Lori Andrews, the author of “I Know Who You are and I Saw What You Did: Social Networks and the Death of Privacy” is a law professor at the Illinois Institute of Technology and an advocate for online privacy. This literary work goes in depth about the need for a Social Network Constitution to help law abiding private users like you and I actually have the privacy and security we think we already have in the vast, scary, and ultra-complex cyber world. Ms. Andrews throughout her book provides thorough evidence and information about people being fired, data collectors mining through user’s data, and other horrific stories of people being abused because of their “supposed” online activities. Her work and career has been so thorough that she is …show more content…
In this response, I will elaborate more on her research and her particular findings; in addition, I will provide some examples of why I also believe there must be a Social Network Constitution as a result of the of the horrific and unnecessary accounts given by the witnesses who bravely provided this information for her and her research team. Privacy is an intrinsic part of the makeup of our proud Nation, and we as law abiding citizens must do all we can to preserve this freedom and fight even harder, because right now, Social Networks and advertising companies are stripping each computer user of this sacred privilege.
In the opening of her book, Ms. Andrews describes the world as one enthralled and in love with being a part of “Facebook Nation.” She describes how powerful the founder of Facebook has become (Mark Zuckerburg). Ms. Andrews even explains how he attends important meetings and has a seat at the table with the most important leaders in the world. More importantly, she describes how Facebook has people flocking to it because of its answer to peoples never ending “search for freedom” (Andrews 2). Facebook provides ordinary people
…show more content…
This causes a “second self- a virtual interpretation of you” to be seen by anyone with access to this information (Andrews 19.) Data aggregation is very profitable, and many newer companies are taking full advantage of this. Companies like Acxiom, ChoicePoint, and Rapleaf all have information on you ranging from your “social security number and finances to your online habits” (Andrews 20). People are now even more susceptible to identity theft and other negative happenings because of this. Redlining, which is an unethical way of companies to discriminate possible consumers based off their home location or income has now transformed into what Andrews calls Web lining. Web lining is where banks or other creditors get ahold of your online information which can result in a lower limit of credit. This happened to a small business owner named Kevin Johnson who did actually see his credit card limit lowered by almost eight thousand dollars based off wrongfully accused information and evidence brought forth by data aggregators. Data aggregation is big business and can serious alter your life. These companies are profiting from an ever increasing decrease in your sacred privacy. How do you feel about that? Most Americans have
The audience can empathize easily with Sue and the death of her youngest and this allows the audience to understand the usefulness of Facebook “friends”; however, Dailey’s shift to present the other side of the argument with Bugeja’s forward truth of the flaws in online social networks. Bugeja convinces the reader that reality provides a more intimate level of support that the virtual world can never offer. Dailey could have ended the article on a stronger note that Facebook “friends” only serves as an additive to friendships to reality. In reference to Henry Adams infamous quote, Facebook “friends” cannot be made but built from existing
The essay by technology reporter for the New York Times, Jenna Wortham, titled, “It’s Not about You, Facebook. It’s about Us” discusses the idea that Facebook has helped shape emotions and now leaves its users emotionless. Although Wortham brings in several sources she does not support these sources with statistics and her personal feelings stand in the way of getting her main points across. In addition, she has a weak conclusion that leaves readers trying to grasp the actual message that Wortham is attempting to convey. Wortham fails to effectively support her thesis that society feels that it can not live without facebook.
Using the informal tone he enhances his argument by providing several thought-provoking statements that allow the reader to see the logic in the article, “Social media is designed for the information shared on it to be searched, and shared- and mined for profit… When considering what to share via social media, don 't think business vs. personal. Think public vs. private. And if something is truly private, do not share it on social media out of a misplaced faith in the expectation of privacy” (134). The reader should agree with Edmond that when posting or being a part of the social media bandwagon, you’re life and decisions will be up for display. Moreover, the business vs. personal and public vs. private point is accurate and logical, because evidently if you post something on any social media outlet you should expect that anyone and everyone can see it, regardless of your privacy settings. Edmond highlights that Facebook along with other social networking sites change their privacy settings whenever they please without
“The standards of what we want to keep private and what we make public are constantly evolving. Over the course of Western history, we’ve developed a desire for more privacy, quite possibly as a status symbol…”(Singer) Technological change leads to new abuses, creating new challenges to security, but society adapts to those challenges. To meet the innate need for privacy, we learn what to reveal and where, and how to keep secret what we don't want to disclose. “Whether Facebook and similar sites are reflecting a change in social norms about privacy or are actually driving that change, that half a billion people are now on Facebook suggests that people believe the benefits of connecting with others, sharing information, networking, self-promoting, flirting, and bragging outweigh breaches of privacy that accompany such behaviours,”(Singer) This is obvious by the continuous and unceasing use of social media platforms, but what needs to be considered is that this information is being provided willingly. “More difficult questions arise when the loss of privacy is not in any sense a choice.”(Singer) When the choice to be anonymous it taken away through social media, the person loses the ability to keep their personal information
The word “privacy” has a different meaning in our society than it did in previous times. You can put on Privacy settings on Facebook, twitter, or any social media sights, however, nothing is truly personal and without others being able to view your information. You can get to know a person’s personal life simply by typing in their name in google. In the chronicle review, “Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide,'" published on May 15th 2011, Professor Daniel J. Solove argues that the issue of privacy affects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. The nothing-to-hide argument pervades discussions about privacy. Solove starts talking about this argument right away in the article and discusses how the nothing-to-hide
...ompanies’ databases without our awareness—much less our approval—the more deeply the Net is woven into our lives the more exposed we become. In order to stop online tracking, we have to take personal responsibility for the information we share and modify our privacy settings. We have to get bills and regulations passed by congress so laws can be made to limit corporations from tracking and sharing our personal formation and discipline and take action upon any corporation that does not abide by the rules.
