connect through social mediums and how that could change in the future. An important thing to note about this book is that it was published in 2007, so some of the social and technological aspects of the book are slightly dated. Regardless of this though, this book provides an inquisitive perspective on the dynamic nature of the internet as a vessel of our society’s changing norms on privacy in the social sphere. Many of our learning points in class relate to topics discussed in this book and help to strengthen the context and significance of the underlying message.

"Americans are unique due to our technological advancement, which means we set the precedent of how this new technology is to be controlled. The internet is an invention that raises new questions everyday. One controversial issue is wether or not the government_Ñés interference online is necessary. On one hand, the internet is a place where people speak up and speak out, even if it is against the government. Should the government be able to spy on this? If we let them take control of the internet, is that the same thing as limiting our freedom of speech? On the other hand, the internet is the prime location for criminal activity that goes far beyond simple teasing. Do we need government interference in order to protect us from criminals who hide behind the keyboard? Would monitoring the internet actually help prevent criminal activity such as terrorist attacks?

The government has been monitoring and regulating an every day’s persons website history and what we buy and look at on the Internet. With the Internet growing rapidly and the amount of users on the Internet increasing, the easier it is for the government to find out peoples’ interests. Many people argue whether or not we should have vigorous rules and regulations when it comes to the Internet. One of the main concerns people have when it comes to their Internet is their privacy. There are many people who want to do harm using the tools that the Internet provides us with. The Internet should be regulated but not as harsh as some

Our topic is the societal impacts of technology, but because technology has drastically changed the way the entire world functions, the three authors have decided to narrow focus on two aspects of life: economics and mental health. While the two areas may seem incompatible, the economic state of a country directly affects the mental health of its citizens, and the economic estate relies on individuals. In order to accurately depict the two areas of effect, the author's focus is the United States, but compare technology use and mental health rates in the United States to the technology use and mental health rates of both China and Russia in order to generate a better understanding of American society. By understanding the impact of technology on economics and mental health, individuals are capable of making informed decisions about technology use, in doing so they directly impact their surrounding society.

I believe that the government does have a right to monitor internet content under certain conditions. As of now certain government officials are wanting to take internet freedom away which many believe isn't right. I personally believe that if the government believes and has proof that there is a serious crime happening on the internet then it should be taken care of. If not, then it shouldn’t be much of a problem.

Within the pro-choice world there are many issues that are discussed like abortion, the instant where life begins and the use of contraceptives. This article will focus on not only the issue of using of contraceptives, but specifically the distribution of oral contraceptives (“the pill”) to teenage girls without their parent’s consent.

In the Age of Information or the Era of the Internet, everyone is connected. Everyone carries around a computer in their pocket with more than enough computing power to send a man to the moon. Invisibly, data is constantly flowing. Virtually everything we interact with in today’s world has one thing in common: the internet. It plays a huge role in everything from sharing pictures with friends to the election. It is widely accessible and houses a wealth of information. Anyone should be able to access the network of data that is the internet. However, just as this Swiss Army Knife of innovation can be applied towards the common good, it can also be limited and used nefariously—an action that manifests itself in the form of censorship. Internet

The words, “Arguing that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say” were said by Edward Snowden who is a computer professional in America. Similarly, the essays “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty,” “Web Users Get as Much as They Give,” and “Facebook Is Using You” from Nicholas Carr, Jim Harper, and Lori Andrews respectively points out that the internet privacy is good and bad. However, the articles by Carr and Andrews are based on the negative side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is not good. On the other hand, Harper’s article is based on the positive side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is good and scary, but people need to be careful of their own information and browsing histories, and websites. Jim Harper’s essay is more relevant and reasonable than the Nicholas Carr and Lori Andrews’s essays. However, Harper seems more persuasive to readers because he believes that the internet is good if people use it in a right way, whereas Carr and Andrews believe that the internet is not good at all.

The concern about privacy on the Internet is increasingly becoming an issue of international dispute. ?Citizens are becoming concerned that the most intimate details of their daily lives are being monitored, searched and recorded.? (www.britannica.com) 81% of Net users are concerned about threats to their privacy while online. The greatest threat to privacy comes from the construction of e-commerce alone, and not from state agents. E-commerce is structured on the copy and trade of intimate personal information and therefore, a threat to privacy on the Internet.

These days the internet has become an essential part to living for almost everyone but one of the controversial topics that people bring up is that whether or not the government should regulate information on the internet. Both sides have valid points which form a reasonable argument. Some people would say that they need to because of the dangers lurking around in the cyber world but the reasons for why the government shouldn’t regulate the Internet outnumber the reasons for why they should. The federal government should not regulate or censor information on the internet because doing so violates the first amendment and citizen’s right to privacy, degrades the educational value of the web, prevents the promotion and facilitation of

Waite and Gallagher also discuss the benefits that marriage gives to couples. Including the financial benefits, in that through specialization and by sharing incomes getting married boosts standard of living by thirty percent and this benefit is not incurred by cohabitating, as those who cohabitate do not share as much and are less committed to the wellbeing of their partner. In addition to the financial benefits, they also discuss the emotional benefits of knowing you have someone who loves you and who would take care of you. Children similarly benefit from having married parents as there are more financial resources available to help take care of them and they get to spend more time with at least one parent.