Privacy And Technology Can Not Co Exist Together

With the current technology on the rise and its ability to learn and track what we do, eat, whom we talk to and when we sleep it is such a big part of our daily lives that consumers don’t realize the possible dangers. The issue that come from letting these websites, computers and phones etc. can have a huge impact with our daily life. What else do these companies know about us and how much freedom and privacy do we really have. Allowing Big brother and little brother being in bed with one another. Allowing big name companies and smaller companies to have access to literally everything that we search on the internet and simply what we like is a problem.

Eric Schmidt, the chairman of Google said, “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place.” The quote shows modern society well. Living in 21th century is like living in a glass box. We are living in society that needs only a few clicks to get information of others.

With the seemingly exponential propagation of inexpensive digital communications technologies over recent years, the general public is becoming more aware of the issues surrounding information privacy and government surveillance in the digital age. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a smart-phone has to be wary of how they use their private information for fear of that information being collected and used in a way contrary to their wishes. "Leaky" smartphone apps that transmit private information across the internet can be unethically used by government agencies. The issue of privacy is a balancing act; the public usually wants increased privacy and the government usually wants increased access.

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

As this article concludes you may ask the question: what’s the solution to this seemingly everlasting issue? And the solution’’s a bit dissapointing, dissapointing because in retrospect, there is no solution. As long as there are selfish, money crazed, organizations out there, we’ll never have the true privacy our rights give

To begin, Jaron Lanier, author of the article, “How Should We Think about Privacy?” and computer scientist at Microsoft Research, states that people should be able to have complete control over their personal information by monetizing it. This would lead up to being able to make profits out of his/hers private data by selling it. If the government or a corporation wants to own someones contact information, they would have to buy it off of the people at whatever price he/she puts on it because monetizing would allow one to have full power over their own privacy. This is

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.

The amount of technology that has been developed and advanced in the past 50 years is astounding. Smartphones can be unlocked with facial or fingerprint recognition, a battery stuck in a stomach lining can be dislodged with an origami robot, and cars can drive themselves. These advancements are huge accomplishments for humankind. However, as told in the dystopian novel 1984, such can develop out of control and take over society’s regular life. Big Brother, the supposed antagonist, knows all and sees all through the use of technology.

In Helen Nissenbaum's introduction chapter of Privacy in Context, she is mentioning how social issues have changed since technology has increased. In the 1960's, technology was a concern because of the databases of the government and others are being stored in the computers memory. This then began questions and the worries of peoples' privacy. Soon privacy became a big topic of concern on everyone's minds when "...books, articles and commentaries..." came out. From many saying that protecting our privacy means we are limiting ourselves and disclosing personal information. But people really should be able to control what information and how much of it is allowed to be pubic at a certain time. Some people have even said that privacy is "deeply

Privacy threats are currently the biggest threat to National Security today. The threats are not only concerning to the government, however. An alarming 92% of Americans are concerned that the power grid may be vulnerable to a cyber-attack (Denholm). Although this is a more recent development to the cyber threats we have experienced, this is not the first time that privacy threats have stepped into the limelight as people are forced to watch their every online move.

According to Bonnie Berkowitz, Lazaro Gamio, Denise Lu, Kevin Uhrmacher and Todd Lindeman in the article “The Math of Mass Shooting” published in the Washington Post, “from august 1, 1966 to July 27, 2016, 874 people have been victims of mass shooting in the United States.” There is no doubt that with such a high rate of death people in the U.S are afraid of terrorism and mass shootings; therefore, the police are pressured to prevent them as much as possible, and sometimes in the search for security we have to give up some rights such as privacy. However, sometimes the price for security can come to high and the worthiness of the security can be questionable. That is what happened in a recent case where the FBI asked Apple to unlock one iPhone 5C obtained after the San Bernardino shooting, and when Apple declined to do what the FBI was asking, the matter was taking to court; however, days later the case was dropped by the FBI when they found a third party to open the iPhone; nevertheless, the case has caused controversy in the subject of security and privacy, and although, it is important to prevent terrorism and mass shootings, the population should not have to pay for with their privacy to accomplish security.

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.

As citizens of America we are all entitled to our rights of privacy. When something threatens this guaranteed privacy we tend to take extra precautions to prohibit prolonged violation. As the advancing world of technology continues to grow and expand, so do the amount of cases involving privacy invasion. Technology drives these privacy-invading crimes; however, crime also drives technology, creating a vicious cycle. Without technology an invader could not enter that of a stranger’s life. Conversely, without technology that same criminal would evade the law enforcers. So does technology protect citizens’ privacy, or does it expose one’s entire life? In regards to this question, one must

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.

I feel that companies have a moral and ethical responsibility to ensure to protect our data from being compromised, but also to inform us who they're sharing this information with and how it will be used, in addition to making sure that it's not used for any other purpose.