The Self-Invasion Of Privacy

With the rise of the internet, some people argue that privacy no longer exists. From the 2013 revelations of government surveillance of citizens’ communications to companies that monitor their employees’ internet usage, this argument seems to be increasingly true. Yet, Harvard Law professor Charles Fried states that privacy, “is necessarily related to ends and relations of the most fundamental sort: respect, love, friendship and trust” (Fried 477). However, Fried is not arguing that in a world where privacy, in its most simple terms, is becoming scarce that these foundations of human interactions are also disappearing. Instead, Fried expands on the traditional definition of privacy while contesting that privacy, although typically viewed

As human beings and citizens of the world, everyone values their privacy. It is a right that is often looked over and taken for granted by most. Since the beginning of time, there have been concerns about individuals’ rights to privacy and their personal information remaining confidential. Our founding fathers had concerns about this which is why, “…this right has developed into

Crawford and Schultz (2014) summarized Big Data as “a generalized, imprecise term that refers to the use of large data sets in data science and predictive analytics (p. 96). The various sources of retrieving and generating information has expanded and exposed its vulnerability, especially to health data. A single breach holds risks of sharing critical information from a multitude of patients’ records. Predictive privacy harms, which are collected information that centers on individual data behaviors, have the potential to sidestep existing antidiscrimination regulations, but also lead to privacy breaches in healthcare (Crawford & Schultz, 2014). In the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Jones there were concerns expressed about invasions of privacy that could result in direct collection of large amounts of personal information through Global Position System (GPS) monitoring. This type of governmental power is vulnerable to abuse, endangerment of privacy rights of citizens, and weaken trust in the government (Crawford & Schultz, 2014). Crawford and Schultz (2014) state that John Locke and William Blackstone defined liberty, as it pertains to an individual, as an “unabridged natural right follow his or her own will”. (p.111) In a sense, if an individual believes privacy fits the bill, then it should be respected and left alone. Big Data faces many obstacles when it comes to the topic of privacy. The question of how to correctly respond to each challenge may vary, but success can come if both just and achievable protections are present for those at risk for this type of

Privacy is what allows people to feel secure in their surroundings. With privacy, one is allowed to withhold or distribute the information they want by choice, but the ability to have that choice is being violated in today’s society. Benjamin Franklin once said, “He who sacrifices freedom or liberty will eventually have neither.” And that’s the unfortunate truth that is and has occurred in recent years. Privacy, especially in such a fast paced moving world, is extremely vital yet is extremely violated, as recently discovered the NSA has been spying on U.S. citizens for quite a while now; based on the Fourth Amendment, the risk of leaked and distorted individual information, as well as vulnerability to lack of anonymity.

As a growing topic of discussion, privacy in our society has stirred quite some concern. With the increase of technology and social networking our standards for privacy have been altered and the boundary between privacy and government has been blurred. In the article, Visible Man: Ethics in a World Without Secrets, Peter Singer addresses the different aspects of privacy that are being affected through the use of technology. The role of privacy in a democratic society is a tricky endeavor, however, each individual has a right to privacy. In our society, surveillance undermines privacy and without privacy there can be no democracy.

Daniel Solove writes in his article that the “nothing to hide” argument is a terrible argument, because privacy is important to everyone and everyone has something to hide. Solove writes that if you break the argument down to its core the argument means nothing. Solove addresses the argument for the “nothing to hide” belief by stating why some agree with the argument because the argument can be protection against acts of terror, then describing how the government knowing everything on someone can cause plenty of problems as he describes. Solove takes the explanation of privacy to a place that most people ,if not all ,can relate to just to define privacy more than the general consensus. Solove gave a few

Government surveillance in the past was not a big threat due to the limitations on technology; however, in the current day, it has become an immense power for the government. Taylor, author of a book on Electronic Surveillance supports, "A generation ago, when records were tucked away on paper in manila folders, there was some assurance that such information wouldn 't be spread everywhere. Now, however, our life stories are available at the push of a button" (Taylor 111). With more and more Americans logging into social media cites and using text-messaging devices, the more providers of metadata the government has. In her journal “The Virtuous Spy: Privacy as an Ethical Limit”, Anita L. Allen, an expert on privacy law, writes, “Contemporary technologies of data collection make secret, privacy invading surveillance easy and nearly irresistible. For every technology of confidential personal communication…there are one or more counter-technologies of eavesdropping” (Allen 1). Being in the middle of the Digital Age, we have to be much more careful of the kinds of information we put in our digital devices.

