ASSIGNMENT: BIG CORPORATIONS ARE WATCHING YOU
1. Preview each article below and decide which one you want to read in full.
- Summarize the article's thesis, evidence, and reasoning. Try using the SUMMARIZING WHAT “THEY SAY” "They Say / I Say" template to write your paragraph.
- Then, Make a judgment about the article's thesis. Try to use at least one bullet point from the "THREE WAYS TO RESPOND: STRUCTURING 'I SAY'" from the "They Say / I Say" template
HOMEWORK:
1. Continue writing about the article. It is due tomorrow at 11:59pm.
2. Continue reading 1984 Chapters V-VIII. ThoughtLog on 1984 Chapters V-VIII will be graded at the beginning of Monday's class. There might be a Reading Check as well.
The general argument made by Victor Tangermann in their work, “Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going to Endanger Some Innocent People”, is that handing over your personal data to profit-driven mega-corporations can have some pretty negative consequences. More specifically, Tangermann argues that the benefits of smart doorbells seem to be limited in use and the pros don’t outweigh the cons. He writes, “It’s one thing if you choose to allow -government surveillance- Amazon Echoes to listen in on conversations in every room of your house. Making (what are very likely to be) ill-informed calls to the police on who has what kind of intentions on your street is something entirely different.” In this passage, Tangermann is suggesting that we as a society have gotten use to sacrificing a lot of our personal data and lives to both the government and companies, but allowing them to police and watch us in such an intimate level is just bad up in so many ways. This isn’t ok. In conclusion, Tangermann’s belief is that if we continue to allow mega-corporations to meddle with your personal data and lives and allow the growth of devices like smart doorbells and slap-shod digital neighborhood watch, a dark future is coming.
ReplyDeleteI agree that handing over our personal data to profit-driven mega-corporations can have some pretty negative consequences and that the benefits of smart doorbells seem to be limited in use and the pros don’t outweigh the cons. I also agree that this point that needs emphasizing since so many people believe that this is ok and harmless. However I would be lying if I said my feelings were on the issue weren’t mixed. I do support Tangermann's position (as said before), but I still think security cameras around and one’s home are a bit of a necessity and filling out surveys about yourself for corporations might not be the worst, as long as it’s consenting. What I don’t like is when corporations take this information from you by gathering your personal data from your devices without your permission. Sure they make you sign a terms and service, but I still think it’s not fair and that doesn’t count as permission. When I say consenting, I mean in the form of a survey at the person's own leisure, not just having them swallowing up into data and then auctioning off to different companies. That should be legal that is an invasion of privacy and I stand by that firmly. In conclusion, I think we need to find a balance or society is screwed.
The general argument made by Victor Tangermann in their work, Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going to Endanger Some Innocent People, is that these new apps that basically make it easier for these white people to snitch on their neighborhood homeless population or "sketchy" people, is a bad idea and will not end well. More specifically he argues that the app makes it easier for companies to track you and getting police involved makes it so that the government and police can track you. They write, "We’ve seen it time and time again: handing over your personal data to profit-driven mega-corporations can have some pretty negative consequences. Doing so can result in companies tracking where you are at all times, live-streaming your children’s most private moments, and even altering the course of presidential elections." In this passage he is suggesting that these apps that seemingly make our lives easier and safer, are actually the biggest danger of all. In conclusion, Tangermanns belief is that our privacy and personal safety from big companies trying to take over the world, is more important than suburban moms pathetic racist agenda against. I think he is mistaken because he believes in the deeper problem but overlooks the surface level problems of just blantant racism and police brutality.
ReplyDeleteThe general argument made by Bruce Schneier in his work, We’re Banning Facial Recognition. We’re Missing the Point, is that banning facial recognition is not the only way to control surveillance and stop how we are treated differently. More specifically, Schneier argues that there are multiple means of government and corporate surveillance and we should have a say in how our data is collected and shared, and also when it is acceptable to be identified by surveillance systems. He writes, “Regulating this system means addressing all three steps of the process. A ban on facial recognition won’t make any difference if, in response, surveillance systems switch to identifying people by smartphone MAC addresses.” In this passage, Schneier is suggesting that in order to truly make a difference in how we are identified, surveilled, and discriminated against, we have to focus on more than just facial recognition because it’s not the only problem. Facial recognition could be banned and another form of identification would just be made in its place, defeating the whole purpose. In conclusion, his belief is that we, as the people being surveilled without our knowledge, should have a say in how much we are surveilled, or if we should be surveilled at all. Also, he believes that laws should be made that block corporations from discriminating based on the data that they collect and profiles they make of us.
