Long Range Effects of the Internet on Society
Whenever any major development in society is conceived, such as when phoneswere introduced, problems ensue. The internet, because of it's modern nature is not really well dealt with when it comes to existing legislation.
The solutions to anyproblems with the 'net are so complex that any legislation that could ensue might threatento infringe upon the rights and privileges that Americans enjoy today. "Virtualcommunities could help citizens revitalize democracy, or they could be luring us into anattractively packaged substitute for democratic discourse."(Rheingold 276) "What if thehopes for a quick technological fix of what is wrong with democracy constitute nothingmore than another way to distract the attention of the suckers while the big boys divideup the power and the loot."(Rheingold 278) "All too often the regulatory and policymechanisms of government have been subverted by the industries they exist to control. Although this takeover has not usually been intended by the formulators of thesemechanisms or the laws setting up agencies, many factors lead to this corporatedomination when the regulation involves a rapidly changing area."(Hiltz 445)
Accordingto Rheingold, everything is eventually somehow commodified. "The First Amendmentof the Constitution's Bill of Rights protects the citizens from government interference intheir communications-the rights of speech, press, and assembly are communicationrights. Without those rights, there is no public sphere. Ask any citizen of Prague, Budapest, or Moscow."(Rheingold 282) "Just as the ability to read and write and freelycommunicate gives power to communicate gives power to citizens that protects themfrom the powers of the state, the ability to surveil, to invade the citizen's privacy, givesthe state the power to confuse, coerce and control citizens. Uneducated citizens cannotrule themselves, but tyrannies can control even educated populations, givensophisticated means of surveillance."(Rheingold 289) "This assault on privacy, invisibleto most, takes place in the broad daylight of everyday life.
The weapons are cashregisters and credit cards. When Big Brother arrives, don't be surprised if he looks like agrocery clerk, because privacy has been turning into a commodity, courtesy of betterand better information networks, for years."(Rheingold 291) "The most insidious attackson our rights to a reasonable degree of privacy might come not from a politicaldictatorship but from the marketplace.
...merican soil, the question remains as to how much privacy Americans really possess. Yes, security in the person and home is still at the discretion of law enforcement, but how far will the government reach in what seems to be an elaborate effort to gain total control over what the Constitution defines as a free society? This, and many other questions remain unanswered today, but it must be remembered that this is a government of, for, and by the people, not a dictatorship that it has come to be in today’s world.
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.
“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.
the ghost of his father. Now, Hamlet is set on avenging the death of his father as a favor
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.
In Hamlet, one of the many things Shakespeare shows us is how the world can change a person, how certain circumstances can knock a person so out of proportion with who they used to be that they take on a new persona, a new identity. One such character is Ophelia, a young, innocent girl, who, throughout the play is torn between father and lover, accused of not being as innocent as she seems, and finally driven to insanity. In the end, she is driven to suicide, an innocent victim of the world around her.
In addition to this internal struggle, Hamlet feels it is his duty to dethrone Claudius and become the King of Denmark. This revenge, he believes, would settle the score for his mother’s incestuous relationship and would reinstate his family’s honor. These thoughts are solidified in Act I, Scene 5, when his father’s ghost appears and informs Hamlet that is was Claudius who murdered him, and that Claudius deprived him “of life, of crown, and queen” (line 75). This information leads to Hamlet’s promise to kill Claudius, while not punishing his mother for their incestuous marriage. His statement, “thy commandment all alone shall live within the book and volume of my brain” (lines 102-103), demonstrates his adamant decision to let nothing stand in the way of his promise for revenge.
This paper will examine some of these changes and try to determine if indeed changes are in order. Issues will be presented from the public manager’s perspective and the position of the justice system, relative to their affect upon citizens. Is it necessary to institute some form of desirable control or regulation over the Internet? If so, will an inordinate amount of public freedom be sacrificed in the process? These questions will be addressed, along with analyzing present policy and possible directions for future legislation.