Weblining is tracking web user’s information when using the internet, the information that is taken is then used to try to sell items to the user. Carr informs readers on how weblining works: “Already, advertisers are able to infer extremely personal details about people by monitoring their Web-browsing habits. They can then use that knowledge to create ad campaigns customized to particular individuals” (541). This is a method companies use to get their products seen. For example, when one is researching for the latest weight loss product, when that individual goes on another web site they will notice tons of ads about weight loss programs and products. Although this may seem like a great thing because these ads make the individual to research more about the products however, weblining can have a negative outcome. Andrews explain to readers that just because of your race, zip code and the web pages you visit you can: “You might be refused health insurance based on a Google search you did about a medical condition. You might be shown a credit card with a lower credit limit, not because of your credit history, but because of your race, sex or ZIP code or the types of Web sites you visit” (553). Andrews remind readers that weblining takes away opportunities and privileges simply because of the color of your skin, where you live, and what you research
Social media is everywhere and very popular all over the world. Social media is used on computers, tablets, smartphones, etc and along with the use of social media there are privacy issues that come along with it. Social media is part of everyone’s life and is hard to give up. Even though we might not think there is isn’t anything wrong with it, there is which comes down to our privacy. Our privacy is being invaded when using these popular networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, etc. Social media is here to communicate with others and build relationships not invade our privacy.
Facebook : Every single day we read the news ,and think that Facebook might be antiprivacy. It is also observed that people often think that social networking sites offer complicated privacy settings. The CEO...
The government gives each American citizen a set of unalienable rights that protect them from the government’s power. These rights cannot be broken, yet the government violates the Fourth Amendment daily to find ways to spy on the American public under the guise of protecting against terrorism. In 2007 President Obama said the American administration “acts like violating civil liberties is the way to enhance our securities – it is not.” Americans need to understand that their privacy is worth the fight. The people need to tell their neighbors, their congressmen, and their senators that they will not allow their internet privacy to be violated by needless spying. American citizens deserve the rights given to them and need to fight for the right to keep them by changing privacy laws to include Internet privacy.
The growing popularity of information technologies has significantly altered our world, and in particular, the way people interact. Social networking websites are becoming one of the primary forms of communication used by people of all ages and backgrounds. No doubt, we have seen numerous benefits from the impact of social media communication: We can easily meet and stay in touch with people, promote ourselves, and readily find information. However, these changes prompt us to consider how our moral and political values can be threatened. One common fear among users is that their privacy will be violated on the web. In her book, Privacy in Context, Helen Nissenbaum suggests a framework for understanding privacy concerns online. She focuses particularly on monitoring and tracking, and how four “pivotal transformations” caused by technology can endanger the privacy of our personal information. One website that may pose such a threat is Facebook.
The 21st century has brought a lot of modern ideas, innovations, and technology. One of these is social media. The invention of Facebook has completely changed the way we communicate with one another. Instant messaging, photo sharing, and joining online groups have created a way for families and friends to connect. Some argue that Facebook is the greatest invention however, while it is seemingly harmless, Facebook has created an invasion of privacy. The accessibility of Facebook and its widespread use has created privacy problems for users, teens, and interviewees by allowing easy control to viewers.
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.
Sephton, Guy. "Social Networks Are An Invasion of Privacy." The Daily Touch RSS. N.p., 27 Oct. 2012. Web. 22 Apr. 2014.
The issues caused by online privacy are growing with the increase of Social Networking Sites. Virtually all Social Networking Sites have ‘public’ as their default privacy setting, however that is not what the majority of users prefer. According to a survey by the Pew Research Center’s Internet Project & American Life, 80 % of the users go to the effort to change their settings to private. With the increasing awareness of cyber – crime and the need for privacy, users have now started to rethink their actions online. Carefully selecting whom among your Facebook friends see your personal information, and who should be restricted, blocked or unfriended.