Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The impact of social media on human relationships
The impact of social media on human relationships
The impact of social media on human relationships
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The impact of social media on human relationships
Is your privacy worth a better search engine? Steven Levy explains in his article, “Will You Let Them Store Your Dreams?” that search logs are preserved for future use and aren’t as anonymous as one thought. Internet users believed their searches were private, but are finding out the complete opposite is true. Steven Wyer’s article, “Life with Big Brother: Government Paws on Our Every Tweet” reveals the government is blatantly interested in people’s search logs and why. Levy and Wyer agree society’s privacy has been compromised while using social media formats; both writers use similar strategies such as language, logos, and pathos to sway the audience to their respective viewpoints.
Both articles use highly charged language to create an emotional response from their readers. Levy uses words like revealing, exposed and intimate making the reader feel they are baring themselves for the world to see. Levy catches the reader’s attention when he asks the question, “What could be more revealing than a list of one’s search queries?” Readers might become paranoid with this question prompting them to wonder who examines their search logs. Levy causes the reader to feel exposed declaring, “The intimacy of our searches has led…other privacy experts to urge companies like Google [and others] not to retain such logs” which shows that even experts feel privacy laws have been breached and are imploring them to change their policies.
While Levy’s words leave his audience feeling unprotected from internet search hazards, Wyer rallies his audience to have feelings of patriotism through his comments; for example, he states “our online activity is of far more interest to Uncle Sam than might be considered healthy” and “Privacy is core to all we...
... middle of paper ...
...ke a decision but gives no direction on how the government should be stopped from invading their privacy.
Levy and Wyer point out through the use of language, facts and emotional appeals that internet privacy has, is and always will be prevalent. Levy’s article has a subtle, sarcastic quality to it but gives both sides of the story and thus more neutral than Wyer’s article. Wyer is clearly opinionated regarding the government invading society’s personal queries. Although both articles give facts, Wyer’s was able to give the audience more facts to compel his audience to action whereas Levy’s did not.
Word count: 9
Works Cited
Levy, Steven. "Will You Let Them Store Your Dreams?." Newsweek 148.11 (2006): 12. Academic Search Complete. Web. 25 Nov. 2013.
Wyer, Steven. “Government Paws on Our Every Tweet.” World Net Daily. WND.com 28 Oct. 2011. Web. 1 April 2014
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
There is considerable utilitarian value in extending privacy rights to the Internet. The fear that communication is being monitored by a third party inevitably leads to inefficiency, because individuals feel a need to find loopholes in the surveillance. For instance, if the public does not feel comfortable with communica...
Taylor, James Stacey. "In Praise of Big Brother: Why We Should Learn to Stop Worrying and Love Government Surveillance." Public Affairs Quarterly July 2005: 227-246.
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...
Carr, Pete. “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty, With Real Dangers.” The Wall Street Journal. 6 Aug. 2010. Web.
“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,
Garfinkel, Simson. "Internet Privacy Can Be Protected." Privacy. Roman Espejo. Detroit: Greenhaven Press, 2010. Opposing Viewpoints. Rpt. from "Privacy Requires Security, Not Abstinence: Protecting an Inalienable Right in the Age of Facebook." Technology Review 112
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”). The fight for privacy rights is by no means a recent conflict.
The Internet is a surveillance state. Whether we admit it to ourselves or not, and whether we like it or not, we're being tracked all the time. Google tracks us, both on its pages and on other pages it has access to. Facebook does the same; it even tracks non-Facebook users. Apple tracks us on our iPhones and iPads. One reporter used a tool called Collusion to track who was tracking him; 105 companies tracked his Internet use during one 36-hour period. Increasingly, what we do on the Internet is being combined with other data about us. Unmasking Broadwell's identity involved correlating her Internet activity with her hotel stays. Everything we do now involves computers, and computers produce data as a natural by-product. Everything is now
"In this Technological Age, the role of the government in regulating the internet and its content has increasingly been coming into question. The issue is often between how much the government can be involved for the safety of its citizens while still maintaining their privacy. Federal, state, and local governments should have the ability to monitor internet content for the safety and protection of its citizens, but governments should not be able to interfere and limit the spread of information.
“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.
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.
With continuing revelations of government surveillance, much has been said about the “trade-off” between privacy and security and finding the “right balance” between the two. As Michael Lynch, a professor of philosophy at the University of Connecticut, wrote in an opinion piece in the New York Times, “this way of framing the issue makes sense if [one] understand[s] privacy solely as a political or legal concept.” In this context, the loss of privacy might seem to be a small price to pay to ensure one's safety. However, the relevance of privacy extends far beyond the political and legal sphere. Privacy – or the lack thereof – affects all aspects of one's life; it is a state of human experience.
Created for communication, the internet, both the world wide web and the deep web, is the greatest way to transmit information between multiple platforms. The exponential growth of the internet only increased its use in the world, with a myriad of digital services, like the media, articles, forums, and entertainment and social platforms, especially twitter, youtube, facebook, and multiplayer gaming, using it as a vehicle for communication and spreading information, and possibly also influence. The uses of the Internet is good to know, sure, but what does it have to do with the concept of privacy? Today, the involvement of the internet with privacy gets quite convoluted, and countless issues, successes, controversies, and terrors have occurred
Jarvis authored Public Parts: How Sharing in the Digital Age Improves the Way We Work and Live and believes that individuals should be open books on the internet and that privacy is overvalued. He points out that “if we become too obsessed with privacy, we could lose opportunities to make connections in this age of links.” (Morozov 2011b) Jarvis mainly highlights that being open can foster relationships and produce further collective action. However, it is important to maintain a certain level of privacy. While being open is helpful for democracy, being too open can be harmful. Evegny Morozov summarizes this when he says “the personal information recorded by these new technologies was allowing social institutions to enforce standards of behavior, triggering ‘long-term strategies of manipulation intended to mold and adjust individual conduct.’” (Morozov 2013) Long before Morozov addressed this issue, Spiros Simitis did so. In 1985 the data protection commissioner of the German state of Hesse and eventual Hessian Merit winner said “where privacy is dismantled, both the chance for personal assessment of the political … process and the opportunity to develop and maintain a particular style of life fade.” (Morozov 2013) The more information citizens are willing to share then the more companies and the governments are able to learn about the citizens. They can use to