Hamlet is intelligent, thoughtful but calculating and is out for revenge for the murder of his father. However, he is not able to carry out his revenge immediately which is crucial for fairness and his rightful ascendancy to the Danish throne. However, he rationalizes to hide behind excuses instead of seeking revenge by killing Claudius. Hamlet’s inability to act and make a final decision is his single tragic flaw. In direct contrast, Laertes suffers from not able to control his emotions. He comes back from France angry at Claudius with a suggestion of a coup. However, when Claudius redirects anger from Laertes away from himself, he is so fired about killing Hamlet, he would not mind killing him in a church.
Ophelia loves Hamlet; her emotions drive her to perform her actions. Some would say that Ophelia’s emotions could have actually been what ended her young
I think this was another reason for Hamlet prolonging a quick revenge on Claudius. Nearly all of Hamlet’s actions, with the exception of his outburst at Ophelia’s grave, were preplanned. Although Hamlet was never quick to action, he was always thinking aloud and giving those long speeches. He probably thought too much for his own good at times. He wrestled with many ideas, thoughts, and feelings over the course of the play, delaying any real action until the time was right.
“Arguing that you don't care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different that saying you don't care about free speech, because you have nothing to say.” Edward Snowden. There are numerous ways where privacy is disappearing. one of them is that Governments are constantly invading their citizens privacy. another way of invading privacy is that large technology companies are being misused to help the government, or simply individuals just take part in unethical acts. These are just some of the acts that will be discussed in this essay. it will also show the major consequences that many, or most of us face today which is the slow, but eventual disappearance of privacy.
Government Surveillance today has changed from what it used to be. Technology has expanded through the past several decades and the government’s monitoring abilities have also expanded tremendously. Since the September 11, 2001 9/11 terrorist attacks, government surveillance has become more a part of everyday life. Government surveillance is said to help in efforts of capturing terrorists and stopping terrorist attacks before they even happen. But how much of our civil liberties are we giving up in order to maybe help capture some terrorists. The rapidly advancing technology of today and a more globalizing culture has made privacy and civil liberties come more into the forefront of our views. After about nine years of unprecedented spending and growth, the result is that the government surveillance system put into place to keep the United States safe, is so massive that its effectiveness is becoming questionable.
Hamlet’s fatal flaw of hesitation is the reason why he did not carry out a plan to seek revenge for his father’s death, but the love that he felt for his mother enabled him to act when she died. Throughout the five acts of the play, Hamlet made several excuses as to why he could not kill Claudius. One of those many excuses was that he could not kill Claudius at the end of Act 3, Scene 3, when he was praying, as he would be sent to heaven:” Now might I do it pat. Now he is a-praying. And now I’ll do ’t. And so he goes to heaven. And so am I revenged.—That would be scanned. A villain kills my father, and, for that, I, his sole son, do this same villain send to heaven.” Hamlet’s hesitation, therefore, demonstrates that he did not love his father as he could have enacted his revenge, but chose to wait until his mother was in danger, proving that his revenge was solely in defense of her. In addition to this, Hamlet overthinks everything, which is another one of his downfalls. Yet, when Gertrude is poisoned, he throws caution to the wind and acts without thinking. After she collapses and he realizes that she has been poisoned by Claudius, he forces him to drink, which then kills him. Hamlet’s immediate action in defense of Gertrude attests to the fact that his revenge was purely in defense of his
Slowly technology has been disintegrating many aspects of our society, the internet especially. Although the internet has its positive effects such as its wealth of resources it has led to the loss of privacy. For example social networking sites give their users easy access to share information about themselves however, due to the explosion of technology it has made hacking easier to online predators. The government has attempted to help people regain their privacy online by passing the Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act of 1997, although this law has been difficult to enforce due to the fast advances in technology and the web. In the novel 1984 by George Orwell, a society described to be constantly watched “Big Brother is watching you” (Orwell 4) , where there is no such thing as privacy or freedom of speech and the government is in control of everything. Orwell in this novel foresees the advancements of technology to be harmful to our future society, if we continue to let our privacy be taken away from us it will make us one step closer to living in a society where the government/large corporations control all.