Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
What are the consequences of social media and privacy
Social media and privacy
Social media and privacy
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Online Surveillance
The negative consequences of online surveillance are consistent media headliners cautioning users to be wise with their sensitive information. This research address both positive and negative outlooks of online surveillance. According to Lee Humphreys’ article “Who’s Watching Whom? A Study of Interactive Technology and Surveillance”, a yearlong experiment explored how people think about privacy and surveillance when using mobile social networks (Humphreys 2011, 575). In examining Google’s Dodgeball, a mobile service like foursquare that allowed users to provide their location-based information with others, they discovered that “most informants were not concerned about privacy when using the mobile social network because they felt they were in control of their personal information” (Humphreys 2011, 576, 578). Researchers concluded there are three kinds of surveillance present in today’s social media era: voluntary panopticon, lateral surveillance, and self-surveillance (Humphreys 2011, 577).
This study thoroughly deepens the understanding of modern privacy by focusing on the growing presence of social media access cell phones (Humphreys 2011, 576). “In the United States, over 302 million people are mobile phone subscribers” and it is predicted that by 2020 most individuals worldwide would have mobile Internet access (Humphreys 2011, 575). This has created questions regarding social media expectations, norms, and understandings about privacy and surveillance when broadcasting personal and locational information (Humphreys 2011, 577). “Privacy has been defined as the ability to control what information about one is available to others. When one cannot control what information about oneself others know, one ma...
... middle of paper ...
...(1), 1-30.
Humphreys, L. "Who’s Watching Whom? A Study of Interactive Technology and Surveillance." Journal of Communication 61 (2011): 575-595. Print.
Kanter, M., Afifi, T. and Robbins, S. (2012), “The Impact of Parents “Friending” Their Young Adult Child on Facebook on Perceptions of Parental Privacy Invasions and Parent–Child Relationship Quality”. Journal of Communication, 62: 900–917. Print.
Kaveri S., and Greenfield P. "Online Communication And Adolescent Relationships." Journal of Communication 18.1 (2009): 119-146. Print.
Trottier, D. (2012). Interpersonal Surveillance on Social Media. Canadian Journal Of Communication, 37(2), 319-332.
Youmans, W. L., and York J.C. "Social Media and the Activist Toolkit: User Agreements, Corporate Interests, and the Information Infrastructure of Modern Social Movements." Journal of Communication 62.2 (2012): 315-329. Print.
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
Abstract: This paper provides an analysis of the privacy issues associated with governmental Internet surveillance, with a focus on the recently disclosed FBI tool known as Carnivore. It concludes that, while some system of surveillance is necessary, more mechanisms to prevent abuse of privacy must exist.
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.
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)
The twenty first century in the century of technology, where technology is heavily used in the people daily lives. One of the field where technology is being utilized in is monitoring people through cameras and phone calls. Although it might be interfering with people privacy, but it has its advantages that might outweigh the disadvantages. This essay will discuss both points of view, and try to decide which one is more reasonable than the other.
The feeling that someone is always watching, develops the inevitable, uncomfortable feeling that is displeasing to the mind. For years, the National Security Agency (NSA) has been monitoring people for what they call, “the greater good of the people” (Cole, February 2014). A program designed to protect the nation while it protects the walls within as it singles people out, sometimes by accident. Whether you are a normal citizen or a possible terrorist, the NSA can monitor you in a variation of ways. The privacy of technology has sparked debates across the world as to if the NSA is violating personal rights to privacy by collecting personal data such as, phone calls and text messages without reason or authorization (Wicker, 2011). Technology plays a key role in society’s day to day life. In life, humans expect privacy, even with their technology. In recent news, Edward Snowden leaked huge pieces from the NSA to the public, igniting these new controversies. Now, reforms are being pressed against the government’s throat as citizens fight for their rights. However, American citizens are slammed with the counterargument of the innocent forte the NSA tries to pass off in claims of good doing, such as how the NSA prevents terrorism. In fear of privacy violations, limitations should be put on the NSA to better protect the privacy of our honest citizens.
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.
“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,
Richards, Neil M. The Dangers of Surveillance. Harvard Law Review. N.p, 20 May 2013. Web. 3 Apr 2014.
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).
Facebook is an online social networking service and became very popular within years. It was found on the 4th of February in 2004. As of now you must be 13 years of age to register and make an account. Facebook has been updating almost every year to make improvements such as the layout of your wall, the layout of your messages, and most importantly your privacy and security of your account. In 2010, the security team of Facebook has begun to expand its efforts to reduce risks to users’ privacy, and it was successful but still leaves some privacy concerns behind.
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.
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.
Social medias have become a big part of our society now, they are being used in all aspects of our life. We are connected twenty-four hours a day, at work, school, home, shopping etc. There is a necessity, a need to be connected to these social media’s, to feel like you are a part of society. With these growing numbers in being connected to social media’s on the web, there comes a growing desire for privacy and safety. In this paper I will discuss and analyze the social media’s themselves, the dangers that arise from them, and how all these correlate to privacy.
John C. Dvorak, author of “Privacy and Social Media”, argues about how many people are so unconcerned with their privacy. He states, “This amuses me because it seems as if the majority of Facebook users don't even know about or care about the privacy settings” (Dvorak). This argument of definition brings up the debate of the multiple definitions of privacy. For example, an individual who applies to Dvorak’s statement might have a definition of privacy as something very open and simple. However, someone else who may be applying for jobs may think of privacy as a much more serious concept. Therefore, the debate over what is “private” information means nothing due to the fact that everyone’s definition of privacy is different. Once everybody agrees on a worldwide definition of privacy then this issue can be debated and solved