Unknown once said, “Everything comes with a price. You can never gain something if you don't sacrifice something of equal value.” Years later, this point still stands valid; society is becoming slaves to our own technology. And it’s happening faster than we can comprehend. But what are we doing to stop it? With an increase in forums speaking out about the misuse of this black hole of a topic – is society’s irresponsible use of technology sentencing itself to a fate of political entrapment. Movies, documentaries and stories have formed about our digital irresponsibility and how it is catching up to us at a rate too fast to reverse. Seen in the documentary Terms and Conditions May Apply directed by Cullen Hoback and Snowden, directed by Oliver Stone, the erosion of online privacy and what information governments and corporations are legally taking from citizens each day is exposed.
Voluntarily surrendering our privacy rights every time we click the “Agree” button on those dense, and often unread Terms and Conditions, director Cullen Hoback outlines the real-life dangers of digital recklessness in the documentary Terms and Conditions May Apply. As the film illustrates, a random tweet or seemingly innocent Google search could summon away your privacy forever. The concise and lively summary of the many ways corporations, law enforcement and government agencies gather, share and use our information is creepily unnerving. It reveals that our digital privacy is at risk every time
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
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
This editorial is intended to open the eyes of older and middle-aged Americans who are involved in the technology community that we live, but don't understand the hidden repercussions that permeate through their phone, computer, and laptop use. Not many people understand how the government's abilities affect their daily lives, and some are even completely ignorant to their privacy actions. I intend to inform them about the dangers of releasing personal information into the open, as it is not only harmful for yourself, but to others around them.The audience will then learn that the government is always listening to our every text, call, email, search, and keystroke and adding every day people into a bank of information.
It’s a bright Sunday morning; the birds are chirping, the smell of fresh coffee is in the air and you turn on the tv; “Another Leak Of All Verizon Users Personal Information Out On The Web” is today's headline on the news. In our society right now; the government has the utmost power; yet they might not be using their powers in ways you’d expect. If you're a daily electronic users at Urbandale High School who spends at least 30 hours a week using online functions for entertainment or work; then you might not have heard or seen what the government's been doing recently. In an in depth analysis shows that our life we’re living right now could be seen as a dystopian universe over 50 years ago. Yet as our nation advances, its being advanced in
Government surveillance in the past was not a big threat due to the limitations on technology; however, in the current day, it has become an immense power for the government. Taylor, author of a book on Electronic Surveillance supports, "A generation ago, when records were tucked away on paper in manila folders, there was some assurance that such information wouldn 't be spread everywhere. Now, however, our life stories are available at the push of a button" (Taylor 111). With more and more Americans logging into social media cites and using text-messaging devices, the more providers of metadata the government has. In her journal “The Virtuous Spy: Privacy as an Ethical Limit”, Anita L. Allen, an expert on privacy law, writes, “Contemporary technologies of data collection make secret, privacy invading surveillance easy and nearly irresistible. For every technology of confidential personal communication…there are one or more counter-technologies of eavesdropping” (Allen 1). Being in the middle of the Digital Age, we have to be much more careful of the kinds of information we put in our digital devices.
In today’s society, the word “privacy” has become ubiquitous. When discussing whether government surveillance and data collection pose a threat to privacy, the most common retort against privacy advocates – by those in favor of databases, video surveillance, spyware, data mining and other modern surveillance measures – is this line: "If I’m not doing anything wrong, what would I have to hide?" The allowance of the government’s gathering and analysis of our personal information stems from an inadequate definition of what privacy is and the eternal value that privacy possesses. The adherents of the “nothing-to-hide” argument say that because the information will never be disclosed to the public, the “privacy interest is minimal, and the security interest in preventing terrorism is much more important.” 1 In an era where the patterns we leave behind will inevitably become the focus for whatever authority, the issue of privacy affects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. In this essay, I will explore the state of online privacy in wake of the government’s warrantless data collection. Respectively, the nothing-to-hide argument and its key variants in more depth.