ReplyDeleteI'm of two minds about Schneier’s claim that . On the one hand, I agree that it is wrong for our data to be collected without our knowledge by corporations and sold without our consent. I also agree that corporations should not be aloud to discriminate against people based on the data that they collect and correlate. On the other hand, I can see how surveillance can sometimes provide security and prevent bad events from happening. For example, preventing mass shootings or acts of terrorism by monitoring a person’s online activity and posts on social media. However, I am still unsure about the true efficiency of mass surveillance and whether or not it truly is to help keep us safe.
The general argument made by Victor Tangermann in his work, “Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going to Endanger Some Innocent People, is that “handing over your personal data to profit-driven mega-corporations can have some pretty negative consequences. Doing so can result in companies tracking where you are at all times, live-streaming your children’s most private moments, and even altering the course of presidential elections”. More specifically, Victor argues that this can bring more dangers to the neighborhood and innocent people. They write, “This isn’t just paranoia — these scary effects are already happening. As BuzzFeed reported, the Nextdoor app has become a cesspool of racial profiling,” and “Splinter describes users warning the neighborhood of “sketchy” young African-American guys in hoodies and black beanies.”In this passage, Victor is suggesting that “those pros don’t outweigh the cons. In a world in which minorities experience violence at what seems like the slightest excuse, the proliferation of smart doorbells and slap-shod digital neighborhood watch portends a dark future”. In conclusion, Victor’s belief is that we should not give up our privacy to big companies, that we shouldn’t put others in danger. I agree that we shouldn’t give big companies our personal information and put other people in danger. My experience in the world being an African American, racism and prejudice is still very prominent so with allowing people to have the ability to abuse this confirms how detrimental this can be in people's lives.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe general argument made by Victor Tangmann in their work, __they explain the positives and negatives of doorbell camera technology________, is that __it can cause innocent people to be arrested, child abductions can occur, and your privacy will belong to those who want it _______. More specifically, Victor argues that it is an awful tool that can videotape your kids and post it to the worldwide web for neighbors and any individual that logs on to the website and can livestream your privacy _____________. They write, “ __companies tracking where you are at all times, live-streaming your children’s most private moments_____________.” In this passage, Victor Tangmann is suggesting that ______With the usage of these doorbell’s your privacy will be public and no longer be yours and your neighbors. Also causing innocent people like friends or family being arrested because it will alert the authorities____. In conclusion, Victor Tangmann belief is that __These doorbell camera’s can be great for keeping track of your property but it can also be against you. It can cause some harm to innocent people and be the end to all privacy_________.
ReplyDeleteI agree that ____it is a good tool to have to keep track of your property and make sure your packages arrive_______ because my experience ___people will go on to your property and take your package for themselves_________ confirms it.
Victor Tangmann is surely right about _____people being accused of taking packages or mail from property’ and is also mainly right that it will livestream your and kids privacy to all that have the connections to the doorbell’s _____ because, as he may not be aware, recent studies have shown that that a lot of cops have been called to investigate the alerts going off because of the neighborhood camera’s having access to anyone’s house____________.
Victors theory of ___________all these incidents occurring and to limit access is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of ___people other then the owners of the property being able to view and even share private moments.
I agree that ___camera are great to have around to check and make sure your home is safe and anyone there is safe as well______ , a point that needs emphasizing since so many people believe _____that it’s extremely dangerous and could also cause fake crime alerts as well. Dangerous because even though you are seeing these videos someone is watching them and could be watching everything you and your family do. Fake alerts can occur causing many people to be accused of a crime they didn’t commit.
Those unfamiliar with this school of thought may be interested to know that it basically boils down to _____is it something you really want to have around________ .
