How To Log Out Rhetorical Analysis

In her article George Orwell…Meet Mark Zuckerberg, Lori Andrews discusses the privacy issue on internet. The issue involving Data aggregators that hack into our internet and use our personal information to sell to larger cooperation’s so they can advertise items to us. In this Article Andrews argues against the idea of cooperation’s going through someone personal internet history on what they have researched on and to use that information as a database for describing that person, creating another life on the internet. Andrews claims that if you were to get a loan, a job, a house or a credit card it would now work on web lining basically what you have put on your digital self, rather than your credit history it would depend on things like

Sergey Brin noted, “Some say Google is God. Others say Google is Satan. But if they think Google is too powerful, remember that with search engines, unlike other companies, all it takes is a single click to go to another search engine.” Nicholas Carr’s essay challenges this assertion. Nicholas Carr believes even though there are multiple search engines, “the faster we surf across the Web-the more links we click and pages we view-the more opportunities Google and other companies gain to collect information about us and to feed us advertisements.” This topic elicits such strong responses because technology is a part of our everyday lives. Technology is only becoming more advanced and will continue to be a source of debate for all who use it.

Jim Harper, the Webmaster of WashingtonWatch, feels, “People should get smart and learn how to control personal information.” However, at this time, the only way to thoroughly control your personal information is to avoid the internet altogether. Once a web purchase is completed or a post is liked, that data moves beyond the reach of that individual. An identity is created, but the one it identifies has no authority in the matter. The data brokers have carte blanche to handle or pass along information as they please. Truth and privacy become casualties when the only concern is how to make a profit, and there's always a profit to be made. As Alexis Madrigal noted, “Every move you make on the internet is worth some tiny amount to someone.” Individuals should have control over their internet identity after their hands leave the keyboard. The damage done, whether purposeful or unintended, is too great of a risk to let continue. In the meantime, Jim Harper's limited solution should not be ignored. Each individual must be attentive to what data they make available. For now, it is the only power we

The internet has made an immense impact on every generation since its existence as it continues to grow throughout time. Its effectiveness is prodigious; the internet allows people to gain information that once took days to retrieve it in a few minutes (Carr 1). Writer Nicholas Carr, in his article “Is Google Making Us Stupid?”, explains that the use of internet and technology causes harm to people and their brains. Carr’s purpose is to address to internet users that Google (or any electronic helpers) is making them “stupid” and lazy because it minimizes their concentration and willingness to think. He attempts to adapt to his audience, dedicated internet users, as he uses the rhetorical appeals to try to convince them of his purpose. However, this was not enough. Nicholas Carr’s article, “Is Google Making Us Stupid?,” is ineffective because of his poor use of ethos and logos despite his good use of pathos.

The assumptions that Harper makes about the readers of this essay is that they do not know a lot of information about the internet and how data and Cookies work. Also, because this essay was published in the Wall Street Jornal, he assumes the readers are older and have a lot of questions about how the " their data are fuel for the World Wide Web."(1) I would say his assumptions are right because of where the essay was published and the type of people that read the Wall Street Journal tend to be adults then teens, who may already know some of this information about the

Nicholas G. Carr has written an abundance of articles about technology. Some of his work includes: Does It Matter? Information Technology and the Corrosion of Competitive Advantage, and The Big Switch: Rewiring the World, From Edison to Google. One of Carr’s achievements, “Is Google Making Us Stupid,” smoothly persuades the reader to believe that the Internet is taking over the human mind. The article’s title brings a tough question to mind for readers. By using a familiar movie scene and arguments embedded with relatable analogies, imagery and metaphors; Carr casually and acceptably leads his audience to a reasonable

Throughout history, no single piece of technology has been so heavily relied upon such as the internet. Things such as the first car, the first telephone, and even the first airplanes were not as easily, or readily accessible as the Net is today. In all reality, the internet is the greatest and most useful tool that humanity has ever dreamt up. From instant transferring of data to endless sources of information, the Net not only connects all corners of the world, but makes each and every person more knowledgeable and self-aware. But as with all new and virtuous things, there is a darker and more dangerous side. The internet is a tool that consumes the intellectual, changing the way the brain functions and ultimately creating a reliance. This reliance is so severe that all of life’s functions depend on the internet without the same dependency being reciprocated. The relationship is one sided, where the Net has much to gain while the user has little. Furthermore, in its relatively new state, the internet is very obscure and has very questionable ethics. Although beneficial in specific cases, the internet affects one’s emotional state and latently mars cognitive function while creating a devastatingly powerful and coercive reliance.

