The word "privacy" is perceived differently by different individuals. However, the basic meaning of privacy is "the state of being free from intrusion." Generally, most people enjoy their privacy, but with technology, it is becoming harder and harder to see where the line between private and public is drawn. Despite the age of this article, it's still relevant today. Privacy only matters to people once it's been taken away. This is especially true when it comes to the technological world. With the world at our fingertips (literally, when it comes to "smart phones") it just takes one push of a button to make private information public. With each click of a mouse on a computer, movements can be traced and tracked, offering people little to no privacy. However, when the majority of the world is moving in one direction (away from privacy), some companies are trying to offer what little form of privacy they can. Twitter recently gave users another privacy option which will allow users to keep their information from being given to third-party websites. Even certain companies are noticing the backlash that a lack of privacy can bring.
This brings me back to the starting question "What is privacy?", and to be exact, no one really knows what privacy is. It could be something of the past, but it could also be something that people will fight to bring back. With technology at our disposal, the latter could be hard to achieve. There are people within our society who are incapable of operating without relying on some form of technology. Privacy could then, be a figment of our imaginations. Yet, what we strive to keep as private, or secret, we may. There are only so many precautions one may take before their private information is broadcasted over the world. So, I guess the real question is, why do we freely let people look at our personal information by posting it on websites for the world to view, if we later want our privacy back?
I agree with Carolyn that if we want our privacy protected, then why do we let people have access our information so easily. This article by the New York Times suggests that many people need to rethink their privacy online (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/technology/internet/28unbox.html). I think that the privacy options on sites like twitter, offers people some comfort when signing up for social networking sites such as twitter and Facebook. There are many ways, however to protect your identity online, as mentioned in this article: https://www.eff.org/wp/effs-top-12-ways-protect-your-online-privacy. So, overall I agree with Carolyn that why do we allow ourselves to publish personal information for the world to see, and then demand later on to get our privacy back? I think many people when signing in to social-networking sites do not realize how much of their identity they are allowing the public to see. Many websites such as Stay Smart Online (http://www.staysmartonline.gov.au/news/news_articles/regular/protect_yourself_online)offer insight on how to protect your privacy from the world. Many people in the world, such as in "Little Brother" do not take privacy as seriously as they should, especially in a free country such as the United States. However, how much freedom is too much, and in the case of "Little Brother" I think privacy has been redefined by many of the characters such as Marcus' dad, and Van. When the bombing occurred it caused the people of San Francisco to rethink their meaning privacy, in order to keep the country safe. So, while I agree with Carolyn, I also think that privacy can be defined as a dangerous part in today's society and the biggest question being "how much, is too much?"
ReplyDeleteI agree with the general definition of privacy that Carolyn and Julia mentioned. Basically, it's a matter of what someone feels to be their own personal matters that they don't want to share with the rest of the world. With the recent explosion of technology, many people don't even realize that privacy is becoming more and more scarce. Through a simple Google search, one can look up anyone they want to and can often find information about their age, place of birth, where they live, what job they have, and who their family is. This seems frightening to me, though the population as a whole has apparently decided to ignore this downside to technological improvement. Like Julia mentioned, in the novel Little Brother, people only become concerned about their privacy rights after some of them are taken away. Marcus' dad feels like it is the job of the government to protect their people and intrude on privacy, only to become enraged when he himself is stopped for questioning more than once on his way home. The lengths Marcus has to go to to ensure his own privacy on the Internet also suggest how 'dangerous' it may be for everyone that uses a computer. He has to basically create his own laptops, create usernames and servers and encryption keys, and still isn't completely safe from the government's prying.
ReplyDeleteAs was determined in the landmark Griswold v. Connecticut case, the Constitution protects an inherent right to privacy for all of its citizens. The University of Missouri-Kansas City provides a philosophical argument for whether or not the Constitution does protect privacy (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/rightofprivacy.html). These 'zones of privacy' are said to include protection from unreasonable searches and seizures of one's house or papers, such as medical records (http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/zone-of-privacy.html) but many of these rights are seemingly violated everyday, especially in Little Brother and through some provisions of the Patriot Act, signed into law in 2001.
On the contrary, I believe that with our technological advances and ongoing bout with terrorism come increasing awareness of individual right to privacy. Though I agree that people are more reactionary once their personal liberties are taken away or threatened (Marcus' sensationalized means of gaurding his digital information from DHS), most democratic citizens have an innate and constant sense of personal boundaries. With the emergence of social-networking sites, teens are instilled with the savviness and common sense to regulate the output of their personal information. Because of so much pressure from global customers, Facebook has settled a privacy agreement with the Federal Trade Commission. Therefore, the public is capable of controling their personal information and lobbying the government to expand "zones of privacy". (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/facebook-privacy-concerns-majority-facebook-users-don-t-154550920.html)
ReplyDeleteAlso, heightened sensitivity over privacy intrustions (as well as national security) was triggered by 9/11 terrorist attacks, Bush's creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Congress' passage of the USA Patriot Act, and increased airport security. Although the public may be slow to catch on, media (facebook, online journals, broadcasts) has elucidated many of these privacy conflicts to thousands of viewers. For example, public outrage of TSA "naked" body scanners and pat-downs have resulted in far less intrusive screening procedures: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9WSd8NtCfI
Finally, I support the question Julia M. asked about the balance of privacy. Too much privacy could allow suspected criminals to carry out potentially heinous crimes (http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/scotus-no-gps-tracking-without-warrant/6hsagr8?cpkey=d03f5589-7ab7-4c37-87cc-a1bec58fdba6%7c%7c%7c%7c). However, too little privacy could lead to situations like Marcus': the "cruel and unusual" punishment of innocent citizens.