The general argument made by Victor Tangermann in their work, “smart doorbells”, is that when you give someone all of your personal information you will put yourself in a situation that will be hard for you to take yourself out of. More specifically, Victor argues that involving yourself into this negative topic will get yourself into way more trouble.. They write, “ It’s pretty much guaranteed to get some innocent people arrested, or worse.”
ReplyDelete.” In this passage, victor is suggesting that this is not a good idea. In conclusion, victors belief is that we shouldnt stick to this idea because this is putting everyone in danger, giving your information to people is not good we all should keep our safety private. yes either way our government is going to have control over everything that we do anyway but in that sense we deserve to have our bodies and state of mind kept in a place where no one else can invade. This is not something that someone would want to go through in life kmowing that someone is always watching us and knowing everything that we do. Escalating normal neighborhood goings-on in to involve law enforcement becomes a whole lot more dangerous when everyone is sitting around with their finger on the panic button this is very scary for a lot of people. The benefits of smart doorbells seem to be limited to an alleged decrease in burglaries — that is, if the Los Angeles local news is to be believed, although this is true you should always know what type of situation your getting yourself into whether its meeting new people, moving to a new state, moving to a new house, etc. as a union we should all keep each other safe.
The general argument made by Bruce Schneier in their work, “We’re Banning Facial Recognition. We’re Missing the Point” is that by getting rid of the facial recognition feature in modern technology, we are not making an effective move towards fixing the issue of mass modern surveillance. More specifically, Schneier argues that in order to take real action in this situation and actually achieve justice, we have to keep in mind all aspects that contribute and take them into account. There is much more to consider than just the facial recognition feature that is now implemented in our phones. They write, “Regulating this system means addressing all three steps (identification, correlation, and discrimination) of the process.” Schneier continues to further explain this thesis and points out an example of mass surveillance that is being overlooked: “There is an entire industry of data brokers who make a living analyzing and augmenting data about who we are — using surveillance data collected by all sorts of companies and then sold without our knowledge or consent.” This suggests that we, as everyday people in society, do not always have full access to see and understand the breadth of this matter. There are a ton of more ways that we are being tracked down by our smartphones and analyzed without our consent. In conclusion, Bruce Schneier’s belief is that in order to resolve this world-wide conundrum, we must keep in mind that there are bigger and much more harmful ways that our devices use our personal information against us than just having our faces. The fact of the matter is, to remove this little piece away would not stop any of said harm from happening.
ReplyDeleteWhile Schneier highlights important points about what might be ineffective and what most likely isn’t, I cannot accept his overall idea that taking this step would not do anything to help solve this issue. With anything this big, any first step is a huge step to take because it brings recognition and light to whatever it is that is being debated. If facial recognition continued to get banned, more and more people would begin to further realize the dangers of the surveillance that is deeply embedded into our lives by now. Yes, if we fully ban this feature, we have not fixed this massive issue at once, but we have begun to think about it and discuss it. This opens up more and more conversations that will hopefully lead us to the day where we are not constantly being watched and tracked by the things we use every single day for every single task.
The general argument made by Victor Tangerman in their work, Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going to Endanger Some Innocent People, is that the doorbell is designed to profile and call the police for suspicious activity,though instead it racially targets innocent people. More specifically, Tangerman argues that the dependence of intelligent smart devices will endanger yourself and others who may live around you. And even some devices like the Amazon Echo, are able to listen in to conversations, or possibly arguments that may contain keywords that will cause the Echo to call the police. They write, “It’s one thing if you choose to allow government surveillance Amazon Echoes to listen in on conversations in every room of your house. Making (what are very likely to be) ill-informed calls to the police on who has what kind of intentions on your street is something entirely different.” In this passage, Tangerman is suggesting that through adding in “government surveillance” they want to throw in that there is an oblivious government influence with possibly storing this information and sending it out to 911 dispatchers. I agree that it’s absolutely unjust to target people by their skin and attire, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people believe this problem doesn’t exist since they either haven’t been affected by this, or are just uninformed.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, Tangermann’s belief is that using intelligent technology without understanding these consequences, will endanger the life of someone who’s done nearly nothing wrong.
