“Threats to freedom of speech, writing and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen (Orwell).” George Orwell was an outspoken American author, whose most famous work, 1984, showed how a world of surveillance was harmful to not only individual citizens but also society as a whole. If the government was to monitor internet content to a deep extent, such as collecting emails/communications, tracking people’s web history, or restricting what we, the citizens of the US, say, we would move one step closer to the world Orwell imagined in 1984. The United States government has no business in monitoring or restricting internet content, except
The Patriot Act allows for government investigators to share information on suspected terrorists with other branches of the government much easier than before 9/11 so that tragedy’s like this can be avoided in the future. While intense backlash has been received regarding the Patriot Act’s effects on immigration, and unlawful surveillance, the small negatives that have yet to been proven true much outweigh the good this law can do in protecting the lives of innocent Americans. With the Patriot Act countless lives have been saved without the masses without even realizing they have been saved. According to a speech given by President Bush three years after he signed the law into place, with the Patriot Act a one man terrorist plan turned into
However, “We are now in an age of information and know how important information is for our daily life. However, less known is the importance of information for nation-state building” (Yongnian, 2012). Although Internet censorship prevents and hinders freedom of expression, it is an absolute necessity in China. “China’s Internet censorship has obvious protectionist effects” (Liu, 2011). It is a tool that the Chinese government employs to regulate information flow within the country as she opens her doors to the World.
The government should present the frequency of crime rate associating with the internet dating in reality. The citizens should also be filled with knowledge that how to minimize their chance of being a victim when they meet their online friends. The citizens cautious will raise under the mass education methods and they will pay attention to the method suggested by the government. Besides, in order to make the crime has fewer chances to happen, the extend guardianship should be applied. By extend guardianship, the citizens should take routine precaution, by taking the routine precaution, the citizens will be careful when they need to meet people for the first time.
Governments like to be in command and supervise its citizens. With that, there are always some citizens that will rebel over the people in charge. People will rebel because they gain much knowledge from literature, news media, entertainment, and presently, the internet that contradicts the government. The government is intelligent because it has the power to change what the people look at to make them dense and without an opinion of what the government says. Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury shows an accurate representation of what the government does to its people.
Anonymity has been a hotly debated topic since anonymous expression has been possible. The debate on the ethical nature of anonymity has been exacerbated within the past twenty years with the rise of the internet and the impacts the internet holds. Many claim that the internet needs to be expunged of anonymity in the name of public safety, however others claim that anonymity is essential for freedom of expression. Every time a news story of harassment or cyberbullying comes to light, the freedom of anonymity online comes under scrutiny. However, the preservation of online anonymity is crucial to the liberty of individuals, allowing them to exercise proper freedom of speech without fear of those in positions of greater power.
In this case, signers of a petition for rights for same-sex couples feared that having their names and addresses on a petition would open them up to death threats and other risks. In addition to the physical danger, this would browbeat potential signers into forgoing their efforts (John Doe #1, et al., v. Reed). This need for anonymity is even more critical to the nature of the Internet. In fact, in one example brought by the ACLU, the court ruling upheld the belief that "[T]he free exchange of ideas on the Internet is driven in large part by the ability of Internet users to communicate anonymously"
I think that only the state and or local should be able to though because if somebody looks up something suspicious on the internet, the state could report the matter to the federal government just to be safe. This way, it could protect the United States from things like terrorist attacks, shootings, bombings, etc. They could also report other serious issues such as suicides or bodily harming on themselves or other people. The federal governments could also be able to notice things like viruses and hackers attempting to collect and gather information in case somebody does not have a secure software to protect from these things.
This is a typical argument used by governments and other groups to justify their spying activities. Upon cursory inspection, it seems to make sense as most people are law-abiding citizens, most ostensibly will not be targeted for surveillance and it will not impact their lives, while making their lives more comfortable and safer through the elimination of
Information privacy refers to the individuals that want to gain access and control over their personal information (Bélanger and Crossler, 2011). It considered as a critical aspect of information sharing to the third parties. It exists with concern to various stakeholders includes government regulators, privacy activists, individual consumers, and business leaders. The personal data should be used for an agreed purpose that provided and entrusted to the websites. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) coerces punishment against the company that refused to ensure the customer’s personal data protection.