The rapid growth in technology has been impressive over the past 20 years from television graphics and multi-purpose phones to world-wide connections. Unfortunately, the government is having trouble with this growth to protect the people from having their privacy violated due to the information being stored electronically. In “The Anonymity Experiment”, by Catherine Price, states how easily a person can be track and how personal can be lost. Also, in “Social Security and ID theft”, by Felipe Sorrells, states how social security numbers and personal identities can be stolen and how the government is trying to stop that theft. They both intertwine with technology and privacy though Price's article has a broad overview of that, while Sorrells's focus is mainly on social security number and identity thief part. Price and Sorrells shows that companies are taking too much advantage from the customer, the government, even though their trying, needs to start helping the people protect their privacy, and a balance between the amount of trust people should have giving out their sensitive records to which information is protected.
A concern that is happening that the government and corporations is that personal information is not secured well enough. Price states how over 100 million sensitive records were hacked or lost in a year and the percent of increase in data breaches is 650 more than last year. Her description of how unreliable the government is with personal information by using logical and well researched information to put no faith and fear in the reader. Price is saying that the government hasn't given a reason on why people should trust them and should voice their worry about this. Sorrells's contrast on how the government is ...
... middle of paper ...
...ld be allowed to have this sensitive information. Also, both author's share similar views that people need to be better aware of their sensitive data, so they can blame the government or corporations when it's someone else's fault to their own. The people are the one's effected on the advances of technology on their private information which someone has to change the system which could be the businesses that get that material from customers, the government would should being doing their best to protect that material, or even the people who are the ones who get hurt from this material getting exposed. Only then the privacy of people can truly be protected.
Works Cited
Catherine, P. (March 2008). The Anonymity Experiment. Writing in the Writing Disciplines, 11(3), 387 – 396
Felipe, S. (2010). Social Security and ID theft. New York Publishers, 1 - 125
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.
Works Cited for: Caplan, Hayley. How to Avoid Cell Phone Identity Theft? What Is Privacy? N.p., 31 July 2012. Web.
According to John W. Whitehead, “The fact that the government can now, at any time, access entire phone conversations, e-mail exchanges, and other communications from months or years past should frighten every American.” (Whitehead). The NSA
The author appear to be moderately perplexed by the fact that American state that they are concerned about privacy but they yet disclose personal information to entities. I would offer that the reason many are disclosing the information, is that business will not offer their services or product without the personal information. One can go to another vendor for service, only to have the same problem repeated. Now what is perplexing, is the authors claim that “a significant number, 11%” (Caftori & Teicher, 2002) of the population believes that corporate owners should go to prison for violations of information privacy. I must say, I never thought of 11% of a population as a significant percentage, but I am just a student. More confusion for the authors is when a computer system that handles big data has faulty output. They use the analogy of an airline, and if they lose your luggage and should receive compensation, but this is not the case when the DMV provides faulty data. This should not be perplexing, with the airline an explicit contract is made with the purchase of the ticket. The airline is transport my body and my luggage to the agreed location without damage or loss. Luggage is tangible. The contents are worth x amount of dollars and the airline pays the individual
“Human beings are not meant to lose their anonymity and privacy,” Sarah Chalke. When using the web, web users’ information tend to be easily accessible to government officials or hackers. In Nicholas Carr’s “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty,” Jim Harpers’ “Web Users Get As Much As They Give,” and Lori Andrews “Facebook is Using You” the topic of internet tracking stirred up many mixed views; however, some form of compromise can be reached on this issue, laws that enforces companies to inform the public on what personal information is being taken, creating advisements on social media about how web users can be more cautious to what kind of information they give out online, enabling your privacy settings and programs, eliminating weblining,
The personal connection Americans have with their phones, tablets, and computers; and the rising popularity of online shopping and social websites due to the massive influence the social media has on Americans, it is clear why this generation is called the Information Age, also known as Digital Age. With the Internet being a huge part of our lives, more and more personal data is being made available, because of our ever-increasing dependence and use of the Internet on our phones, tablets, and computers. Some corporations such as Google, Amazon, and Facebook; governments, and other third parties have been tracking our internet use and acquiring data in order to provide personalized services and advertisements for consumers. Many American such as Nicholas Carr who wrote the article “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty, With Real Dangers,” Anil Dagar who wrote the article “Internet, Economy and Privacy,” and Grace Nasri who wrote the article “Why Consumers are Increasingly Willing to Trade Data for Personalization,” believe that the continuing loss of personal privacy may lead us as a society to devalue the concept of privacy and see privacy as outdated and unimportant. Privacy is dead and corporations, governments, and third parties murdered it for their personal gain not for the interest of the public as they claim. There are more disadvantages than advantages on letting corporations, governments, and third parties track and acquire data to personalized services and advertisements for us.
