Introduction
Digital Media privacy is an issue that is also in the back of our minds constantly when we are on the internet or other media outlets. Society seems this issues as something that should or should not happen. Everyone has their own view on this issues and it is interesting to look at from a sociological perspective. Sociologists, like Erving Goffman would look this issues at us are another individual when on any social media. We presented ourselves in the digital media because we are trying to create an impression that will stick when other look at us. Whatever we post online, even messages is a piece of our informal behaviours on real life, and this becomes our online personas and therefore are of conforming to Goffman’s notion
…show more content…
This research paper will look at each stakeholder views and how the see the issues of privacy protection. Despite the issues, was it the right decision to declare that the police require warrant to gain information and about individual’s internet activities and why is privacy important to Canadian when using digital media?
Findings and Discussion Firstly, the Government of Canada make more privacy laws on the digital media that citizens use in everyday life. Cockfield (2003) explains the government expectation of having a new legislation that helps govern the information that is being collected in private and public spaces. Cockfield (2003) states that “the Supreme Court of Canada is the critical role of privacy in democracies and how society came to realized that privacy is the heart of liberty and it is grounded in a man’s physical and moral autonomy, privacy is essential for the well-being of the individual and the restraint imposed on government to pry into the lives of the citizen go to the essence of a democratic
…show more content…
It bothers many individuals, including myself on the fact the Government of Canada is collecting personal information and tracking what we are looking and doing on the internet. Not everyone does bad things on the internet, some just shopping or writing blog post. Thinking about this even more, if they are tracking of internet activities via IP address, that would mean any website that we can click to keep signed in or save password. They know of that to personal sites that is being look at. I understand that the Government needs some of my personal information such as my driver’s license, SIN, health card and banking. I understand that those information is used for me to filed taxes, get loans and what not. I personally think that is it was a right decision for the Supreme Court of Canada to tell police to have a warrant to search someone’s internet activities because it provides some privacy on different digital media outlets. Overall, I agree with the Canadian citizens on this
The word “privacy” has a different meaning in our society than it did in previous times. You can put on Privacy settings on Facebook, twitter, or any social media sights, however, nothing is truly personal and without others being able to view your information. You can get to know a person’s personal life simply by typing in their name in google. In the chronicle review, “Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide,'" published on May 15th 2011, Professor Daniel J. Solove argues that the issue of privacy affects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. The nothing-to-hide argument pervades discussions about privacy. Solove starts talking about this argument right away in the article and discusses how the nothing-to-hide
Rosen portrays our society as completely exposed, giving up all privacy to join, and fit in with the “naked crowd”. Rosen claims that we willing give up all power of privacy in order to fit in with society and be accepted as someone that can be trusted through exposure. He claims that image is the key to establishing trust, not through a relationship or conversation. His thesis presents his views on the subject, “has led us to value exposure over privacy? Why, in short, are we so eager to become members of the Naked Crowd, in which we have the illusion of belonging only when we are exposed?”(Rosen) he states that we value exposure over privacy, and will give away privacy to fit in.
