"There is most definitely a fine line between privacy and internet safety monitoring, for example, monitoring someone who utilizes social media to converse with friends and monitoring someone who utilizes social media to converse hurtful comments with one another for all to see. The essential pro of monitoring one‚Äôs social media would be that the negative comments being sought out towards one another would not happen as much because that person would know that the government and their state would have access to see what was conversed through their account. The con of monitoring one‚Äôs social media would be the reoccurring question ‚ÄúCan it be done?‚Äù, because to most people it is nonetheless an invasion of their privacy. If there were …show more content…
citizens. However, the government should not have the right to access emails and social media accounts whenever they want, because all U.S. citizens are allotted the right to privacy according to the Constitutional Rights. If the government decides that they are superior enough to access a citizens‚Äô accounts whenever they want then it becomes an invasion of one‚Äôs privacy. The government should access one‚Äôs account or email when there are multiple reports to do so on that person‚Äôs account or email do to a disturbance that could lead to something fatal. The government‚Äôs extent to monitoring emails or social media is that it should not be monitored …show more content…
For example, a student’s principal at their middle school, the principal should not have the right to monitor a bully’s social media account and although it is a problem it is a problem for the student’s guardian. The only thing the principal should be able to do is inform the guardian and suspend or expel the student if necessary, and if the situation leads to something fatal it should be reported to the mayor, who can report it to the state, which can report it to the U.S. government. Plus, the local community cannot be trusted with such access because more and more people in the community will talk about the situation making it much worse than what it originally was. The local community shouldn’t have an extent to monitoring one’s social media because it shouldn’t have the right to do
In Is Anything Private Anymore, Sean Flynn gives a central message of his text that society does not have privacy anymore. We may think some things about us are “anonymous”, but in real it is not. Nothing stays as a secret, there is always someone who sees or hears you. Bankson who got documented twice shows us that nothing stays anonymous. The article claims that we are not only being watched outside but on social media as well and everything we do on internet is being monitored. Ina modern world we live right now, having privacy is impossible because by our name and phone number our information can be accessed. Social network may seem fun but it may affect you in many ways in future. “You learn why posting pictures of you riding the mechanical
Government seems to take away more privacy than they say they protect. In 1984 the citizens were constantly being monitored no matter where they were, there was no escape. "It was terribly dangerous to let your thoughts wander when you were in any public place or within range of a telescreen. The smallest thing could give you away" (Orwell 62). Members of the party were constantly being monitored, at even the slight sign of disloyalty they would be apprehended by the Thought Police, striking fear into the people. People had no privacy due to the government and this can now be seen today. Referring to the NSA "The agency has circumvented or cracked much of the encryption, or digital scrambling, that guards global commerce and banking systems, protects sensitive data like trade secrets and medical records, and automatically secures the e-mails, Web searches, Internet chats and phone calls of Americans and others around the world"(Lopez np). Growing use of internet and technology makes it easier for the government to spy on us. Like in 1984 they will soon be able to track our every move. There is no way to completely remove ourselves from technology, there's are steps to take to protect privacy. A solution is to keep more records on paper instead of online. Also, what is posted on social networks should be limited. The less information you give them, the less the government knows.
In America we take freedom and privacy for granted, we as people are unable to comprehend how safe our country actually is, especially in today's society. With that being said there is something that we must all understand, in this age of technology if people are not surveillanced it puts everybody else in our country and the country itself at risk. There are aspects of our privacy and life that we have to sacrifice in order to secure the freedom that we do have. The NSA and U.S. government needs access to our private information in order to ensure the safety of our country and citizens.
