Fear Technology in Mark Hagerott and Daniel Sarewitz's Article, A Future in Denial

What specific evidence and examples does the author use to support this argument? Do you think they are convincing?

question the reliability of these sources, the nature of the inconsistency between these two articles has

In the book Fahrenheit 451, the author expresses his fears about how technology can affect one 's humanity. Members of the society in this book are unable to have relationships with themselves and others because of the technology surrounding their lives. Media is leaving a negative effect on people’s ability to memorize and remember events in their lives. But once people leave behind all the technology being used every day, they can find their humanity. The author of Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury, expresses the dangers and his fears for our future because of technology.

This is the first instance that I found the article problematic. Based on my understanding

The September 2001 attacks on the twin towers will forever change how the United States will fight foreign and domestic terrorism. The implementation of “The Program” starting on October 4th, was set out to collect massive amounts of data via Internet and telephone records to ensure national security. Many people within the NSA didn 't even know about this program because it was so classified. The select few that knew about this program, had several different views about how ethical this program was. But many of them viewed it as an unethical practice and a clear violation of the Constitution of United States. But some of them viewed it as necessary to national security.

In addition to the lack thereof evidence, this article is scattered as can be; making the reading experience quite confusing and unenjoyable at times. Annika Hagley’s writing style is quite abstract, at times causing seemingly choppy

It is easy to tell that the obsession with technology has had major effects on people’s way of life. Political elections are polluted by voters that believe it is a game, Students with answers to questions shoved down their throat in the form of useless facts and a society in which individuality is dangerous. Ray Bradbury demonstrates these issues in his book Fahrenheit 451, by showing how technology desensitizes the population, diminishes thinking for ourselves and limits individuality.

In recent history, one extremely controversial case of whistleblowing has been the government leaks caused by Edward Snowden, in which he exposed secret documents from the National Security Agency (NSA), for the entire world to see. The information he released revealed that the communication records of millions of Americans have been kept, whether or not these people had been involved with any suspicious activity (Greenwald). Snowden felt he was justified in releasing the documents, under his belief that collecting private information about innocent citizens is malpractice and that it violates the ideals of democracy (Snowden). This particular example of whistleblowing has been largely disputed among all types of people, from leaders of countries, to CEOs and workers at technology companies, to everyday Americans wondering just how much information the government has filed on them. This enormous controversy can be best understood by recognizing the two principle factors that have lead to dispute.

On September 11, 2001 a terrorist attack took place on United States soil that filled the nation with mass hysteria. Three planes were hijacked and flown into various locations killing roughly 3,000 Americans, which lead to social and political landscape changes (Morgan 1). The discussed change in landscape is increased “prejudice, discrimination, and desire for vengeance” by Americans towards anyone who would fall under the stereotypical image of a terrorist. The government and citizens all asked questions alike, “Why, how, and who did this?” The government had failed in doing its job as protector of its citizens. To act on this failure of protection, President George W. Bush “initiated warrantless domestic surveillance by the NSA” in hopes that they could prevent another attack like this from ever occurring again (Schell par. 11).

Thesis: In the wake of the Watergate scandal, Congress passed into law the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (“FISA”) to limit the power of the Executive Branch for the secret surveillance activities. Hence, to protect citizen privacy, FISA requires the government to attest that "the objective" of the surveillance is to gather foreign intelligence information. However, the difference between electronics surveillance conducted for national security and law enforcement purposes erected a “wall” in information sharing amid the Intelligence Community. There is an ongoing debate about the lack of information sharing to

“In terms of Act Utilitarianism, greater privacy over security would be ethical because the majority of the population would be happier, despite some unhappiness from those worried about domestic terrorism. The rules that greater security violates in Rule Utilitarianism cause more unhappiness overall and this greater unhappiness caused by more security would be unethical. So naturally, privacy would be the better solution to more security because it allows for greater overall happiness. What we are doing is not working, and it has just as negative effects, especially if you look at the current writers of the world.” Snowden paused, letting his points sink in. “Writers living

Although there are a few citations to additional articles, there is no bibliography citing additional supporting examples of similar research findings. The article read as more of an opinion piece than an educational piece of writing.

These words alone spark concern amongst citizens due to the methods and the limited understanding of what information is analyzed and stored. When Eric Snowden released the details of the domestic and foreign intelligence gathering programs of the National Security Agency (NSA), World leaders and citizens alike were surprised and outraged at the range and scope of the data that was collected (BBC News 2014). Although his actions were illegal in nature, they exposed the extent to which intelligence collection had grown beyond the initial scope and intent of the laws that were passed following

The Oscar-winning documentary from filmmaker Laura Poitras is about Edward Snowden, the young man who, with top-secret access to NSA databases, made available to the public troves of sensitive data and more importantly insight into the tactics that the U.S. government is using to collect such data, with the potential to spy on any American for any reason, not just for terrorism. “Citizenfour” unfolds roughly in three acts. The first is a primer on how the US War on Terror has encouraged the National Security Agency to expand its reach and invade upon private communications, sometimes unconstitutionally. The second act, the longest, stressful and most claustrophobic, concerns Poitras' trip to meet Snowden in a Hong Kong hotel, a trip arranged

Even though the authors have valid points and cite credible sources, their argument fails to be effective in several ways. For one,