Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Government surveillance social media
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The liberty we thought we had is slowly being taken away from us. From the size of soft drinks served at fast-food restaurants to the gender of marriage partners, our lives are being regulated by the government. “The War On Negative Liberty” by Katherine Mangu-Ward promotes negative liberty, freedom from someone or a group giving or taking away our rights, versus positive liberty, freedom from an individual’s resources or power such as poverty or race. Besides governmental control in real life, we are also being watched and regulated through cyber space. The article, “George Orwell…Meet Mark Zuckerberg” by Lori Andrews examines this exact issue. The article by Andrews really brings up the fact that we are being watched over every single click we make online. Although, …show more content…
Andrews also relates to the general audience and draws them in by discussing about well known, and frequently visited websites that collect our data such as Facebook, Dictionary.com, AOL, Google and many more. It is quite impossible for anyone to be unable to relate to this article; anyone with a cellphone, computer, or any internet access must have used at least one of these websites. On the other hand, Mangu-Ward speaks to the general audience in a different way. By comparing an unfamiliar issue of the Taliban’s ban of eating ice cream to a more familiar situation of Boston mothers who wish to ban ice cream trucks, she allows the general readers to connect with her writing. More specifically, Mangu-Ward tries to connect with the general American readers. With strong Libertarian views, she shows her patriotism by writing about the Boston Tea Party to explain her point of view. Although the audience for both articles is general, The War on Negative Liberty seems to be specifically for American readers due to Mangu-Ward’s strong
Charen presents her thesis prominently at the beginning of her essay in her title. By doing so, she not only clearly expresses her thesis that we must give up some liberty to secure the United States, but also peaks the interest of the reader with a provocative and timely statement. To understand the appeal of the title as a narrative hook, the reader should consider the context in which it was written. Charen’s essay was written at a post-9/11 time when security was on the minds of everyone in the United States.
It is the way of life in this age, to search the internet for leisure, research and general amusement. When you are not able to communicate with someone face to face, you pick up the phone. When you venture out of your house for any reason and into populated areas, you are recorded by businesses, photographed by red light cameras, and recorded by traffic cameras. The government has the capacity to watch all of this use. Last year, Edward Snowden’s leaked documents proved it that Big Brother is indeed watching. (Orwell 1)
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 has total control: every room has telescreens with hidden cameras, everywhere people look, propaganda posters are hung with the slogan “BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU,” (Orwell, 1) and Thought Police snoop through people’s
George Orwell foresees a nightmarish-future for the world in his book 1984, where individualism loses precedence to "the good of society," and with it goes the individual's private life. "The [controlling] Party" in the socialist government knows the intimate details of all citizens, and prosecutes those who violate social orders through threatening speech, behavior or thoughts. The omnipresent visual warning "Big Brother is Watching You,” reminds citizens that no personal information is safe from the "Thought Police." While this may seem far-fetched to some, Orwell envisioned technology facilitating government's abuse of power in 1950; in the twenty-first century, progress has left one's private life susceptible to interested parties in both the public and private sectors. In 1997, Ralph Nader cautioned, "The people are not organized not equipped with the knowledge, tools or skills to confront the invasions of the self they can see, let alone the far greater, more subterranean kinds of surveillance" (viii). With the rise of computers to their current capabilities, collecting, storing, accessing and sharing personal data has become easier than ever before: governments and companies no longer keep files of paper records on individuals, which accessing, stealing or sharing would be too arduous a task, but rather electronic databases that they can easily create, access and link. Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy note in their book The Right to Privacy, "From a privacy point of view, we are in the midst of the most unsettling period in [the computer] revolution" (326). Computers do not threaten personal privacy, though, nor violate any right granted to Americans: the word 'privacy' does not appear in the Constitution, nor does the p...
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”-Benjamin Franklin. We live in an age where governments invade the private lives of its citizens in the name of safety. Ironically, anyone who displaying a hint of paranoia when it comes to government surveillance or secrecy is automatically labeled a conspiracy theorist or a kook. It seems that in the U.S., it has become frowned upon to believe that our government would ever infringe on our rights, unintentionally or deliberately. After all, they can’t, it says so in the constitution! But, alas, it turns out “Big Brother” has been very busy the past decade. It seems as though every year new government scandals arise, from cover ups to spying on U.S. citizens. Law enforcement and government agencies are slowly finding “loopholes” through problematic areas of the constitution, with little regard for citizens’ rights. It is our duty as citizens, to not tolerate violations of the law that our nation was founded upon. By examining history and other countries’ policies regarding privacy and freedoms, it becomes clear that if these breaches of our rights are allowed to go on, we will be living in a country of fear and oppression.
In 1948, George Orwell wrote about a society in which individual privacy was nonexistent. In this society, which he imagined would become a reality in the 1980s, surveillance was foremost. Everything one did was under surveillance by “Big Brother”, an unseen figure who was always watching you. Surveillance in this society was imposed and malicious. Although this type of society has never fully become a reality in the Western world, changes in technology and media are indirectly bringing this imagined society, one of complete surveillance, to life. With the rise in corporate business and commercialism, surveillance in society increasing; however, new media has brought about a significant shift in its use. In the 20th century, surveillance was primarily used for “protective measures”, as Orwell had imagined. In the 21st century, there has been a rise in its use for commercialism. This essay will critically analyze the developments in new media that have contributed to this shift, as well as explain the reason for the ubiquitous nature of surveillance in today’s western society. To aid with this analysis, surveillance will hereby be defined as a “focused, systematic, and routine attention to personal details for purposes of influence, management, protection or direction” (Lyon 2007:14).
“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.
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...
It has become a sad and upsetting fact that in today’s society the truth is that the right to one’s privacy in the I.T (information technological) world has become, simply a joke. In an electronic media article “No place to hide”, written by James Norman, two interesting and debatable questions were raised: ‘Are we witnessing the erosion of the demarcation of public and private spaces brought on by the networked economy and new technology?’ Also, ‘What roles do government, industry and citizens have in regard to censorship and privacy?’ These statements ultimately end with the fact that it is impossible for Net users to expect privacy online, because online privacy doesn’t exist. However, one must ask, ‘What will be done about the problem?’ while keeping in mind that yes, the thin line between public and private spaces has been severed as a result of new technology. It is vital that everyone as users of the internet, be it government, Internet Service Providers (ISP’s), or individuals, need take the issue of internet privacy very seriously, while basing all actions towards the issue with the moral statement of, ‘Rights aren’t free, they’re earned’.
1984, a novel by George Orwell, represents a dystopian society in which the people of Oceania are surveilled by the government almost all the time and have no freedoms. Today, citizens of the United States and other countries are watched in a similar way. Though different technological and personal ways of keeping watch on society than 1984, today’s government is also able to monitor most aspects of the people’s life. 1984 might be a dystopian society, but today’s condition seems to be moving towards that controlling state, where the citizens are surveilled by the government at all times.
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”)
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.
Comparison of the Implications of Negative and Positive Freedom for the Relationship Between the Individual and the State