Since the dawn of society, technology has greatly enhanced the ways in which people have managed their life. In fact it has both the capacity to provide innovative diffusions as well as ever-growing impressions across cultures, increasing the ability for human interaction and collaborative social improvement. Such novelty allows for mass human participation towards a connected global network based on informal relationships. Yet as this horizon continues to expand, an intimate debate surfaces that concerns the illusion of a free world and its relation to each and every connected individual. A furthering development of technology can yield this freedom in terms of an open society, engaging the public to contribute and make improvements to an ideal impression of autonomy. Alternatively, technology has the ability to eliminate individual boundaries and instill full transparency. For some people, a high level of disclosure is too much of an invasion of personal privacy. This restriction of freedom emanates a strong implication of vulnerability among individuals through institutions, one that puts individual privacy at the expense of public risk. At the very essence of a technological revolution, we have a divisive issue separating the collaborative push of information against a coercive pull of personal transactions. This institutional symbiotic divide gives the impression that technology presents the idea of freedom in a global setting, whilst at the same time restricting this very freedom through private infringement. So at the very core of this conflict the advent of freedom against restriction is swayed by the division between personal and private sector affairs. Both provide strong arguments towards the meaning of freedom in a tec...
... middle of paper ...
...ann, Fredrick (1999). The Most Powerful Freedom Strategy. How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World, viewed 8 March, 2008.
< http://www.buildfreedom.com/whatmost.htm>
DNF (2008). Digital Freedom Networks. Our Mission – about us, viewed 9 March, 2008.
< http://unix.dfn.org/mission.shtml>
DFI (2003). Digital Freedom Initiative. History, viewed 9 March, 2008.
< http://www.dfi.gov/>
Bell, Thomas (2006). AFreeSociety. A Free Society, viewed 9 March, 2008.
< http://afreesociety.blogspot.com/>
Batra, N.D. “Digital Freedom”. Liberty, Rowman and Littlefield Publishing, 2007. p 203-204.
Hale, Benjamin. “Ethics, Place, and Environment: Volume 8, Number 2”. Routledge Publishing, 2005.
McCullagh, Declan and Broache, Anne (2006). FBI taps cell phone mic as eavesdropping tool. C|Net News, viewed 10 March, 2008.
< http://www.news.com/2100-1029_3-6140191.html>
There is considerable utilitarian value in extending privacy rights to the Internet. The fear that communication is being monitored by a third party inevitably leads to inefficiency, because individuals feel a need to find loopholes in the surveillance. For instance, if the public does not feel comfortable with communica...
Eric Foner, The Story of American Freedom, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company Ltd., 1999), 600.
Eric Foner, The Story of American Freedom, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company Ltd., 1998), 64.
Eric Foner, The Story of American Freedom, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company Ltd., 1999), 296.
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...
When we mention the word ‘privacy’, we mean that there is something very personal about ourselves. Something that we think others are not supposed to know, or, we do not want them to. Nevertheless, why is it so? Why are people so reluctant to let others know about them entirely? This is because either they are afraid of people doing them harm or they are scared that people may treat them differently after their secrets are known. Without privacy, the democratic system that we know would not exist. Privacy is one of the fundamental values on which our country was established. Moreover, with the internet gaining such popularity, privacy has become a thing of the past. People have come to accept that strangers can view personal information about them on social networking sites such as Facebook, and companies and the government are constantly viewing a person’s activity online for a variety of reasons. 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. Various websites, the government and its agencies, and hospitals are infringing our privacy without our permission or knowledge.
For many years our present society has been characterized by sociologists and philosophers as being determined by three factors: first science and technology, second mass media including new forms of communications like the Internet, and third individualism and pluralism. These three characteristics of the present situation point to the diminuation of human possibilities. For on one side we live in a society of alleged unlimited possibilities with respect to science, technology, communication and personal individuality. On the other side, however, real thinking and doing, real talk and real self-shaping seem to grow poor or become impossible. The prize we are obliged to pay for our present society, the prize of our possibilities is ironically that of the impossibility of our special possibilities, be they personal or social. So the strive for perfection unmasks itself as an unplanned deterioration in many realms of social and personal life.
