Finding Clarity In The Obscurity Of “Why Privacy Matters”.

With the rise of the internet, some people argue that privacy no longer exists. From the 2013 revelations of government surveillance of citizens’ communications to companies that monitor their employees’ internet usage, this argument seems to be increasingly true. Yet, Harvard Law professor Charles Fried states that privacy, “is necessarily related to ends and relations of the most fundamental sort: respect, love, friendship and trust” (Fried 477). However, Fried is not arguing that in a world where privacy, in its most simple terms, is becoming scarce that these foundations of human interactions are also disappearing. Instead, Fried expands on the traditional definition of privacy while contesting that privacy, although typically viewed

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 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

In the twenty first century, everyone is gluing their eyes to bright screens, and keeping their minds and mouths shut. The public mindlessly releasing information through dangerous domains, like the Internet, poses a great issue. Citizens do not realize where their information can be used and why it is used. This unfortunate circumstance is seen in Peter Singer’s “Visible Man: Ethics in a World Without Secrets.” Although there is a sensation of isolation for the public in this century, there should still be a great amount of openness when it comes to social and political events that involve information, and the ways that data is collected for these purposes.

Rosen portrays our society as completely exposed, giving up all privacy to join, and fit in with the “naked crowd”. Rosen claims that we willing give up all power of privacy in order to fit in with society and be accepted as someone that can be trusted through exposure. He claims that image is the key to establishing trust, not through a relationship or conversation. His thesis presents his views on the subject, “has led us to value exposure over privacy? Why, in short, are we so eager to become members of the Naked Crowd, in which we have the illusion of belonging only when we are exposed?”(Rosen) he states that we value exposure over privacy, and will give away privacy to fit in.

Jeffery Rosen claims that every since the bombing attacks that took place on 9/11 has caused us to put our privacy up in exchange for acceptance and seems that people are more okay with it than they should be. According to Rosen, it already seems that privacy is already, in a state of advanced decay and every since 9/11 privacy has seemed to get thrown out of the window for a sense more of acceptance than for safety. Rosen thinks that "the naked machine" is partly what is to blame for this. He believes that the machine is unnecessary, absurd and humiliating. Within the article Rosen gives examples, instances, and even quotes people that have been a stooge to the naked machine. Another thing Rosen blames for this is the want for a connection

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.

As a growing topic of discussion, privacy in our society has stirred quite some concern. With the increase of technology and social networking our standards for privacy have been altered and the boundary between privacy and government has been blurred. In the article, Visible Man: Ethics in a World Without Secrets, Peter Singer addresses the different aspects of privacy that are being affected through the use of technology. The role of privacy in a democratic society is a tricky endeavor, however, each individual has a right to privacy. In our society, surveillance undermines privacy and without privacy there can be no democracy.

Before reading this article/essay my understanding of privacy was very much surveillance based--I didn't want to be surveyed even if I wasn't doing anything wrong. However when Solove explains that it's not only about the surveillance but the actual information and how it's used privacy and how often my privacy is breached started to make more sense. He goes on to give specific ways the information is and can be used which helped bridge the gap between what I thought information processing was and what it really is in terms of privacy. The examples made the concept come to life as well as allow readers to apply it to their information and life, bringing it closer to home and therefore making it more

"We Need Privacy Laws for the Digital Era | The Nation." The Nation, 8 Jan. 2014. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.

In Peter Singer’s “Visible Man: Ethics in a World without Secrets,” one main word drives the article: privacy. Singer addresses privacy thoroughly in the passage and provides an objective view of the topic. One question that appears prevalent is how much information disrupts one’s privacy and how much can truly be shared. Some people argue that ignorance is bliss, and that the world is a better place being unaware of all the tragedy happening around it. However, being knowledgeable is important and a person should know what is occurring around them. To better society and keep people informed, one should be ethical and share pertinent information using tools such as WikiLeaks and “sousveillance.”

“Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty” is an essay written by Nicholas Carr in 2010 in the Wall Street Journal. He said that there are chances that, “our personal data will fall into the wrong hands” (Carr 438). It means that people’s personal information might drop under the hands of hackers, data aggressors, and stalkers. In addition, Carr believes that “personal information may be used to influence our behavior and even our thoughts in ways that are invisible to us” (Carr 439). It means that the data aggressors misuse people’s information in opposite way or in a wrong way. For example, data aggressors steal the people’s personal information and use that information for their own benefits. Therefore, Carr believes that government should regulate the internet. Unlike Carr, Harper believes that people are responsible for their own information. They should be aware and concerned about potential dangers of posting their personal information on the internet. However, it’s people duty to be aware of its consequences before posting any of their personal

The Information Age has emerged with speed, excitement, and great promise. The electronic eyes and ears of technology follow us everywhere. There are those enamored with the rush of technology, who b elieve that the best of worlds is one in which everyone can peer into everyone else's lives. In fact, we now live in a world consumed with "the ecstacy of communication" (Karaim 76). Americans line up to reveal their darkest secrets of their m ost intimate moments, or just "hang out their dirty laundry" on the numerous television talk shows. The more exposure, the better. So it may be absurd that we should worry that our privacy is being endangered, our personal life and even our se crets made public. The loss of privacy is on the

There is no doubt that out of all history, privacy is at its most vulnerable condition at the present time. Ironically, to secure the whole, individual safety is becoming harmed. The government and businesses are infringing individual privacy in order to protect their society. In effect, balancing between privacy and security has continuously been one of twenty-first century’s biggest controversial issues and everyone has their own views about where to value more. Throughout the essay, using various sources, I will be covering how privacy is becoming threatened, how people have been reacting to this matter, and introduce detailed opinions towards this topic.

The growing concerns on privacy are rapidly changing. Though a new worry in the online world, these troubles with privacy violations have existed far before the Internet was even invented. It used to be abnormal to hand out personal information, like an address or birthdate; however, now these are the blanks that users fill out on almost every social media site they join. The information that is gladly given away, used to be protected for fear of identity theft. So what has dramatically changed in order to change these morals? Some believe that the invention of the Internet has caused people to believe that they are safe behind the screen. They place false hope and trust in social media, so the question is where these accusations are originating from. Have these privacy disgruntlements been thrown away over the hopes of achieving some sort of online popularity persona? Or is the generation stuck inside a online labyrinth that entices sharing rather than secrets?