Is Your Privacy Safe

Dan Fletcher’s conclusion is that he wants us, the reader to stop using social networks. Mark Zuckerberg, the CEO of Facebook, invented Facebook in his dorm for Ivy League students to keep in touch. Fletcher makes an excellent metaphor comparing the employees for Zuckerberg, who work without cubicles or walls to Facebook’s profiles saying there’s no privacy. Fletcher focuses on Facebook’s privacy policies and how fast they have expanded and the money they have made. He says that Facebook is constantly changing their privacy policies, where he goes in details of all the changes they have done over the years. Zuckerberg’s idea for Facebook is for the world to be open and

This is really a question that's nearly impossible to answer without some context, since the context within which you are using the Internet is going to have a significant impact on whether or not you have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

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

As Justin Brookman says, “‘Without a framework in place to assure everyday consumers of the ability to limit the collection and retention of the minutiae of their lives by unknown third parties, any sense of a realm of personal privacy may completely evaporate’” (Tapscott 119). There should always be some sense of mystery in the world. Third party sources often find a way of getting information that Internet users did not give them express permission to. The flow of information goes further than most people realize, which is where the dangerous invasion of privacy comes in. A sharing is caring mentality is all good and fun until a third party uses it against you. We should beware the extent to which our information can spread without our

In “Privacy under Attack,” the authors discuss some potential ways of how our privacy could be in danger or stolen by companies or accessible by administration and corporations. According to the authors, some ways that our privacy could be in danger are first through video records and picture taken by traffic cameras and surveillance cameras for us. Second through illegal “wiretaps” by the government that could hear our conversations. Third, our privacy and personal data could be “monitored by corporations through the role of club cards, raffles, or refunds that outside companies’ collection of data about us can then be sold without noticing, given consumers the optional to search for the box on any frame to indicate they don’t want their personal

Our nation is built upon its foundation from the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights. Included within this governing document is the Fourth Amendment, the laws and guidelines that gives the people the right to privacy. Within in this amendment, it is stated that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated” (Magruder’s American Government 772). Despite the fact that these right are clearly stated and profound, recent advances in the scopes of technology and social media have violated the people’s privacy by deceiving them into thinking they are protected.

Although technology has provided tools to enhance our capabilities in things such as finding a missing person, solving murder cases based on technological assets etc.., this technology also leaves us vulnerable in many ways to slowly losing our privacy (Burten, C., 2012).

We don't have privacy on any social media we get on because before everything there is a hacker or a genus that can get our information. In the story, “ T thought police” by André Dao , “ To put it another way, it may be that we need private spaces in which we can flourish and lead full, dignified lives.” We can't always be

Over the course of the past few decades, technology has been on a fast track to more advanced opportunities for communication. These developments have increased efficiency in society, however, it is evident that the basic values, such as privacy of personal information, are compromised significantly. Privacy is an essential element of a free society and without which, individuals would lose the ability to interact with one another in private. With the advancements of technology there is a clash between an individuals right to guard their personal information and the power of the cyber world to penetrate that information. Innovative technologies such as various forms of social media and surveillance are invading the freedom to said privacy.

In the United States, as well as other developed countries, privacy is becoming a restriction not a freedom. The technology we use today has led to many investigations about what others know about us. For example, Snowden publicly disclosed that the NSA was secretly recording millions of phone calls being made throughout the US. There are also many other issues citizens have with technology and the privacy issues following it. Recently, many computers have been able to publicly record people through the built in camera. Furthermore, the scariest thing about privacy is that many hackers are able to duplicate someone else’s identity for their personal benefit.

And with 3 billion phone calls made and 150 billion emails sent to and from the United States every day, the collection of this personal data without specifying the limits to their searches is unclear and unjust. Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Yahoo among many others have recently, under protection from the Obama administration, revealed details as to the statistics of government collection. Even our nation's biggest telecom companies, AT&T and Verizon, were obliged to work with the NSA, lately disclosing information on the filtering equipment they were necessitated to use. The storage of this data for prolonged periods of time also makes these companies and their users vulnerable to security breaches such as theft and attack by hackers; for example, the cyber-security firm Trustwave discovered a server on November 24, 2013 which contained the information of over 318,000 accounts on Facebook. This breach was evidently made possible by companies storing data for an unnecessary amount of time as well as a weakened encryption standard. Both were implemented and enforced by the NSA, and the forced retention this data for over five years not only renders this metadata vulnerable to theft or misuse, but has also not been proven to be notably valuable in thwarting terrorist attacks.

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.

Privacy is something that is valuable, and gives trust to both sides. Everyone is endowed with some degree of privacy, right? The debate of the topic privacy versus security has been going on for a while. Most people believe privacy is more important, giving people the chance to be relaxed without anyone watching them, literally or figuratively speaking. Governments believe that security is more important, claiming it will help with terrorism and lower the crime rate. If we allow this to happen, then as an example, the government could monitor our phones conversations, what websites we visit, the games or programs we download, even where we go throughout our day by tracking us on the GPS unit in our smartphones.

Social media is more and more used to make presumptions and decisions about people. If I get to know someone I will go to Google and try to find out what can be found instead of waiting how all info itself will arouse by time passing. It’s debatable if it is ethical to spy about people in social networks because behavioral patterns witnessed there belong more to private sphere. But if person is willingly giving away his rights to privacy?  Also we seldom think of privacy issues when applying for “bonus” card to get 5% discount. It seems that sometimes people need to be protected against themselves and until there are no new and relevant social norms aroused, this is were policymakers should puzzle and offer solutions. Of course the balance is a key issue.

One thing Microsoft, Google and Facebook have in common is that they collect about as much data from each of their visitors as each other, according to an internet marketing research company (Alexa 2012). Users are concerned about the privacy of their personal information, even after the Facebook security expanded its efforts to reduce the risks to the users’ privacy. Facebook Beacon was launched in Nov 2007, a service that was ultimately a failed attempt at advertising specific products to a user’s friends depending on what known purchases that friend had made. As of last month, Facebook has begun to more closely examine the usage of its user data. Facebook accepted that it had deceived users by failing to keep certain promises regarding privacy, and agreed to settle charges laid by the United States Federal Trade Commission.