Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Data mining and privacy issues
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Data mining and privacy issues
Everyone in today’s world uses the internet without knowing its potential dangers. Hackers could steal medical histories, bank records, and credit histories with just the click of a few buttons. Companies can harvest and sell their customers’ information without any consequences. The government data mines and stores information in an attempt to target terrorists, despite violating millions of people’s privacy. People need stronger privacy protection to ensure their personal safety, to stop companies from data mining, and to prevent the government from gaining excessive control.
Data mining is everywhere and it poses a real danger to people’s safety. One industry that is considering to start data mining is the healthcare industry. Matt McFarland
…show more content…
It can violate privacy in numerous ways including, exclusion and secondary use of information. Exclusion is when the government prevents people from being aware of how their data is being used (Solove 166). Solove discusses the dangers of exclusion by stating, “Many government national-security measures involve maintaining a huge database of information that individuals cannot access.”. This automatically gives the government increased power over its citizens, due to the lack of citizen choice and awareness. Another issue that contributes to the government gaining excessive power and control is the secondary use of citizens’ information. Secondary use of information is the use of data harvested for a certain reason being used for another reason without the citizen’s permission (Solove 166). The government can reuse a piece of information repeatedly and the subject of this information would never know nor possess control over the situation. If people cannot give consent and they have no way to access that data, then they have no control over their own information. But without laws that clearly define what the government can and cannot do with their citizens’ data, then the government will always have exaggerated control and power over their …show more content…
People think that government data mining will lead to increased safety, due to the fact that the government is searching for terrorists and criminals, but what if the government mistakes innocent people for criminals? The risk of the government targeting innocent people is quite high because analyzing data can only reveal part of a story. Solove explains this further by stating, “ Although personal information can reveal quite a lot about people’s personalities and activities, it often fails to reflect the whole person. It can paint a distorted picture, especially since records are reductive -- they often capture information in a standardized format with many details omitted.” (Solove 166). The public should not have to worry about every aspect of their behavior, due to how the government might interpret it. The fact that the government can target people without knowing the whole story is disturbing and shows that people should care about how government data mining affects their
“With surveillance technology like closed-circuit television cameras and digital cameras now linked to the Internet, we now have the means to implement Bentham's inspection principle on a much vaster scale”(Singer) Bentham's inspection principle is a system that allows the collection, storing and dissemination of data on individuals, corporations, and the government. This collection of data has large implications in regard to privacy and security. “There is always danger that the information collected will be misused - whether by regimes seeking to silence opposition or by corporations seeking to profit from more detailed knowledge of their potential customers.”(Singer) What is done with the information collected is the main issue in terms of privacy. We do not want to be marketed to, or inundated with spam from third-party sources. We also do not want our private social circles and experiences to appear that they are being monetized or subjected to surveillance outside our control. In addition, surveillance has a large effect on the government that can beneficial or detrimental to democracy. Exposure of government secrets may make officials tread carefully when making decisions, ensuring that politicians are nothing but just and fair.“The crucial step in preventing a repressive government from
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 America Government is not carrying out immoral, illegal or unethical acts by collecting data on its citizens. However, history has shown that such collections of data without correct supervision can easily be used in an unethical manner.
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
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.
Every citizen has a fundamental right to privacy. No citizen should have the government looking at his or her information without his or her permission. The amendments in the constitution should be enough to protect citizen’s privacy. The government should not have the right to collect people’s personal information.
Throughout many years in the United States, there has been controversy over whether or not government surveillance and other technology is a violation of human rights. Ever since the publication of George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, there has been an increase in debates on the subject. The novel itself exemplifies what a surveillance-based society is like, providing the reader with a point of view of what could happen to their own society. Discussion over the usage of information that the government has gathered has become one of the foremost topics being analyzed to this day. The information that is being viewed by surveillance would otherwise be private, or information that people would not want to be leaked out. Therefore, surveillance executed by the government and companies has become an infringement to the right of privacy, and United States citizens should take actions upon it before the world reflects the Orwellian vision of the future.
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.
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.
There are various kinds of definitions about what data mining is. The authors in [1] define data mining as “the process of extracting previously unknown information from (usually large quantities of) data, which can, in the right context, lead to knowledge”. Data mining is widely used in areas such as business analysis, bioinformatics analysis, medical analysis, etc. Data mining techniques bring us a lot of benefits. Business companies can use data mining tools to search potential customers and increase their profits; medical diagnosis can use data mining to predict potential disease. Although the term “data mining” itself is neutral and has no ethical implications, it is often related to the analysis of information associated with individuals. “The ethical dilemmas arise when data mining is executed over the data of an individual” [2]. For example, using a user’s data to do data mining and classifying the user into some group may result in a variety of ethical issues. In this paper, we deal with two kinds of ethical issues caused by data mining techniques: informational privacy issues in web-data mining and database security issues in data mining. We also look at these ethical issues in a societal level and a global level.
Privacy is not just a fundamental right, it is also important to maintain a truly democratic society where all citizens are able to exist with relative comfort. Therefore, “[Monitoring citizens without their knowledge] is a major threat to democracies all around the world.” (William Binney.) This is a logical opinion because without freedom of expression and privacy, every dictatorship in history has implemented some form of surveillance upon its citizens as a method of control.
...onal privacy dead?” brings up many other questions along with it. But there is no doubt that the government is doing all of what they are doing for safety reasons. They claim to want to make the United States as safe as possible, and this has proved to ring true in many situations. But now the inevitable new question becomes: How far is too far? Is safety more important than privacy? To know these answers, one must ask themselves and know their own opinion on the situation. But whatever their answers may be, and despite the multiple other questions that are brought up along with the topic of personal privacy, there is still one thing that is known for sure: personal privacy is dead. And unless the use of technology becomes less critical to the United States, personal privacy will always be dead. The bigger the role technology has; the less personal privacy there is.
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.
A major reason the U.S. needs to increase restrictions on the type and amount of data collected on individuals from the internet is due to the fact that the United States government can track communications and browsing histories of private citizens without warrant or cause. After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, ...
In this new era of the Internet, most people use the Internet to acquire information of one kind or other. But what these people are not aware of is that the Internet is collecting information about them. Every time we get onto the Internet there might be a compromise of privacy of our personal information. The information flows both ways. With every clock of the mouse on a hyperlink, or an addition to the mailing list, someone out there might be gathering information about us. This raises the seriousness of privacy of our information on the Internet.