Different people, cultures, and nations have a wide variety of expectations about how much privacy is entitled to or what constitutes an invasion of privacy. Privacy is the ability of an individual or group to seclude themselves or information. Personal privacy has been declining in the past year which is caused by today’s technological society. With the latest technology such as face scanners, data collecting, and highly advanced software’s, privacy can be compromised, which is exactly what is being done today and it is unconstitutionally intrusive.
Despite all the controversy and disagreements, most of the populous would agree that on an individual level, privacy is our space to be ourselves as well as to define ourselves through autonomy and protecting our dignity. Our interactions with others can define the level of our relationships with them through the amount of privacy we can afford in the relationship. As we age and immerse ourselves into society, we gain a sense of confidence and security from our privacy. A sense that others know only what we tell them and we know only what they tell us in exchange. What we fear is what others can access and what they might do if they knew of our vulnerabilities. Maintaining and keeping our vulnerable aspects private, we develop a false sense of personal safety from the outside.
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 are merely eroding the very existence with the start of a socialistic paradigm. Benjamin Franklin (1759), warned more than two centuries ago: “they that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Implementing security measures comes at a cost both economically and socially. Government bureaucrats can and will utilize information for personal political objectives. The Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of what the ‘law is”, causing a lack of circulated rule. The actual leaders with political purposes jeopardize our individual privacy rights, liberties, and freedoms.
Part of the allure of the Internet has always been the anonymity it offers its users. As the Internet has grown however, causing capitalists and governments to enter the picture, the old rules are changing fast. E-commerce firms employ the latest technologies to track minute details on customer behavior. The FBI's Carnivore email-tracking system is being increasingly used to infringe on the privacy of netizens. Corporations now monitor their employees' web and email usage. In addition to these privacy infringements, Internet users are also having their use censored, as governments, corporations, and other institutions block access to certain sites. However, as technology can be used to wage war on personal freedoms, it can also be employed in the fight against censorship and invasion of privacy.
Privacy is one of the severe issue in today’s Modern Technology era, tied to human right around the world. Most countries have started thinking differently regarding between the people’s right and national security, and trying to leverage on new technology to detect potential national threats without hurting people’s privacy. However, there's a blurred line between privacy violation and government surveillance. (Sánchez, Levin & Del, 2012) It would be a learning process for governments to seek an optimum balance between retain integrity of privacy right and eliminate national threats in order to make the country better.
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 fight for privacy rights is by no means a recent conflict.
Every user online in our modern technology based society has lost the ability to keep information private. This is due to the fact that governments and corporations want to keep an overseeing eye on any
Perhaps the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, said it best when he claimed that privacy is no longer a “social norm.” Virtually everyone has a smart phone and everyone has social media. We continue to disclose private information willingly and the private information we’re not disclosing willingly is being extracted from our accounts anyway. Technology certainly makes these things possible. However, there is an urgent need to make laws and regulations to protect against the stuff we’re not personally disclosing. It’s unsettling to think we are living in 1984 in the 21st century.
Gonchar, Michael. “What Is More Important: Our Privacy or National Security?” New York Times. New York Times, 17 Sept. 2013. Web. 22 Feb. 2014.