-Sasha V.
The general argument made by Schneier in their work. "We're Banning Facial Recognition. We're Missing the Point" is that banning facial recognition is an inefficient way to fixing the issue of modern surveillance. More specifically, Schneier argues that in order to keep corporations from watching us, we must do two things: pass laws that prohibit companies from buying and selling our data and pass stricter laws that prevent companies from discriminating based on certain information. They write, “ Similarly, we need rules about how our data can be combined... current technologies of surveillance and control.” In this passage, Schneier is suggesting that creating this type of legislation is a better solution to the issue of companies using our information as items. In conclusion, Schneier's belief is that solving modern surveillance is a multi-faceted approach and we must take some extra steps.
ReplyDeleteI think Schneier is mistaken because he overlooks that "modern surveillance" isn't necessarily a problem. Companies buying and selling our data can be useful for us because it can help us find products that we want easier. Realistically, these companies only use our data to show us advertisements that are relevant to us. The problem that might come along with this is discrimination based on our data. A point I agree with Schneier on is that we need legislation to fix this particular issue.
The general argument made by Tangermann in their work, Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going to Endanger Some Innocent People, is that smart doorbells are a good idea at first, but they are becoming slightly more dangerous. More specifically, Tangermann argues that smart doorbells that call the police with the touch of a button are starting problems for the already targeted minorities. He writes, “This isn’t just paranoia — these scary effects are already happening. As BuzzFeed reported, the Nextdoor app has become a cesspool of racial profiling.” In this passage, Tangermann is suggesting that we already live in a world “in which minorities experience violence at what seems like the slightest excuse” and with these doorbells, it makes it much easier for racist to falsely accuse a minority and alert the police with no true evidence. In conclusion, his belief is that even those these doorbells were created for our safety if they keep rising in numbers it will continuingly put innocent bystanders’ lives at danger. I'm of two minds about Tangermann’s claim that we need to get rid of smart doorbells for a better and safer future. On the one hand, I agree that these smart doorbells will cause even more trouble for minorities, who already have it bad, due to even more racial profiling. On the other hand, I'm not sure if getting rid of them is the best option because they were made to help people, who work long shifts or go on vacation, to keep an eye on their house. I feel like one way we can fix these doorbells is if they cannot alert the police and create a Neighborhood Watch group. There is no need I should be able to “finally call that nice man down the street by his first name,” but it does have its benefits like making sure your package arrives safely or to check the door when you are not expecting anyone so you don’t have to put your life in danger. In the end, no matter what you do you cannot change the minds of the people who will call the police of innocent people just because of the color of their skin.
ReplyDeleteThe general argument made by Victor Tangerman in their work, Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going to Endanger Some Innocent People, is that the camera doorbell originally designed to look out for you packages is getting sophisticated to the point it might be dangerous. More specifically, Victor Tangerman argues that the smart door bells are unsafe and people should know that its not as safe as they think. They write, “ It’s one thing if you choose to allow government surveillance Amazon Echoes to listen in on conversations in every room of your house. Making (what are very likely to be) ill-informed calls to the police on who has what kind of intentions on your street is something entirely different.” In this passage, Victor Tangerman is suggesting that even though the government has already put spy cameras in our birds, these devices are another way you can give access to your life to the government. To add on to this the smart doorbell can also call police by itself with a harm innocent people even if you didn't mean it. In conclusion, Victor Tangerman’s belief is that we should overall be aware of the sophistication of out technology and risk to understand the consequences of maybe oneway framing and innocent person.
ReplyDeleteI'm of two minds about Victor Tangerman's claim that Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going to Endanger Some Innocent People. On the one hand, I agree that these smart doorbells are dangerous and will hurt many innocent people, while also maybe letting the government spy on you. On the other hand, I'm not sure if the smart doorbells are such a bad thing. These doorbells can help see who is at or around your door when you are away, so even if your kid is like the kid at home alone, your kid will be 100x safer because you would be able to keep an eye out on the house from Paris. Iy could be improved that the police could judge to if this was an important call or if they person that it was called on did actually do something wrong so that no one would really get hurt.