If People Value Their Privacy

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

And there's yet another permutation here, whether or not you have a reasonable expectation in the privacy of data that other people are storing about you - if someone has your SSN or medical information in their database, do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that information remaining private? Medical is an easy answer, HIPAA basically defines your expectations for you. SSNs, DOBs, other PII? Not quite as clear cut, at least here in the

Facebook was experimenting with the privacy setting since mid of 2009 and finally implemented it on December 2009. One of the biggest impact of this policy change is the friend list of an individual can’t be private. There are many more privacy issues that are associated with this change of policy. To be a master of this changed policy is not a child play as it is almost 6000 word long. There are 50 settings and the number of potions is more than 170. Chris Betcher points out: “The most recent changes made to their privacy policy have made the sharing of your personal information ‘opt-out’, rather than the previous method of ‘opt-in’. This means that, unless you wade through the many privacy settings to turn them off, you are probably sharing far more than you realise.” ("Bye Bye Facebook | Betchablog"). This opt-out way of information sharing can be very dangerous. This information can be used for ‘Identity theft’ purpose of an individual. Facebook has made some changes

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

Millions of people are posting pictures of themselves and their life experiences online for the world to see. And of course, people only post things that will make themselves seem more cool, adventures, and pretty, basically, a better person. People make an effort to present themselves based on what others like to gain popularity. This effort to be “perfect” is now being seen through people in the real world. People view others based on what they see of them online rather than in the real world. In the articles, “Should We Ditch the Idea of Privacy?” by Don Tapscott and “#Me: Instagram Narcissism and the scourge of the Selfie” by John Paul Titlow. Both authors show us without question, how the internet and social media have impacted the ways we view others and how we present ourselves to others negatively.

Surveillance cameras are needed for public places in order to ensure safety of all individuals. The government, for the most part, is on Americans side and wants to ensure Americans protection. Safety in shopping centers, in traffic, and on the streets is a huge issue in America today. Despite what the majority of Americans believe, officers do care about the people in the cars and want to ensure their safety at all times. Privacy is not dead in America, people have violated the trust of others and as a result have lost complete privacy.

Acquisti and Gross point out that the unprecedented growth of online social networks including but not limited to Facebook and MySpace has brought with itself serious security and privacy concerns. In this particular study, the authors found out that privacy issues do not discourage individuals from being members of the network. Further, the authors also found out that even individuals who happen to be rather concerned about their privacy reveal a great deal of their personal information after joining the network. This study is highly relevant to my research as it clearly demonstrates that individuals do not take privacy issues seriously on joining Facebook. As the authors point out, the study in this case secured its support from the "CMU Berkman Faculty Development Fund, CMU CyLab and the Data Privacy Laboratory." Thus in addition to being relevant, the study can also be regarded credible.

The government's involvement in the daily lives of Americans is a high contested issue--where do our rights end and invasions of our privacy begin? Though it may be true that the government should not control deeply personal decisions, such as the decision to marry or the freedom of a woman to control what is done to her body, there are times when decisive executive choices must be made without leaving the responsibility to the common people. This fact does not work against America’s goals of democracy and self-sufficiency, but rather proves that our government can support these goals by taking action to solve serious nationwide problems.

Americans privacy is a very controversial topic in today’s society. Many individuals believe that they cannot share information about themselves. However, all Americans should be willing to share everything about themselves. Sharing all information about he or she may help another person. Also, sharing all information can make you a better person. In addition, sharing all personal information shows that persons true personality.

A government like that portrayed in 1984 does not gain that amount of power overnight. It is gained in small steps over a long period of time. The people underneath a government who are doing this just think, “Oh, the laws are not that bad,” or “It is for our own good.” With enough time, the laws become to control people instead of to protect them. In the United States, there is a constant battle between government power and the freedom of the citizens. In the past decade, the amount of people who regularly use the Internet has skyrocketed because of the services that are provided, such as social networking, email, banking, and the ability to pay bills online. To effectively use these services requires personal information to be entered. Much

With social media growing there seems to be a lack of privacy. Everyone posts where they are and what they are doing and then everyone that follows reads the post and knows that is happening like they are there in person. In “Should We Ditch the Idea of Privacy” by Don Tapscott mentions the author of Whole Earth Catalog, Stewart Brand, who said “I’d be totally happy if my personal DNA mapping was published” (Tapscott 118). It is mind blowing how open many people are on social media. By, metaphorically, releasing one’s DNA mapping anyone has complete access to creating a clone. Unless someone has a couple thousand dollars laying around ones DNA mapping is far fetch, however by posting the street one lives on, on a public site is just as bad.

Because adolescents are growing up with more access to social networking, texting and instant messaging on various sites have become prime means of communication. While this is not necessarily bad, many people feel the need to over-share things about their personal lives online. More and more people are using Facbeook and more and more employers are using Facebook to scope out potential employees. If there are inappropriate pictures and comments all over someone’s Facebook page, they are more likely to not receive the job. Some students get in trouble for things they post on Facebook and Twitter. Some users are beginning to notice this and have started deactivating their accounts to regain a sense of privacy. CNN’s article “The anti-social network: Life without Facebook”, states that some students who are trying to maintain a professional image for future employment are deleting their pages.

The world is moving into an era of advanced technology; everything is going into the cloud and eventually it has to rain. The internet is the cloud, and anything that goes up must come down. It is possible to press the delete button, but where does it go? It doesn’t just disappear. This is a common misconception among people. They think if it’s deleted it cannot be accessed again, the information has just been moved. This is why people have to be careful about what they put on the internet. This technology can make it impossible to keep things fully private. So to what extent does Americans value privacy? American’s youth does not value absolute privacy, due to hypocorisms among people.

In his October 2014 TEDGlobal speech, “Why Privacy Matter?”, Glenn Greenwald argues the importance of privacy and how people constantly crave for privacy. He references Edward Snowden’s leaked archives as well as two well-known CEOs, Eric Schmidt and Mark Zuckerberg, to support his argument. The purpose of his speech was to inform and persuade his audience how privacy still matters and those who say otherwise are lying. Greenwald gave an emotional appeal to successfully reach out to the audience and persuade them. However, Greenwald’s ability to build credibility and ethos was weak and therefore, impacted his argument.

Facebook is a well know social networking site that has taken all over the world with over 500 million people using the site. Social networking sites such as Facebook share information about the user over the Internet, where it can be freely accessed by anyone. This is where issues of privacy to the individual arise. As of July 2010 Facebook has more than 500 million active users, Users may create a personal profile, add other users as friends and exchange messages, including automatic notifications when they update their profile. As of December last year, Facebook called its 500 million users to review their privacy settings at the launch of its new user control tools which allow the user to control their information easily depending on