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.
Right to Privacy Is the price of safety worth the loss of privacy? In June of 2013 civil rights lawyer and journalist Glenn Greenwald published on The Guardian the first of numerous articles containing files he’d received from former NSA sub contractor Edward Snowden. These files revealed unbeknownst to the American public details about multiple global surveillance programs currently being used by the United States NSA to collect their private data. Greenwald’s speech on “Why Privacy Matters,” during the TEDGlobal 2014 conference was compelling & deeply insightful. By providing the audience with credible knowledge of his research in addition to the use persuasive emotional and logical reasoning, Glenn Greenwald effectively argues the importance of privacy.
“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
As human beings and citizens of the world, everyone values their privacy. It is a right that is often looked over and taken for granted by most. Since the beginning of time, there have been concerns about individuals’ rights to privacy and their personal information remaining confidential. Our founding fathers had concerns about this which is why, “…this right has developed into
Absolute Power The right to privacy means controlling your own personal information and the ability to allow or deny access to others. As Americans, we feel it's a right not a privilege to have privacy. IT technology and the events of September 11, 2001 are diminishing that right, whether its workplace privacy or personal privacy. From sending email, applying for a job, or even using the telephone, Americans right to privacy is in danger. Personal and professional information is being stored, link, transferred, shared, and even sold without your permission or knowledge. IT technology has benefited mankind tremendously in so many areas, but its also comes with a price. Advancements in technology make all individuals vulnerable to
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
Invasion of Privacy People might not think about being watched when they’re posting personal experiences in their life on social media. The government has the ability and justification to go through a person’s social media site, listen to phone calls, and read text messages as a way of narrowing down possible suspects for terrorism. The privacy laws in America are what allows the U.S. government to search the digital world for possible threats to the country. Although some say that privacy laws help American citizens keep their confidentiality for medical reasons, also as benefits for social security, I still maintain that privacy laws gives the government undeserved power and can give the impression of being watched .
The horrific September 11th event, along with others, has changed the way people think about their privacy. The fear is so great that we are willing to trade off our privacy, in essence our freedom, for the sake of security. People argue that if they do not have anything to hide then why worry if the government is spying on us. Nonetheless, it is not about not having anything to hide. Simply, it is about
Humanity has always been fascinated by books which provide us with an apocalyptic view of the future. The destruction of a nation; the fall of our government—or in Huxley’s vision, its rise to power in formidable ways. As Huxley puts it, “the truth would be drowned in a sea of
We all value our privacy, and we all know that privacy can conflict with other important social values. However, in this increasingly digital and technological world, we are more susceptible than ever to government intrusion of our digital communications and data. This came to light in June 2013, when former National Security Agency (NSA) employee Edward Snowden revealed thousands of classified documents detailing the intrusive mass surveillance and bulk data collection of the NSA to journalists and subsequently the American public. As a result, widespread distrust and questioning of the American government’s data-collection programs grew among American citizens and bipartisan leaders who were also subject to the surveillance apparatus of the
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:
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.
Oversharing In the world of instant messaging, text messages, tweets, and status updates, it is easy to get caught up in the idea that people are divulging more about themselves than they ever had. Indeed, sociologists such as Ben Agger would argue that we as a people are oversharing; a term he uses throughout his book of the same name. Agger references Emily Gould (2015) who defines oversharing as sharing an abundance of one’s life; perhaps too much (p.2). This essay will explore the idea of oversharing across the lifespan; arguing against many of the negative themes presented by Agger.
Privacy is essential to a democratic society and it is far more important than national security. Why should one of the most intrinsic rights be revoked? On the most rudimentary level, privacy represents freedom. Therefore, the eradication of a citizen’s right to privacy signifies a loss of freedom. The United States of America was founded to be a free and democratic nation, not one ruled under a totalitarian-like state that watches its citizen’s every move.
The attacks on American soil that solemn day of September 11, 2001, ignited a quarrel that the grade of singular privacy, need not be given away in the hunt of grander security. The security measures in place were planned to protect our democracy and its liberties yet, they