Digital privacy concerns, which have been a major issue in our country since 2001, increasingly violate our basic human rights as global citizens. The growing amount of government surveillance has manifested in the enactment of acts such as SOPA and CISPA. Although their intent on stopping digital piracy and attacks were clear, both were immediately met with harsh criticism; they allowed big corporations to violate our privacy rights by sharing our personal information with both other companies and the government. Our President, although publicly expressing his acknowledgement of the issue, failed to discuss an array of other pressing dilemmas regulated by the recently exposed National Security Agency (NSA), especially those involving
How many apps have you used today, or how many websites have you visited? The answer is probably very many, some even without your knowledge. Behind the pixels of your phone or personal computer’s screen, thousands of bytes of data are being transmitted. Most of that data is what you’d expect: e-mail, texting, weather, games, and so on. Unfortunately there has been a growing problem over the last several years, and it’s not one that is obvious to the average internet user. Some of that sent data contains information which isn’t necessary, oftentimes it’s personal data. Your browsing habits, favorite games, most listened to music genres are being shared to advertising agencies for profit. Privacy is quickly vanishing from the internet and
Individual privacy is something that should not have to be taken away in order to have public safety. I understand that some people may feel at ease when they feel like it may be something that could be for the better of society. The generation we live in now is already so open to world because we share everything on social media. So I do not see the reasoning in having to give up individual privacy for the purpose of public safety.
Is the issue of privacy in the context of our modern world easy to comprehend? Are privacy and cyber security one of the most pressing issues in our world today, or can we leave the task up to our government officials to regulate? These are all questions that law professor Daniel J. Solove attempts to answer. Armed with the help of privacy specialists, authors and blog commenters, Solove begins to unpack the nuanced dichotomy between privacy, surveillance and data collection. There are many opposing viewpoints that seek to sway the reader’s attention from the task at hand, which is demystifying the certain perils of our transparent world, which can be somewhat difficult to wrap the reader’s head around. The article’s rationale, while scattered, is consistent and layered in thought. While his credentials and literary examples bring an element of validity to the table, the nothing-to-hide argument messes with his rationale.
In the years of government surveillance has improved in many ways such as the technology and advancing the fundamental ideals of individuals rights, they use the technology to avoid many terrorist attack. The government preferably and advancing the fundamental ideals of individual rights, they use technology to avoid a numerous of restrictions on surveillance on common civilians. Between the citizens of this country, there is a rising concern for the issue of privacy due to such a powerful creation, in this case the Utah Date Center, as they feel that they are feeling a severe violation on the rights that they had previously considered impenetrable. In order to stop these concerns, Congress should consider endorsing a law that seeks to join the government’s use of technology to our Constitutional values.
“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
Today, individuals are sacrificing privacy in order to feel safe. These sacrifices have made a significant impact on the current meaning of privacy, but may have greater consequences in the future. According to Debbie Kasper in her journal, “The Evolution (Or Devolution) of Privacy,” privacy is a struggling dilemma in America. Kasper asks, “If it is gone, when did it disappear, and why?”(Kasper 69). Our past generation has experienced the baby boom, and the world today is witnessing a technological boom. Technology is growing at an exponential rate, thus making information easier to access and share than ever before. The rapid diminishing of privacy is leaving Americans desperate for change.
Imagine a country where its government can see all and know all about you, your family, and your friends. Nothing is safe. Nothing is private. Nothing is truly yours. This idea is often explored in the utopia and science fiction genres of books, movies, and even video games. In 1984, a book by George Orwell, citizens of Airstrip One, which was previously England, are under constant surveillance from their government and leader, Big Brother. Nothing in their country is private, even their thoughts are monitored and regulated by their government. Minority Report, directed by Steven Spielberg, depicts a science fiction future where citizens are under constant surveillance. Not only are they being monitored for crimes, but for the functionality of technology and personal advertisements. Bioshock, a 2009 video game, shows the crumbling utopia, Rapture, where its citizens had to follow the beliefs of its creator, Andrew Ryan. If discovered by Rapture’s many cameras unfollowing citizens could be executed, beaten, or jailed. Even though “Big Brother is watching you” seems like a far fetched plot, its theme and representation strongly persists in our country today. “Information privacy, defined as the ability of the individual to control when, how, and to what extent his or her personal information is communicated to others, is one of the most important and ethical, legal, social, and political issue of the information age” (Hong). Surprisingly, the
Privacy is one of the most vital components in a human beings life. Nobody wants to be fully transparent because then you are subjected to people’s comments and judgments on your every move and that can get on your nerves. Breach of privacy is considered as one of the most heinous crimes that people commit as you are intruding someone’s personal space by breaching their privacy. Harassment follows as people do not care about what the other person is going through and they just want to fulfill their own selfish purpose.