Using the informal tone he enhances his argument by providing several thought-provoking statements that allow the reader to see the logic in the article, “Social media is designed for the information shared on it to be searched, and shared- and mined for profit… When considering what to share via social media, don 't think business vs. personal. Think public vs. private. And if something is truly private, do not share it on social media out of a misplaced faith in the expectation of privacy” (134). The reader should agree with Edmond that when posting or being a part of the social media bandwagon, you’re life and decisions will be up for display. Moreover, the business vs. personal and public vs. private point is accurate and logical, because evidently if you post something on any social media outlet you should expect that anyone and everyone can see it, regardless of your privacy settings. Edmond highlights that Facebook along with other social networking sites change their privacy settings whenever they please without
“The standards of what we want to keep private and what we make public are constantly evolving. Over the course of Western history, we’ve developed a desire for more privacy, quite possibly as a status symbol…”(Singer) Technological change leads to new abuses, creating new challenges to security, but society adapts to those challenges. To meet the innate need for privacy, we learn what to reveal and where, and how to keep secret what we don't want to disclose. “Whether Facebook and similar sites are reflecting a change in social norms about privacy or are actually driving that change, that half a billion people are now on Facebook suggests that people believe the benefits of connecting with others, sharing information, networking, self-promoting, flirting, and bragging outweigh breaches of privacy that accompany such behaviours,”(Singer) This is obvious by the continuous and unceasing use of social media platforms, but what needs to be considered is that this information is being provided willingly. “More difficult questions arise when the loss of privacy is not in any sense a choice.”(Singer) When the choice to be anonymous it taken away through social media, the person loses the ability to keep their personal information
Edward Snowden is America’s most recent controversial figure. People can’t decide if he is their hero or traitor. Nevertheless, his leaks on the U.S. government surveillance program, PRISM, demand an explanation. Many American citizens have been enraged by the thought of the government tracing their telecommunication systems. According to factbrowser.com 54% of internet users would rather have more online privacy, even at the risk of security (Facts Tagged with Privacy). They say it is an infringement on their privacy rights of the constitution. However, some of them don’t mind; they believe it will help thwart the acts of terrorists. Both sides make a good point, but the inevitable future is one where the government is adapting as technology is changing. In order for us to continue living in the new digital decade, we must accept the government’s ability to surveil us.
The government is always watching to ensure safety of their country, including everything and everyone in it. Camera surveillance has become an accepted and almost expected addition to modern safety and crime prevention (“Where” para 1). Many people willingly give authorization to companies like Google and Facebook to make billions selling their personal preferences, interests, and data. Canada participates with the United States and other countries in monitoring national and even global communications (“Where” para 2). Many question the usefulness of this kind of surveillance (Hier, Let, and Walby 1).However, surveillance, used non-discriminatorily, is, arguably, the key technology to preventing terrorist plots (Eijkman 1). Government surveillance is a rising global controversy; and, although minimal coverage could possibly result in safer communities, too much surveillance will result in the violation of citizen’s privacy.
To begin, consider how countries handle the privacy of individuals in general, not exclusively in the electronic environment. Most countries around the world protect an individual’s right to privacy in some respects, because “privacy is a fundamental human right that has become one of the most important human rights of the modern age”2. Definitions for privacy vary according to context and environment. For example, in the United States Justice Louis Brandeis defined privacy as the “right to be left alone”3. In the United Kingdom, privacy is “the right of an individual to be protected against intrusion into his personal life or affairs…by direct physical means or by publication of information”4. Australian legislation states that “privacy is a basic human right and the reasonable expectation of every person”5. Regardless of varying definitio...
... very important right of the people. People shouldn’t be watched when they walk around the corner or when they go out in public. They should have the freedom to do whatever they want to an extent. The government should have stricter laws so they cannot just take people’s emails and messages. At the same time though people need to be a lot smarter on social networking sites. Putting all your information up is just asking for it. Maybe legislation does need to step in, and put requirements on these sites. Also, Google Maps should not be able to take street view pictures from their satellites. It violates people’s personal privacy. Hopefully in the future this will be made illegal or at least have tougher restrictions. No matter what happens in the future internet privacy and also just privacy in general will continue to be a hot topic in society for years to come.
The United States government is up to its ears in the personal information it has collected from its citizens. Americans are becoming increasingly “aware of these slowly eroding walls of privacy,”(Hirsh) and more than half polled admit concern “about the overall accumulation of personal information about them “by […] law enforcement, government, […] and other groups,” though “they accept it as an unavoidable modern phenomenon” (Hirsh). The question is, how far is too far to trust the government with the collection, proper storage, and usage of this information? Studies show that “Americans believe that business, government, social-media sites, and other groups are accessing their most personal information without their consent” (Hirsh). People should be given the ability to admit or deny access to their personal information. The government does not have a right to use whatever information it wants for any purpose it wishes. Michael Hayden, once the NSA director for seven years, says, “Even I recognize that it's one thing for Google to know too much, because they aren't putting me in jail. It's another thing for government, because they can coerce me” (Hirsh). The United States government's ability to collect information about its citizens and residents should be restricted by what kind of information it can take, how it can acquire it, and what it can use it for.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”(Benjamin Franklin). Privacy is considered a civil liberty issue. It reflects the American fundamental values such as civil liberties, limited government, and individualism. It covers the whole range of civil liberties spectrum and it holds every aspect of our life. It plays a major role on our daily lives and it is also a main structure in the future of democratic political system (Wemmer, 2012.) Privacy has evolved overtime, privacy can be interpreted from the First ,Third, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Fourteenth Amendments in the Constitution; however Americans don’t consider the importance of privacy until cases such as Griswold v. Connecticut (381 U.S. 479, 1965), Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113, 1973), Mapp v. Ohio (367 U.S. 643, 1961) are brought to the court.