First he explains how the information economy works and why it can not exactly backfire on you then he goes through common legitimate concerns and provides its counter argument. For example, on page 444, Harper talks about the common concern of cookies being a surreptitious threat then goes on to say, “Cookies are a surreptitious threat to privacy the way smoking is a surreptitious threat to health. If you don’t know about it, you haven’t been paying attention.” He blames the user for not paying enough attention to see the obvious threat to privacy a cookie could be he or she should be the one in control of one’s own data. In addition, he goes on to say, “The reason why a company like Google can spend millions and millions of dollars on free services like its search engine, Gmail, mapping tools, Google Groups and more is because of online advertising that trades in personal information.”

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.

The internet, cookies, and databases are three technologies which can potentially allow individuals to locate private information. Overtly, online web-based transactions require specific personal identifiers to be yielded by the purchaser. Through online social media, blogs, and web posts, private information intended for a selective audience can easily be researched by the mass market. Equally, and practiced in commercial settings, transacting on the Internet allows other data to be recorded on the private transaction that is less evident by the purchaser. For example, cookies, store data on behavior, such as which web pages are visited by the individual and how frequently they are visited. In addition cookies can also reveal online shopping behavior. These cookies are then analyzed by the company to determine potentially targeted advertising initiatives.

Information gathering, through networking, social media, and both on and offline storage have made it easier to collect information about an individual than ever before, with many concerns having arisen over the years about privacy and the ability to protect that privacy. As debates over personally identifiable information continue, one cornerstone remains a constant, ethics. Ethics are defined as “the standard by which human actions can be judged right and wrong (Online, 2012)”, but even that can be debated when discussed within the realm of information technology. Have you ever been to an internet shopping site and “trusted” the secure connection? Essentially, you are entrusting an inanimate system developed by an individual or group

An exception to this lack of government intervention on the Web has been government efforts to access Internet users’ private data (including surfing habits) under the terms of the Patriot Act. Google, along with Yahoo! and the other major search engines and web portals, are subject to considerable government pressures to release information about users. It should be noted that there are also now increasing signs that as technologies converge (e.g., the blending of telecommunications and Web communications) and as competitors cross into each others’ market territories (e.g., cable and phone companies becoming involved in Internet services through broadband products), more regulation of the Internet in the United States may be seen (Yang & Crocket, 2005, p. 38).

Worldwide there is an underlying issue within search engines and social media. This issue is becoming evident as the number of people retrieving their news through Google and Facebook increases. Personalisation through searches is evolving to only show the consumer what they want to see not what they need to see. Online Organiser and Author of ‘The Filter Bubble’, Eli Pariser argues in his TED Talk about the unreliability of not being exposed to information that could broaden our worldwide view and possibly resolve pivotal democratic issues. This cycle of trying to consistently please the users is becoming evident within search organisations and has evolved with technology as algorithmic filters were introduced having an unbalanced and unethical filter. This invisible filter is now generating a “personal unique universe of information” (Pariser, 2011), for every individual user, enforcing the inability to have a functioning democracy because of the public not receiving accurate and most importantly balanced information.

Following will be the analysis of the relationship between Google and our individual right to privacy. Google is constantly gathering personal information about people when they use various Google products. The extent Google is involved in our lives, as well as the methods used to gather data on individuals, is not known by most people. This report is going to take a brief look into whether Google’s practices are ethical as well as legal.