In today’s society, the word “privacy” has become ubiquitous. When discussing whether government surveillance and data collection pose a threat to privacy, the most common retort against privacy advocates – by those in favor of databases, video surveillance, spyware, data mining and other modern surveillance measures – is this line: "If I’m not doing anything wrong, what would I have to hide?" The allowance of the government’s gathering and analysis of our personal information stems from an inadequate definition of what privacy is and the eternal value that privacy possesses. The adherents of the “nothing-to-hide” argument say that because the information will never be disclosed to the public, the “privacy interest is minimal, and the security interest in preventing terrorism is much more important.” 1 In an era where the patterns we leave behind will inevitably become the focus for whatever authority, the issue of privacy affects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. In this essay, I will explore the state of online privacy in wake of the government’s warrantless data collection. Respectively, the nothing-to-hide argument and its key variants in more depth.

Proponents of this surveillance might ask, “If a person hasn’t done anything wrong, then why would they fear it?” However, one has to realize that, “this familiar claim ignores the fact that privacy is valuable not just to criminals, but to all of us” (Cole 2). When someone wishes to keep intimate information to him or herself, it is important for a civil society to respect those desires, regardless of any promise of nondisclosure. Doing this creates trust, further strengthening

In a world about privacy people said the usual phrase “if the government wanting to search my info let them because I don’t got nothing bad to hide,” well that is what author Solove J. Daniel is about to write an article about. “The Nothing-to-Hide Argument” is an epideictic article showing the problems of the phrase by turning it into a pervasive issue about privacy. Not to mention government has seized the opportunity to use the phrase to gain easy access information to the citizens. For example in Britain they have install thousands of cameras and use this phrase, ““If you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve have nothing to fear”” (735). Mr. Solove is trying to point out that the phrase has not only minimized privacy issue,

We have all experienced it. The tingles down your spine while your sixth sense picks up someone’s harsh eyes scanning you. You are being watched. As the little hairs stand up on your neck and the chill of judgment floods your body, you choke on the insecurity that comes over you. Some break out in a nervous sweat and drown themselves in doubt; others do not hesitate to send beams of criticism back. Many stare with innocent intentions while others purposely hope to provoke anxiety. However, if you did not know that someone’s cruel eyes were on you, would it be just as bothersome? Since 2000, internet security has been an issue that many feel is a violation of their privacy. This controversial topic has hit almost all newspapers with

The words, “Arguing that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say” were said by Edward Snowden who is a computer professional in America. Similarly, the essays “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty,” “Web Users Get as Much as They Give,” and “Facebook Is Using You” from Nicholas Carr, Jim Harper, and Lori Andrews respectively points out that the internet privacy is good and bad. However, the articles by Carr and Andrews are based on the negative side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is not good. On the other hand, Harper’s article is based on the positive side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is good and scary, but people need to be careful of their own information and browsing histories, and websites. Jim Harper’s essay is more relevant and reasonable than the Nicholas Carr and Lori Andrews’s essays. However, Harper seems more persuasive to readers because he believes that the internet is good if people use it in a right way, whereas Carr and Andrews believe that the internet is not good at all.

As citizens of America we are all entitled to our rights of privacy. When something threatens this guaranteed privacy we tend to take extra precautions to prohibit prolonged violation. As the advancing world of technology continues to grow and expand, so do the amount of cases involving privacy invasion. Technology drives these privacy-invading crimes; however, crime also drives technology, creating a vicious cycle. Without technology an invader could not enter that of a stranger’s life. Conversely, without technology that same criminal would evade the law enforcers. So does technology protect citizens’ privacy, or does it expose one’s entire life? In regards to this question, one must

Privacy has expanded to more complex forms including people’s information displayed throughout technology (Kasper 71).

Privacy either encourages or is a necessary factor of human securities and fundamental value such as human embarrassment, independence, distinctiveness, freedom, and public affection. Being completely subject to mutual scrutiny will begin to lose self-respect, independence, distinctiveness, and freedom as a result of the sometimes strong burden to conform to public outlooks.