The word “privacy” did not grow up with us throughout history, as it was already a cultural concept by our founding fathers. This term was later solidified in the nineteenth century, when the term “privacy” became a legal lexicon as Louis Brandeis (1890), former Supreme Court justice, wrote in a law review article, that, “privacy was the right to be let alone.” As previously mentioned in the introduction, the Supreme Court is the final authority on all issues between Privacy and Security. We started with the concept of our fore fathers that privacy was an agreed upon concept that became written into our legal vernacular. It is being proven that government access to individual information can intimidate the privacy that is at the very center of the association between the government and the population. The moral in...
Ever since day one, people have been developing and creating all sorts of new methods and machines to help better everyday life in one way or another. Who can forget the invention of the ever-wondrous telephone? And we can’t forget how innovative and life-changing computers have been. However, while all machines have their positive uses, there can also be many negatives depending on how one uses said machines, wiretapping in on phone conversations, using spyware to quietly survey every keystroke and click one makes, and many other methods of unwanted snooping have arisen. As a result, laws have been made to make sure these negative uses are not taken advantage of by anyone. But because of how often technology changes, how can it be known that the laws made so long ago can still uphold proper justice? With the laws that are in place now, it’s a constant struggle to balance security with privacy. Privacy laws should be revised completely in order to create a better happy medium between security and privacy. A common misconception of most is that a happy medium of privacy and security is impossible to achieve. However, as well-said by Daniel Solove, “Protecting privacy doesn’t need to mean scuttling a security measure. Most people concerned about the privacy implications of government surveillance aren’t arguing for no[sic] surveillance and absolute privacy. They’d be fine giving up some privacy as long as appropriate controls, limitations, oversight and accountability mechanisms were in place.”(“5 Myths about Privacy”)
The world erupted in outrage following revelations by Edward Snowden regarding the extent of surveillance perform by the National Security Agency. Privacy becomes one of the hottest topic of 2013 and was chosen by the world’s most popular online dictionary, Dictionary.com, as the Word of the Year. However, the government is not the only one that conduct data gathering and surveillance. Employers often monitor their employees, and businesses collect data on theirs customer. The morality of these practices is a topic that generates heated debate.
As technology penetrates society through Internet sites, smartphones, social networks, and other modes of technology, questions are raised as the whether lines are being crossed. People spend a vast majority of their time spreading information about themselves and others through these various types of technology. The problem with all these variations is that there is no effective way of knowing what information is being collected and how it is used. The users of this revolutionary technology cannot control the fate of this information, but can only control their choice of releasing information into the cyber world. There is no denying that as technology becomes more and more integrated into one’s life, so does the sacrificing of that person’s privacy into the cyber world. The question being raised is today’s technology depleting the level of privacy that each member of society have? In today’s society technology has reduced our privacy due to the amount of personal information released on social networks, smartphones, and street view mapping by Google. All three of these aspects include societies tendency to provide other technology users with information about daily occurrences. The information that will be provided in this paper deals with assessing how technology impacts our privacy.
Although the right to privacy has been used to sway the outcome of many U.S court cases, including the famous Supreme Court ruling of Roe vs. Wade, there is still some debate over how the “right to privacy” should be viewed. For example both Judith Jarvis Thompson, and James Rachels agree that the right to privacy is indeed a right that is bestowed upon citizens, however their perception of how one is granted this right is quite different.