Several years ago, it was
brought to my attention by a friend of mine, who happened to be a Millennial, that
I had a "smart TV," and this “smart TV,” could listen in on
people. Because “Smart Tv’s” were so new to me, I really didn’t pay attention
to it, other than to look up the article myself and see if it was true. I
had a hard time finding the article, because it was not published in the
mainstream media, and again didn’t think too much about it. https://arstechnica.com/security/2012/12/how-an-internet-connected-samsung-tv-can-spill-your-deepest-secrets/
I never thought too much about it again, and then…,
I never thought too much about it again, and then…,
the whole Trump
spying/wire tap discussion came about, my mind came back to my TV.
Since the introduction of the internet, we have opened up the encyclopedia to the whole entire world. As technology has evolved, knowledge is easier to attain. Technology is growing at an extremely fast pace allowing knowledge to be collected in different ways. One of those is not just through the internet but your TV, and as General David Petraeus says, "We’ll spy on you through your dishwasher." https://www.wired.com/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/
Since the introduction of the internet, we have opened up the encyclopedia to the whole entire world. As technology has evolved, knowledge is easier to attain. Technology is growing at an extremely fast pace allowing knowledge to be collected in different ways. One of those is not just through the internet but your TV, and as General David Petraeus says, "We’ll spy on you through your dishwasher." https://www.wired.com/2012/03/petraeus-tv-remote/
Isn't this a little
extreme? To help me better understand and get a grip on this, I went back
to an old blog posting I did at the beginning of the class and looked over my
notes on Anita Allen and Warren/Brandeis.
After reading Anita Allen’s thoughts on privacy, she puts more emphasis on accountability. She then ties this in with our "contemporary world." Here is a quote from Anita Allen.
"Accountability for and in private life is thus no more oxymoron of confusion. Social norms of every category--religious, ethic, morel, legal and customary--foster accountability. We are accountable, and we hold others accountable. We feel accountable, and we feel owed accountability. [*1379] As citizens and scholars we debate what is and is not private and what should and should not be probate, always against the backdrop of a culture in who accountability subsists in virtually every corner of our lives. n17 Accountability for probate life means that the broad areas of individual and group life regularly labeled private are not walled off. We do not label dimensions of life private because they are immune from scrutiny and judgment by official and unofficial or public and private "agents of accountability." Flourishing accountability practises and policies examine and evaluate what goes on in the personal and intimate arenas."
In class we talked about intruding in on another person’s privacy, or is privacy a “right?”
Good question and depends on who you ask and what the perimeters are. As discussed in the paper by Allen we see that she uses many diverse areas to conclude at the end of her paper that individuals typically don't spy, while it is the government who does spy, does it for the country's protection. My favorite approach or example of this good vs. bad question of spying is the one regarding children, I think I like this example most because it is so straight forward. It is said that the brain doesn't fully develop until the age of 25. A person below this age usually doesn't think with the prefrontal cortex of the brain to make rational judgments. People over the age of 25 do better with this task. Because teens are more emotional they might, for instance, act on their emotions and meet up with a stranger they met over the internet, who could then harm them. Teens tend to make more emotional decisions. Because of this it is a good idea to "spy" on your children. Outside of that I feel that privacy is a "right." It is a right because we need our own personal space, without judgments made about us.
I feel that Allen being a more modern era person has a broader idea about spying. She uses another example that includes Hewlett Packard. HP overstepped their boundaries, to the point of potentially exposing other privately held companies. Had their information been brought to the forefront, there might have been larger consequences and the issue at hand could have gotten out of control. Could she have broader thoughts because she lives in a more modern world than Warren Brandeis?
Warren and Brandeis seem to be come to a smoother transition in their thoughts regarding
After reading Anita Allen’s thoughts on privacy, she puts more emphasis on accountability. She then ties this in with our "contemporary world." Here is a quote from Anita Allen.
"Accountability for and in private life is thus no more oxymoron of confusion. Social norms of every category--religious, ethic, morel, legal and customary--foster accountability. We are accountable, and we hold others accountable. We feel accountable, and we feel owed accountability. [*1379] As citizens and scholars we debate what is and is not private and what should and should not be probate, always against the backdrop of a culture in who accountability subsists in virtually every corner of our lives. n17 Accountability for probate life means that the broad areas of individual and group life regularly labeled private are not walled off. We do not label dimensions of life private because they are immune from scrutiny and judgment by official and unofficial or public and private "agents of accountability." Flourishing accountability practises and policies examine and evaluate what goes on in the personal and intimate arenas."
In class we talked about intruding in on another person’s privacy, or is privacy a “right?”
Good question and depends on who you ask and what the perimeters are. As discussed in the paper by Allen we see that she uses many diverse areas to conclude at the end of her paper that individuals typically don't spy, while it is the government who does spy, does it for the country's protection. My favorite approach or example of this good vs. bad question of spying is the one regarding children, I think I like this example most because it is so straight forward. It is said that the brain doesn't fully develop until the age of 25. A person below this age usually doesn't think with the prefrontal cortex of the brain to make rational judgments. People over the age of 25 do better with this task. Because teens are more emotional they might, for instance, act on their emotions and meet up with a stranger they met over the internet, who could then harm them. Teens tend to make more emotional decisions. Because of this it is a good idea to "spy" on your children. Outside of that I feel that privacy is a "right." It is a right because we need our own personal space, without judgments made about us.
I feel that Allen being a more modern era person has a broader idea about spying. She uses another example that includes Hewlett Packard. HP overstepped their boundaries, to the point of potentially exposing other privately held companies. Had their information been brought to the forefront, there might have been larger consequences and the issue at hand could have gotten out of control. Could she have broader thoughts because she lives in a more modern world than Warren Brandeis?
Warren and Brandeis seem to be come to a smoother transition in their thoughts regarding
“The Right to Privacy” and
spying, possibly because in their era, privacy was a bit more limited. They go from "The right to be let
alone," to the ever growing changes in the tech society, such as gathering
data. Yet at the same time they use a divorce case that was used
publicly to make a statement to get the man in the relationship the results
of the divorce he wanted. It backfired,
but today the same divorce case might show up in “People Magazine,” to the
benefit of both parties to make money? Or
to use for a one sided personal agenda?
Both sides need to be observed.
At one point in our class, it was my task to get a classmates address and send
them a letter to their house. Someones address is a personal piece of
information, all the way back to the "White Pages" You could choose
to be 'unlisted" on purpose to privatize your information. It can be
done again if you are not interested in having your information on the
internet. Do I believe in using information against someone in a harmful
way? No, I don't.
I politely explained my task to them in an email, and knowing I am a classmate, could they please give me their address. So I could send them their letter for class. I didn't get a response. They obviously didn't care to give it out, so I dropped it. I will reference “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you,” it's a good rule to follow.
I politely explained my task to them in an email, and knowing I am a classmate, could they please give me their address. So I could send them their letter for class. I didn't get a response. They obviously didn't care to give it out, so I dropped it. I will reference “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you,” it's a good rule to follow.
No comments:
Post a Comment