| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="SecondPaper" |
|---|
| | | -- By KurtLyn - 21 June 2013 | |
<
< | The Modern Age Privacy Rights | >
> | Definition of Privacy
Privacy can be broken down into three subcomponents, secrecy, anonymity, and autonomy. Every individual has different appropriations of importance for privacy as a right as well as within its individual subcomponents. The technological developments of the last century have shifted the ratio of societal importance among the three categories. Secrecy, the privacy to keep what you do and where you go hidden, and anonymity, the ability to operate anonymously, are being quickly eroded due to developments such as security cameras, ip addresses, and phone tapping, just to name a few. Yet the subcomponent autonomy, one’s ability to control information about oneself, and the focus of this paper, has been strengthened through the recent rise of social media. This autonomy right is available to all classes of people (within United States) and through this universal access, privacy rights among the different social classes have now started to equalize. And as the privacy rights between the rich and poor begin to equalize, there are rippling effects that expand more protections and freedoms to the poor. | | | | |
<
< | Privacy, generally, is the state of being free from being observed or disturbed by others. | | | | |
>
> | The Situation Prior to Social Media
It is well known, history is written by the winners, a concept fully illustrated in most court holdings and arrest reports. There is only one version put down on the record and for the most part, the person being written about has little control over what is being said. In situations like this, others, the court and the police, control the information that will henceforth represent someone else. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that minorities and lower socioeconomic classes are targeted and subjected to harsher searches and suspicion than other classes. Just from this, minorities and others have a disadvantaged level of privacy. Those who can afford it, buy into a higher level of privacy through gated communities, the prestige of higher social standing, paying off the law, affording lawyers and other various types of protections only available to those who can afford it.
Inaccuracies in facts are difficult to change and one inaccuracy leads to profiling and stigmatizing within the law and courts as well as society leading to further inaccuracies. Although, obviously not the only reason for racial and social profiling, these inaccuracies often become the reasoning for part of this profiling. The inability to correct inaccuracies is largely a facet of the lower class and affects them the most harshly. In addition, to court and public records, information disseminated by the news was largely uncontested except by other news stations. To dispute facts in the news or elsewhere, to have autonomy about accessible information on either your social class, neighborhood, race or specific individual facts, has always required money until the advent of social media. | | | | |
<
< | | | | | |
<
< | That almost sounds like being out of society altogether. Perhaps another definition, that takes account of the fact that we actually use the word to mean several different things. In my course on the subject of this essay, I define three subcomponents of privacy: secrecy, anonymity, and autonomy. You're looking for a definition of the autonomy component of privacy here, but it's tricky without getting the others first. | | | | |
<
< | | >
> | How the Democratization of Information has Equalized Privacy Rights | | | | |
>
> | This is where I believe Facebook and social media have begun and will continue to reduce the discrepancy between the privacy rights of the upper class and the other classes and as a result social bias and class distinctions. Facebook and other social media, begin to level the playing field as they cut through privacy protections given to those that can afford these protections. First, the development of social media and photo sharing sites puts everyone’s information out there, to the point that their quotes, videos and photos are essentially digitally etched into stone. The increased amount of information in addition to the increased spread of information dilutes the pool of current information in a way that only advantages those with previously lesser privacy rights. It allows for more consistent exposure to the things that we used to want kept private to the point it becomes commonplace. This is most notable in drug usage; for example, minorities and members of the lower class are overwhelmingly charged with drug related charges in a way that is out of sync with the ratio of actual drug usage of society as a whole. This discrepancy is due to the ability of those who can afford it to keep private their usage through the protections aforementioned. However, as these classes continually share and allude to drug usage through social media, society’s moral compass will acclimatize to drug usage generally and lessen prosecutions and sentencing against those. | | | | |
<
< | Yet in this technological age, it is hard to do anything without being observed or disturbed by others. Therefore, privacy should now refer the degree of control one has over the available information about oneself to others. | >
> | Second, it creates an avenue for those without the proper funding or clout to express and vocalize their ideas and views, ultimately allowing them to control information about themselves as an individual and as a group (the autonomy component). Social media has allowed a new class of people to directly contradict or attack a more “official” source by publicizing additional opinions and views. This democratization of information creation expands the autonomy component of privacy, even if surrendering anonymity and secrecy. I think the ability for people to speak out through online blog posts, facebook, twitter, all of these sources, liberates society in general from the constraints of supposedly "credible" and "official" sources of information. Ultimately, serving as the best counter to false and inaccurate information about oneself. | | | | |
<
< |
That requires separating secrecy and anonymity.
Technological developments of the last century have been primarily responsible for the rise of the societal importance of maintaining one’s privacy. These developments have come in the form of a double-edged sword, while they certainly protect us, i.e, surveillance cameras, public records, we often have no control how they expose us, i.e, controlling Google results, or public records. Public records that document prior arrests and offenses all bias the court against a defendant finding himself in a similar situation again. But at the same time, public records create a transparency so that others and society can protect themselves from those predisposed to harm. I only see “privacy” in the traditional sense being continually lessened as technology advances. Instead of attempting to resist, we as a society should embrace the exposure social media provides and then benefits for the previously less privileged, with respect to privacy rights, that comes along with it.