And the problem the social media sites are helping the NSA when we have put all of our trust and that easily it could be revoked. According to Rob D 'Ovido “Having traded our freedoms for a phantom promise of security, government eyes” (D 'Ovido). For example, Cameron Dambrosio, a teenager from Massachusetts posted a video online a rap he made about the Boston marathon bombing, the rap had references to the white house and the bombing itself, which resulted in his getting arrested in May 2013, and charging him with communicating terrorist threats, which could land him a twenty year sentence. One cannot argue that he used foul language, and said words that were ill-mannered, but that does not give the right to officials to arrest people on a basis of rap. What happen with freedom of speech? People out in the middle east are uprooting entire regimes, because they are not giving them the basic human right, like freedom of speech or privacy. For an example, look at Egypt, they have over thrown an regime that ruled for 40 years. I am not comparing those awful regimes to our government, all we need is to calculate our choices more, and the government should have more faith in the citizens. We live in an era where we are being watched by surveillance cameras 24/7, and also having our calls being tapped. Even with all the peeping toms, censorship, and the spying, freedom of speech
In the article: “We Want Privacy, but Can’t Stop Sharing” by Kate Murphy, it is presented that in order for an individual to have privacy in an online environment, one should consider not disclosing sensitive information about one’s true self online. It is mentioned that, indeed, there is no privacy when connecting to the World Wide Web. She shows us that googles ads and nude pics of Jennifer Lawrence being hacked, makes us all vulnerable and a possible target according of “cybersnooping”. She references the film, “Minority Report” to show us that, spying is mismatched with a free society. Murphy, remarks that it is difficult to contend for privacy when society keenly reveals personal information online via social media. But most importantly, when revealing information about one self, there is a notion that one is being watched or tracked via social media implying that one’s health is a affected when releasing sensitive information online causing low
Nowadays it’s hard to live a secret life. Every move we make is being watched. National security is the main reason why we are being surveyed. Our world has transformed to an internet revolution. We are engaged much in social media and internet more than ever. People are able to incite a revolution like the one in Egypt in recent years. The world we live in is much different to what it was twenty years ago. Internet changed the power of information exchange between us. Social media’s like Facebook and twitter connects the world tremendously. People exchange information in a matter of seconds. Therefore, the question becomes: Should our government go through our private emails and social media?
Every citizen has a fundamental right to privacy. No citizen should have the government looking at his or her information without his or her permission. The amendments in the constitution should be enough to protect citizen’s privacy. The government should not have the right to collect people’s personal information.
The United States government is up to its ears in the personal information it has collected from its citizens. Americans are becoming increasingly “aware of these slowly eroding walls of privacy,”(Hirsh) and more than half polled admit concern “about the overall accumulation of personal information about them “by […] law enforcement, government, […] and other groups,” though “they accept it as an unavoidable modern phenomenon” (Hirsh). The question is, how far is too far to trust the government with the collection, proper storage, and usage of this information? Studies show that “Americans believe that business, government, social-media sites, and other groups are accessing their most personal information without their consent” (Hirsh). People should be given the ability to admit or deny access to their personal information. The government does not have a right to use whatever information it wants for any purpose it wishes. Michael Hayden, once the NSA director for seven years, says, “Even I recognize that it's one thing for Google to know too much, because they aren't putting me in jail. It's another thing for government, because they can coerce me” (Hirsh). The United States government's ability to collect information about its citizens and residents should be restricted by what kind of information it can take, how it can acquire it, and what it can use it for.
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”)
Privacy is not just a fundamental right, it is also important to maintain a truly democratic society where all citizens are able to exist with relative comfort. Therefore, “[Monitoring citizens without their knowledge] is a major threat to democracies all around the world.” (William Binney.) This is a logical opinion because without freedom of expression and privacy, every dictatorship in history has implemented some form of surveillance upon its citizens as a method of control.
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.
as people should have their privacy when surfing the internet. Alternatively, the evidence suggests that the government can help tackle terrorism and stop bullying. After examining this issue closely, surely society could not argue that we should protect our country and our children by monitoring social networking sites? Works Cited http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/09/cyberbullying-mother-fight-askfm http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/19/ask-fm-cyberbully-hannah-smith-death http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/5046447/Facebook-could-be-monitored-by-the-government.html http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/aug/08/askfm-advertisers-cameron-boycott-cyberbullying http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=catfish
Social Media sites such as Facebook, today have made precautions regarding privacy on the web. These settings to help keep the users privacy in check. Even though they settings on sites have gotten more intense, can theses protection possibly cause more problems? According to “Mark Zuckerberg’s Theory of privacy” the website was created with the intention to create “a more open and connected world.” There are advantages to having a more connected word there are also some draw backs. Even though social media has created faster and more advanced way to get the word out, and be aware of the new world around its users, it has also created a world with little privacy. This is because more and more people willing to share their information online, in today’s world that revolves around technology.
I think there is a right to privacy. What privacy means is “the right to be left alone, or freedom from interference or intrusion” (IAPP,1). Every American citizen has the right to privacy whether it be privacy in their homes, the words in their emails, or daily activities. But not only do the American people have the right to privacy from other citizens, we also have the right to privacy from the government. If the government can keep their conversations, actions and secrets under lock and key then Americans can as well. But unfortunately, the Constitution does not explicitly say anything about “privacy” for the American people, it is left for open interpretation in multiple amendments. The main amendment that screams “privacy” is the fourth amendment.
... only for interaction but also as medium of information. Social media focus on the ability of people to collaborate and share information online. Social media are to help people keep in touch whether they are living far off with to each other. In social media it may lead to negative side when these tools being misused by the user where they are interference into user privacy. This shows that there will be many more threats and risks the user will face if they do not take active steps to protect their privacy, rather than relying on the social networking sites policies. (Krishnamurthy & Wills, 2008).