When George Orwell’s epic novel 1984 was published in 1949 it opened the public’s imagination to a future world where privacy and freedom had no meaning. The year 1984 has come and gone and we generally believe ourselves to still live in “The Land of the Free;” however, as we now move into the 21st Century changes brought about by recent advances in technology have changed the way we live forever. Although these new developments have seamed to make everyday life more enjoyable, we must be cautious of the dangers that lie behind them for it is very possible that we are in fact living in a world more similar to that of 1984 than we would like to imagine.
The paper will deal with two aspects of the privacy-vs-security issue. The first one is concerned with general civil liberties, where privacy is understood to mean freedom to make personal (private) choices in our own homes, control our daily lives and decide with whom we share information that is of our concern – information about our emotions, attitudes, behavior and future decisions and events. The second aspect deals with the privacy vs. security on the internet. Since we live in a technological era, internet has become an inseparable part of our l...
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”)
As this critical juncture begins to take place, there has been much debate between scholars as to whether we should be enthusiastic or wary of these new changes. In Digital Disconnect and in his lectures, McChesney observes both views in an attempt to advance the discussion. On one side, the celebrants are embracing the Internet as a medium that will change society for the better. In Digital Disconnect, McChesney says, “In sum, the celebrants reaffirm one of the most important original arguments from the 1990s, that the Internet will be a force for democracy and good worldwide, ending monopolies of information and centralized control over communication” (McChesney 8). In my opinion, this celebrant view should only be regarded as a best-case scenario because of the unexpected obstacles for society that can...
This world has changed, even as 20 years old, I am afraid of where technology is going already everyone is glued to it; as a kid computers were new, but we didn’t care we played outside, and cell phones were for emergencies, not fun. Due to technology privacy almost doesn’t exist in this day of technology anymore, there are secret spy cameras being placed in homes by jealous friends or family; social media sites pushing you to spill your age, looks, feelings, life story, and more, and “Big Brother” and “Little Brother” everywhere. Everyone has to be careful because everywhere there is someone trying to steal someone’s identity whether the reason is for money, for legality in a new country, or even to hide a past troubled life. Privacy in the world has been, is now, and always will be extremely important. Growing up in school after getting my first cell phone I was fascinated with new technology and couldn’t wait for the next cell phone to be released. I was always highly interested in what was next, but that was then when I was a young and obvious little kid, now as a young adult in this day of age I have an entirely different feel for all of it; privacy no longer exists and technology is the primary blame.
Technology is constantly changing, growing, and evolving but with each change in technology we risk our own privacy. With each new update we get we are told it improves our network or life but in reality it makes it easier to invade our privacy just like in the novel 1984 by George Orwell. There are many parallels between 1984 and our present day like the over watchful eyes of the government for our own good.
Through the years, the Internet has grown to be one of the most important aspect of human lives. By interacting with it for a long period, people have developed to create distinct Internet cultures, with anonymity being the most controversial. Anonymous communication is seen as the basis of an Internet culture which supports free speech and sharing, as well as being openly against authorities in general. The claim of Anonymity is that it ensures governments to not be able to monitor citizens, thus guaranteeing the privacy and simple rights. However, this view is essentially mistaken; the foundation of human society is at risk of breakdown when anonymous communication is allowed in the excessive amount. The Internet anonymity crush the fabrics of society because human being's freedom of free speech must come with a price of accountability. Unless individuals can be held responsible for their actions, people lose all helps of the laws, thus truly risking the freedom of human lives.
Ten years ago, I could have been asked to describe what I though the world would look lA century ago no one would have ever believed that globalization, the spread of ideas, goods and people around the world, would be occurring on a grand scale as it is today. A once ethnocentric view of the world has given way to a more holistic philosophy thanks in part to the constant development of new technologies that are continually making it easier for people on different sides of the globe to connect with each other. There shouldn’t be any side effects to a global community that aren’t beneficial, but sometimes, as I Google myself and find a link to my Facebook as well as various links to an interview I did senior year of high school, a twinge of dread courses through me. Do we really want to find ourselves in a world where privacy is a whimsical notion of the past? However, it’s irrational to blame technologies when we make the choices to share and connect with others. We are simple beings, however, and new technologies, though they have improved many aspects of our lives, have easily taken hold of our minds and b...