The Meaning Of Privacy In The Modern World

In Peter Singer’s essay Visible Man, he discusses how advancements in technology have changed the world’s view on privacy listing both the benefits and drawbacks following this. Privacy is a very big aspect for Americans and the freedom we represent. As America defines itself as a democracy, the Government ties a lot into the privacy role, attempting to keep citizens safe. Generally, having personal privacy is crucial to feeling safe and comfortable in any environment but I think the overall role of privacy should only be focused heavily by the government in regards to certain situations. Not only with the government but also in society, the means for privacy amongst peers and family have changed crucially. An individual’s privacy is based

In support of privacy, Daniel J. Solove wrote, Why Privacy Matters Even If You Have ‘Nothing to Hide.’ Solove begins his argument by introducing the nothing-to-hide argument. In general, the argument for surveillance is ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear:’ hence people’s support for government efforts and regulations to ‘protect’ citizens by decreasing privacy. Those who object this argument target its most extreme cases. For example, if you have nothing to hide, could I take a nude picture of you, own all entitlements to the photo, and share it with anyone? Absolutely not, most would say, but this objection is not exceptionally compelling according to Solove. In order to understand privacy, we must not reduce it to one single definition. Privacy is extremely complex and involves a range of different things that share common characteristics. For instance, one’s privacy can be invaded by the expose of your innermost secrets, but it may also be invaded if a peeping Tom (without the reveal of any secrets) is observing you. Your privacy may also be invaded if the government seeks extensive information about you. All of these examples cause harm related to an invasion of privacy, thus making the definition of privacy not applicable for a “one size fits all” conclusion. The underlying and most significant harm that comes from surveillance is the problem of information processing. Solove uses The Trial example to demonstrate this effect. Here, the

While interpreting Should We Ditch the Idea of Privacy? by Don Tapscott, I had found that this article was my favorite. When it comes to choosing is one should stay private or keep their information public, I feel like that is up to that individual one hundred percent. In Should We Ditch the Idea of Privacy? Tapscott went over how many people should be more open and post more information on the internet to allow others to get a sense of what is going on. He believed Facebook is a “leading social-media site that promotes information sharing” making everyone’s life an open book for everyone to read and learn from. Additionally, to help is one is struggling with any mental health issues. Tapscott believes that by sharing personal information can

Today, we can find tabloids and magazines on shelves of supermarkets or kiosks with pictures of celebrities or occasionally normal people who do not realize that they were photographed while they were in their home or enjoying their vacations. The motivation for those photographers who take those photos are probably the same which motivated Darwin Bonaparte to film John in the novel “Brave New World”. They aspire to be famous and wealthy. They are truly selfish, irresponsible and materialistic. Indeed, they gravely violate the right of those people to have privacy. For example, an article published in the USA Today mentions and presents different opinions about it,

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.

With new technology rolling out onto the market seemingly everyday, the privacy of many is disappearing and has even become nonexistent. With many scandals over the past few years, government agencies have been accused of using these new communication resources as means to keep a watchful eye over their citizens. This is the very topic discussed by Peter Singer in his essay “Visible Man: Ethics in a World without Secrets”. Singer discusses the benefits and pitfalls that have come from these communication innovations, going in depth on the tactics and resources used by civilians as well as governments to keep track of each other. Singer presents strong premises that argue for the conservation of the individual privacy rights while also arguing for governments to become more transparent, creating an overall controversial element to his essay, as he is only half invested in transparency as a whole between civilians and the body that governs them, that comes off as somewhat unconvincing as the two arguments contradict each other.

Greenwald does an exceptional job of diving into the meat and potatoes of the issue, and gets right at its core with an essential question we need to ask ourselves in our growing digital world: “Why does our privacy matter?” In his TED Talk: Why Privacy Matters Greenwald explains how the Internet, which has been hailed for the liberation it brought is now being used as a zone of mass discriminant surveillance (Greenwald, 2014). It seems as though whenever the topic is brought up most ignorant people immediately assume that if the government is watching, it is okay as long as you don’t have anything to hide. With this train of thought comes the idea that there are clear lines between “good” people and “bad” people in this world, and its essentially okay for a computer to determine whether or not someone is good or bad based on a collection of phone records, Google searches and associates on social media. The group of those saying that there is no harm done in the breaching of ones privacy are those who have accepted that they are in no way shape or form a threat to our government in any case. To me, that is something that is simply unacceptable in a functioning democracy. If people are so willing to give up every aspect of their daily lives to the government, it becomes easier to track the exact schedules and routines of certain individuals and on a grand scale, the impending results can be more than scary. Greenwald explains that there has been many studies held that prove that when humans know they are being watched, their behavior dramatically changes compared to if they think they are alone. After someone realizes they are being observed they quickly start conforming to their surroundings because they’ve become imprisoned in their own minds for fear of

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.

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.

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 topic of this paper is privacy. It will talk about the ethical and legal reasons for maintain privacy. The audience for this paper is high school level teachers in a school with one-to-one devices for every student.

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.

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.

Throughout time, privacy and security have been two heavily debated topics. There has always been a struggle to find middle ground between a private environment and a secure environment, but the dawn of technology and the Internet has made this struggle even more difficult. The Internet has drastically decreased the expectation of privacy of any and all individuals that have ever used it. Technology in general can pose a threat to an individual’s physical and virtual security. The Internet has also brought forth a sense of anonymity to those looking to conceal their true identities, some of which plan to commit horrific crimes. Privacy and security go hand in hand, however security is by far the most important.

In Glenn Greenwald’s TED talk “Why privacy matters”, he argues that the issue of privacy effects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. He argues the importance of privacy and how government has turned the internet into “an unprecedented zone of mass, indiscriminate surveillance. The main point that Greenwald uses, is that only bad people have a reason to protect their privacy. In this world they are two types of people, good people and bad people. Good people are those people who uses the internet for good purposes such as work and for family, and bad people are those who uses the internet for the wrong reasons such as planning violent crimes. With that, we are able to differentiate the difference between people and their privacy.