Hello Everyone! I hope you had a wonderful weekend! With Plotz 's article I agree that he states many compelling arguments to why people should worry less about our privacy or lack there of it. But as a whole, I disagree with what Plotz’s discussed in his article, he argues that “Losing privacy has made it much cheaper to use a credit card, or buy a house”(Plotz, 69). I believe many would rather have their more privacy on financial matters than lower credit cards rates and having it be easier to purchase a home. Further, this quotes puts others opinions and motives in perspective. “The first flaw of privacy: People care a great deal about their own, but not all about anyone else’s. But I bet you want to know if your baby-sitter has ever been convicted of child abuse, if your business partner has a history of bankruptcy, if your boyfriend is still married.” (Plotz, 68). People want to make sure they’re protected by having the knowledge of others private matters. …show more content…
That situation is just our reality in this day in age. My question is would you have rather have the benefits that Plotz’s stated in his article in sacrifice of your privacy? Have a great day! ~Gabrielle
This often creates a false sense of security which prohibits further advancement in society. Vonnegut warns humans of overpopulation and to not be fooled by deception: “Emerald and Lou, coming in from the balcony, where they had been seeking that 2185 A.D. rarity--privacy--were obliged to take seats in the back row, behind Lou's father and mother, brother and sister-in-law, son and daughter-in-law, grandson and wife, granddaughter and husband, great-grandson and wife, nephew and wife, grandnephew and wife, great-grandniece and husband, great-grandnephew and wife--and, of course, Gramps, who was in front of everybody” (Vonnegut 1). When privacy is a rarity, one can infer that the earth has become overpopulated and natural resources are practically impossible to find. The new technology, anti-gerasone, has prohibited people from dying, causing the Earth to become overcrowded; in turn, limiting advancement due to a lack of space and the inability to work undisturbed. In contrast to the outside world, places that we consider to be substandard, appear superior.
Edward Snowden perfectly sums up the thought process behind the rejection of the mass surveillance: “Privacy isn’t about something to hide. Privacy is about something to protect… freedom of speech doesn’t mean much if you can’t have a quiet space… arguing that you don’t have privacy because you have nothing to hide is like arguing that you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say.” (Document 2). The point of view is from an ardent Libertarian that has contributed to Ron Paul’s campaign numerous times. Edward Snowden firmly believes in the right to self.
The patriotic Act has been highly controversial and widely citied The act provides sweeping power to government agencies. That is in monitoring the personal habits of terrorism suspects and anyone residing in the United States, or a U.S. citizen residing abroad. Individuals fear that this can be power can be abused.
There are many forms of “acceptance” but what does it actually stand for? Acceptance is fund in many different form and displayed in different ways; for instance acceptance is shown in three different ways between the stories “what do you wish of this goldfish”, “Texas V. Johnson” and “American flag stands for tolerance”. Furthermore, the story “what do you wish of this gold fish” displays acceptance as a positive thing, But it shows this through the eyes of a sad man whos name is Sergi. In the beginning it shows the happier for of acceptance;
The average man, though he longs for freedom, feels the need to be safe. People naturally wish to have the freedom to act on things, believe in things or say things, but, they want themselves and their families to be safe while doing so. Alongside the need for safety, man has a need for privacy. People tend to react negatively to others digging into their personal lives, creating a want for their own privacy in life. This subconscious need for safety and privacy has always trumped man’s desire for absolute freedom.
To any uneducated individual, that individual’s right to privacy is as important as his/her right
Nowadays, “privacy” is becoming a popular conversation topic. Many people believe that if they do not do anything wrong in the face of technology and security, then they have nothing to hide. Professor Daniel J. Solove of George Washington University Law School, an internationally known expert in privacy law, wrote the article Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’, published in The Chronicle of Higher Education in May of 2011. Solove explains what privacy is and the value of privacy, and he insists that the ‘nothing to hide’ argument is wrong in this article. In the article, “Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’”, Daniel J. Solove uses ethos, pathos, and logos effectively by using strong sources, using
The issues presented in George Orwell's 1984 surrounding basic human rights and the government's ability to spy on people is still relevant in today's society. There have been several accounts of privacy invasions surrounding governments of different countries spying on their citizens and surveillance cameras being streamed to various public websites. These issues make the definition of privacy vary, when it should be set in stone. Privacy isn’t something that should change depending on who you are. There are instances when privacy should be limited and it those cases it is for the right reasons.
[The government] will be enabled to expose a jury to the most intimate occurrences of the home .” Justice Brandeis later went on to write an article called “The Right to Privacy” in which he asserted that “the right to be let alone” was integral to the American citizen’s quality of life . The argument that Brandeis makes against technological surveillance of citizens follows a certain line of logic: “property” encompasses both physical and intangible possessions, in the same way that other protections are not physical but real all the same, such as protection from assault or nuisance6. It is unlikely that Justice Brandeis could envision a world entirely reliant on an intangible network of information such as the Internet, but his ideas can still be used today to protect Americans’ privacy in the digital
But, should our privacy be more valuable than our nation’s security? Not having a strong secure nation, puts us at risk of having a big terrorist attack happen again and killing hundreds of innocent American citizens. But, for many Americans privacy is also a big important issue and the government taking it away from them in anyway, can be insulting. Going back to the example, of being asked to go through a body-scanner machine at the airport. People, who argue against airport body-scanner machines like, Jay Stanley a privacy expert in the ACLUs Washington office, argue that this is “Giving the government the authority to scrutinize your body is a tremendous invasion of privacy…”
The “Nothing-to-Hide Argument” Analyzed: In this rhetorical analysis, I will be taking a look at Daniel J. Solove’s essay “The Nothing-to-Hide Argument,” which is about privacy in the context of personal information and government data collection (Solove 734). Solove’s main argument in his essay is that the general public has a narrow perception of what privacy really is. The purpose behind his main argument is to expose the problems with the nothing-to-hide argument while presenting a way to challenge it for his target audience, government officials. Solove’s argument to his target audience is effective through his exemplary use of substance, organization, and style in his essay.
I hated that we had not even an inch of freedom or privacy. Fourteen years ago in 2102, I had a tracker embedded into my arm the day I was born. Ever since that day, the government has somehow been able to track my every move and thought. This happens to the entire population. The only good part that comes out of it, is that we haven’t had a serious crime since 2078.
With this aspect being done in Anderson article, author Franzen in his article manages to do as well in his. In the way that Franzen uses research to support his claim of privacy and the idea of being violated in society makes his argument more credible and confident which allows the reader to analyze the issue and trust the author and what the author is stating. In his article Franzen states the idea of privacy has evolved in society as an “obsession” and that concept legally has become a
Privacy is key to helping people maintain their sense of individuality. Some people often feel like themselves and can express more of whom they are when they have privacy. I personally believe that a little privacy is good for the soul. We, as human beings, need privacy. Without having a home, you have very little privacy, if any at all, which is why a home is everything.
Technology is growing at a fast pace and every day we see a new product or service that is available. Many times it is hard to even keep up with the latest phone, computer, game console, or software. There are so many different gadgets to choose from and even the internet is on information overload. As a result, we can no longer truly expect to have privacy.