Some of the most contentious and recurrent argumentative dialogues regarding civil liberties stem from what seems at face value, like a relatively elementary idea the notion of personal privacy. This debate could never be more relevant than in present day society, where globalization and advanced communications technologies have synergized to form a ubiquitous digital library of shared information. The specific example of the delicate balance between personal privacy and national security here in the United States has only further convoluted the issue the debate of whether and to what caliber citizens have privacy rights is hotly contested. As technology
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.
During the past decade, an issue has arisen from the minds of people, on which is more important? Privacy or national security? The problem with the privacy is that people do not feel they have enough of it and national security is increasing causing the government to be less worried about the people. National security is growing out of control which has led to the decrease in people’s privacy and has created fear in the eyes of U.S. citizens. “Twelve years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and amid a summer of revelations about the extent of the surveillance state built up to prevent others, leaders, experts and average Americans alike are searching for the right balance between security and privacy” (Noble). Americans should be able to live their daily lives without fear of an overpowered government or a “big brother” figure taking over. “According to a CBS News poll released Tuesday evening, nearly 6 in 10 Americans said they disapproved of the federal government’s collecting phone records of ordinary Americans in order to reduce terrorism” (Gonchar). While it is good to keep our country safe with security, American’s privacy should be more important because there is a substantial amount of national security, the people 's rights should matter first.
Modern Americans see privacy as one of the greatest freedoms. When Edward Snowden revealed the NSA surveillance program, the citizens of the United States were appalled by the extent of access the NSA had to personal information. However, according to Dan Tapscott in his essay, “Should We Ditch the Idea of Privacy?” we post just as many details daily on our numerous social media outlets. The majority of the information we freely post is not meaningful and does no harm to us by being public, yet there is a dangerous side to our open-book nature.
In the essay, “Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’”, published on May 15, 2011, Professor Daniel J. Solove is trying his best to convince his well sophisticated audience that the issue of privacy affects more than just the everyday people veiling a wrong doing. His argument focuses around ethos, and a lot of it. Although there are some logos and pathos, they aren’t as nearly as strong as his ethos. In the type of society that we live in today, privacy has become more and more broad. Everyone sees it on an everyday occurrence just about; including on social networking sites, HIPAA forms, or even with people just simply observing
Privacy is what allows people to feel secure in their surroundings. With privacy, one is allowed to withhold or distribute the information they want by choice, but the ability to have that choice is being violated in today’s society. Benjamin Franklin once said, “He who sacrifices freedom or liberty will eventually have neither.” And that’s the unfortunate truth that is and has occurred in recent years. Privacy, especially in such a fast paced moving world, is extremely vital yet is extremely violated, as recently discovered the NSA has been spying on U.S. citizens for quite a while now; based on the Fourth Amendment, the risk of leaked and distorted individual information, as well as vulnerability to lack of anonymity.
Daniel J. Solove is the John Marshall Harlan Research Professor of Law at the George Washington University Law School, one of the world’s leading experts on privacy law, and well known for his academic work on privacy and its correlations with technology. Author of many popular books, Solove also served as White House counsel for President Nixon. In the article, The Nothing-to-Hide Argument, Solove further explains the threats of allowing the government to access personal information. One of many arguments in regards to privacy, is freedom and how it hinders people under surveillance, giving a sense of being less inferior. People don’t Acknowledge certain problems because they don’t fit into the particular one-size-fits-all conception of privacy (Solove 738). Privacy is a right granted to every individual that reinforces the freedoms of expression, association and assembly; being that the U.S. is a democratic society and should not be tampered with.
Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor at Princeton University and the University of Melbourne that studies Bioethics, Philosophy and Public Ethnics. This essay “Visible Man: Ethnics in a World without Secrets” focuses on transparency and personal privacy. One can see after reading this essay, Singer is in favor of openness, but he also notes that the government misuses these technologies. Privacy is defined “as the claim of individuals, groups to determine when, how and to what extent information about them is communicated to others”. Goldman explains surveillance as “a close observation of someone to catch them in wrongdoing” (326). Sousveillance is “recording of an activity from the perspective of everyday lifestyle” (“Sousveillance”). Before 9/11 the government respected individual privacy and acted accordingly by not spying on its citizens to the extent that it does so now. This makes one wonder; do American citizens really have a right to privacy? The answer to this is no. Because events like 9/11 have happened, the government now has the right to invade its citizen’s privacy by, preventing prejudices between authorities and citizens, installing security cameras and reading our social media accounts .
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
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.
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.
Everyone should have their own privacy in order to secure our personal and business. Most people do not like when some stranger is keep looking at you anything you do and talk. In 1984, that is called Big Brother is watching you through the telescreen. Telescreen can always see and hear whatever people are doing and privacy setting. There are no such as privacy and secrets because telescreens were everywhere such as streets, houses and restrooms. In 1984, the main character is Winston Smith who works at Ministry of the Truth. He believed that privacy should have in his society which against with Big Brother. Winston can not write his journals because writing journals are illegal. Therefore he needed to hide his journals in the corner of his house where telescreen could not see it. It can be sentenced by death and put in the labor campus for 25 years when people in 1984 who write journals. The right of privacy is most important than national security because citizens should have freedom, government has no right to control people’s business and people would be unsafe, unsecured under strict government.
Many privacy violations are deemed justified because of the increasingly difficult war on terrorism, but that is arguably not a valid defense. “…privacy and safety are not conflicting parameters and that we must rethink our security legislation”
This week’s readings covered approaches to privacy through different disciplines, analyzed privacy historically and conceptually, addressed negative views on technology’s affect on privacy, and explained what one should reasonable expect in terms of one’s own privacy. Outside of these points are also common themes.
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.