Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
How technology affects ethics
Technology and how it affects ethics
How technology affects ethics
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How technology affects ethics
Privacy is considered to be subjective and can be defined by people in various ways however most will agree that privacy is an extremely important core value. Privacy is a way of protecting the personal information of someone. With advancements in technology and people using the internet, more than ever, society has been force to change their views on privacy to deal with the changing technology. One innovative piece of technology that has recently been causing people to rethink their privacy is Google View and how it was being used to conduct Wi-Fi vacuuming. This paper explores the ethical and legal issues associated Google’s Wi-Fi vacuuming and its impact on privacy. Included is an explanation of the technology and a discussion of the primary legal and ethical issues involved.
In order to understand how Google has been conducting Wi-Fi vacuuming first we must discuss Google View technology and how it is used. Google View was introduced in a few major US cites on May 2005, as a feature of Google Maps, it was later integrated throughout the world (10). Google View allows a user to select a location, Google then provides the user with panoramic images of the various locations in close proximity to the selected locations. This allows a person to view the map as if they were actually standing in the chosen location. In order to create the Google View technology Google needed many workers and vehicles equipped with the proper cameras. On each of these vehicles, there are nine directional cameras for 360° views, GPS units for positioning, and three laser range scanners for the measuring of up to fifty meters 180° in the front of the vehicle (10).There are also 3G and Wi-Fi antennas for scanning 3G and Wi-Fi hotspots (10). These Wi-Fi...
... middle of paper ...
...llection/srvc=home&position=also>.
8. GeoLocation Google. Geolocation API. 20 March 2010. 18 June 2010 .
9. Google Privacy Center. June 2010. 17 June 2010 .
10. "Google Street View." 10 June 2010. Wikipedia. 17 June 2010 .
11. JOHN E. REDSTONE, KARL H.SCHULZ, and DEAN M. BASTILLA verse Google INC. No. 3:10-cv-00400-JPG -DGW. US District Courth for the Southern District of Illinois. April 2010.
12. Musil, Steven. "Michigan man dodges prison in theft of Wi-Fi." 22 May 2007. CNET News. 18 June 2010 .
13. Swift, Mike. "Google admits vacuuming up data from Wi-Fi networks, apologizes." 14 May 2010. Mercury News. 17 June 2010 .
Et Al. United States Court of Appeals Eleventh Circuit. N.d. Legal Information Institute. Cornell University, n.d. Web. 10 May 2014.
Remy, Richard C., Gary E. Clayton, and John J. Patrick. "Supreme Court Cases." Civics Today. Columbus, Ohio: Glencoe, 2008. 796. Print.
Wright, Paul. "Prison Legal News - Legal Articles, Cases and Court Decisions." Prison Legal News. Prison Legal News, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2013. .
In the Engineering and Technology Journal, two engineers, Gareth Mitchell and Guy Clapperton, gave their thoughts on both sides of the privacy issue. Is gathering information violating personal privacy? They made their arguments using currency as a metaphor for personal information and online services a product. Mitchell argues the case that giving out personal information is “too high a price to pay” (Mitchell, 2013, p. 26). He says that despite the option to opt out of cookies and certain information, many sites are more covert and make their opt out option less accessible than a pop up asking to opt out. The site makes it hard for the Internet user to say no to being tracked. Mitchell warns the reader to take more consideration into what information they are giving away and that “privacy is not to be taken for granted” (Mitchell, 2013, p. 26). Getting information from the Internet would mean tra...
Oct 1993. Retrieved November 18, 2010. Vol. 79. 134 pages (Document ID: 0747-0088) Published by American Bar Association
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.
“Smartphones and the 4th Amendment”. The New York Times. (27 Apr. 2014).Web. 28 Apr. 2014.
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”)
Heart of Atlanta v. U.S. and Katzenbach v. McClung. 2003. The Supreme Court Historical Society. 22 April 2003.
This report will describe the history of government regulations and FTC. How that applied to Google search and personal privacy. The changes made from the settlement between Google and the FTC, the difference Google's practices and policies from before the settlement and after the settlement, and the current demands and expectations from current and vocal Google users. The report will also draw a conclusion from the findings and will determine if additional regulations are needed or if the regulations currently in place are sufficient.
In May 2007, Google added an innovative feature to Google Maps, called Google Street View. Street View provides 360 degree views of addresses from street level. Google cites many possible uses for the technology, such as showing long-distance friends and family your house, checking out the handicapped accommodations at establishments in advance, or previewing potential vacation rentals. Street View is available for most major metropolitan areas in the United States as well as selected countries abroad. As with any project that has a scope as grand as Street View’s. Google’s new technology has some drawbacks. Google’s methodology to collect all of these images was to pay people to drive around in cars that had cameras mounted on their roofs. As a result, many of the images contain people going about their daily lives, unaware that they are being photographed. This causes some people concern over their privacy. These fears are unfounded, however, as Google has worked very hard to ease people’s concerns. Ultimately, the utility of the service outweighs the privacy concerns of a small group of people. This paper outlines the privacy rights of United States citizens regarding Street View, what Google has done to address privacy concerns, and then offers a recommendation on whether Google has done enough to address these privacy concerns.
However, government agencies, especially in America, continue to lobby for increased surveillance capabilities, particularly as technologies change and move in the direction of social media. Communications surveillance has extended to Internet and digital communications. law enforcement agencies, like the NSA, have required internet providers and telecommunications companies to monitor users’ traffic. Many of these activities are performed under ambiguous legal basis and remain unknown to the general public, although the media’s recent preoccupation with these surveillance and privacy issues is a setting a trending agenda.
Snyder, S.. "Google Maps: An Invasion of Privacy?." Time. Time Inc., 12 June 2007. Web. 15 Apr. 2014.
As can be seen, from the information presented, the need for laws and restrictions concerning internet data collection is greatly needed. Moreover, the government can search private citizens data without warrant or cause. Also, companies are not only collecting internet user data but also selling it. The companies and agencies who commit such crimes should be fined or either closed down. In closing, the privacy and security of individuals on the internet should be upheld by the United States government.