This paragraph is
important, but it isn't coherent. Neither within the sentences nor
between them is the order discernible. Careful outlining is
needed.
"Credible" Sources of information
I believe that any alleged transparency created by public records is often an illusion. This issue becomes more and more relevant as technology starts to increasingly make known personal information about people public. There is a false but widespread belief that information is synonymous with knowledge, the more information you have the more knowledge you have. Yet, with the increase of technological access to information, there is a complementary increased access to misinformation. Additionally, the more information there is, the more information there is to analyze and consequently more opportunities to make mistakes in that analysis. Some sources of information are rightly considered more credible than others; for example, tabloids and the news are not have a low level comparatively low level of credibility because of the known motivations and biases within different news channels. Conversely, public records and court records have the highest level of public perceived credibility because of propaganda that suggests the judge is an impartial arbitrator and that diverse juries produce fair results. Of course, there are exceptions, yet for the most part the decisions made through our agents of justice are taken at complete face value.
This paragraph too is
not coherent. It's point seems to be that records can have errors.
But it's not clear what the argument is that we are following, or
what the relevance of this point is.
Why public records are seen as Credible
The high level of credibility in public records is, in part due to necessity and, also in part due to a misplaced confidence in public officials coupled with societal prejudice against accused criminals and those of low socioeconomic status. The first part comes from the necessity for society to have trust and faith in their agents of justice. Without trust, a system of justice would not function. However, often decisions that are either uncontested or final are misinterpreted as factual or the whole truth instead of simply as a result. This process thus then lends itself far too much to the discretion of our chosen agents of justice. As well as furthers the second part of the problem of misplaced confidence and unreasonable prejudice. Our social systems certainly reinforce the notion to place full confidence in our chosen leaders as we were the ones who chose them.
It is well known, history is written by the winners, a concept that which is fully illustrated in most court holdings and arrest reports. There is only one version put down on the record and for the most part, the person being written about has little control over what is being said. In situations like this, others, the court and the police, control the information that will henceforth represent someone else. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that minorities and lower socioeconomic classes are targeted and subjected to harsher searches and suspicion than other classes. Just from this, minorities and others have a disadvantaged level of privacy. Those who can afford it, buy into a higher level of privacy through gated communities, the prestige of higher social standing, paying off the law, affording lawyers and other various types of protections only available to those who can afford it.
Yes, in some senses the rich have more privacy than the poor. In others, less. And so?
Social Media and its Beneficial Effect on Privacy Rights
This is where I believe Facebook and social media have begun and will continue to reduce the discrepancy between the privacy rights of the upper class and the other classes. Facebook and other social media, begin to level the playing field as they cut through privacy protections given to those that can afford these protections. The development of social media and photo sharing sites puts everyone’s information out there, to the point that their quotes, videos and photos are essentially digitally etched into stone. The increased amount of information in addition to the increased spread of information dilutes the pool of current information in a way that only advantages those with previously lesser privacy rights. It allows for more consistent exposure to the things that we used to want kept private to the point it becomes commonplace. This is most notable in drug usage; for example, minorities and members of the lower class are overwhelmingly charged with drug related charges in a way that is out of sync with the ratio of actual drug usage of society as a whole. This discrepancy is due to the ability of those who can afford it to keep private their usage through the protections aforementioned. However, as these classes continually share and allude to drug usage through social media, society’s moral compass will acclimatize to drug usage generally and lessen prosecutions and sentencing against those.
I don't understand the
point of this argument. I don't understand what Facebook is from
your point of view, because it doesn't seem to be the same Facebook
I know about. Why is the argument about democritization of
information sources, with which I am somewhat familiar, being
introduced into a discussion about privacy, with which it seems to
have little to do? Please put the connection more clearly.
In Conclusion
Social media as it advances will continue to counter these alleged legitimate and credible sources of information. It allows all classes of people to control to some extent the availability and content of information about them unlike before. It reduces the level of privacy of the higher more closely to the lower classes without adversely affecting them. More equal levels of privacy and exposure will hopefully remove false distinctions between the classes that lead to prejudice.
The draft seems to me
barely a start. We need a clear outline first, showing what the
points are that you draw your line through. Then the paragraphs
that implement that outline need to be clearly structured down to
the sentence level, with the purpose of each sentence in the
paragraph clearly established. More precise control of the language
will help you to make your meaning, which is now diffuse at the
paragraph level, clear. | >
> | What This Means For The Future
I believe that the continued rise of social media, and the democratization of information as a result, will lead to competition amongst to information sources to be the most “credible”, hopefully reducing inaccuracies and forcing more accurate portrayals. Secrecy and anonymity have been in the decline and will continue to be as technology develops and creates more transparency. And thus the autonomy component will become the component society uses to conceptualize privacy rights. Social media equalizes these privacy rights and as a result will hopefully reduce prejudice against those with previously less privacy rights. | | | |
|