Monday, March 17, 2014

Lanier #1

Below please find a link to article on privacy. Would Lanier agree with the author's perspective? Do they have the same explanation for the crisis in privacy? Do you agree with either or both?

Your response is due before midnight, Sunday, March 23.

Also of interest:


Unknown said...

There is no question that our personal information is no longer private in this data-saturated economy. Both authors argue that the economy is taking away our online freedom. All companies have access to our information and are changing the entire economic landscape by promoting their products to us after hacking into all our interests, ideas, and choices that we make online. In Who Owns the Future?, Lanier emphasizes this privacy crisis. He says, “Eventually, they imagine, there will be no more secrets, no more barriers to access; all the world will be opened up as if the planet were transformed into a crystal ball.” Similarly, Julia Angwin denounces the way in which the government handles our information in Has Privacy Become a Luxury Good? Seemingly paranoid, Angwin spends countless time and money trying to find ways to block access to her online privacy. But, who knows if these programs and softwares are actually valid? There is no way of knowing. The government wouldn't allow any type of device with these features hit the market and will instead, find ways to work around it.
Lanier would agree with Angwin's perspective since both authors are advocating towards the same issue and are both spreading awareness to the public. Both authors assimilate this issue as a hacker culture and how our data is accumulated and taken advantage of in cyberspace. I ultimately agree with the theories presented in both texts. I feel that it is important to shed light onto this ongoing phenomenon that is controlling us on long terms. We should be more alert and guarded in regards to the information that we post. Our democratic country states that we can speak freely but are we afraid that our independent thoughts can come back to haunt us?

Unknown said...

This is going to be my shortest post of the semester, because there's not much to say here: Both Lanier and Angwin are singing from the same hymn sheet, Angwin may sound paranoid but her sentiment is valid due to the sheer number of ways companies can access your personal info via devices/internet. Lanier's "crystal ball" reference is true and is in the process of happening e.g Google search.

An interesting issue brought up by Angwin that I feel needs to be discussed in class, is the commercializing of privacy protection. Are these "safeguards" really worth their price? Especially The Blackphone's $629 price tag. How much of our privacy will these new devices protect?

Unknown said...

As a consumer in today’s society, I should be reading this article and be shocked afterwards. The truth is, I’m not. And I think that is an issue: that I am reading this article and immediately afterwards I go onto Google to search something, knowing what I know. Our culture is so used to hearing that we are not “protected” and we need to protect ourselves against these hackers and the government that we, as a whole, are tired of hearing it. Ultimately, I think it means nothing to us anymore. The more you hear something, the less important it sounds and this has been going on for too long and we are too comfortable in it. This is a major issue. I think it is interesting how Angwin compares data to the food industry a couple of times and it actually makes sense. She is nearly making the point that data is just as important as our food is in today’s society, which is a little sickening. We, as a human race, need food to survive and she is arguing that we need data just as much and that the government should pay just as much attention to our protection of data to our protection of our food.
I believe that Lanier would agree with what she is saying, because they are on the same side of this argument. They both advocate to the public and try to get the word out. Lanier discusses a lot about hackers and the way that they operate, which is essentially what Angwin is talking about…why you are vulnerable to such hackers. Lanier’s “crystal ball” reference is essentially what Angwin was saying when she was referring to the Google search.

Unknown said...

After reading the article Has Privacy Become a Luxury Good?, there is no doubt that Lanier would agree with Angwin's argument concerning privacy and our lack of it. In our technology filled world, having the internet, social media and huge varieties of apps available free, 24/7 means that privacy must come at an overwhelming price. Living in the 21st century there is no individual privacy; every person we call, everything we google or purchase online is all being watched by some greater system. What started out as what people thought was ironic/convenient advertising has been named as data mining and is further used to take advantage of users private information. Programs claim to protect our privacy but ironically most of these software applications need to be purchased online, again furthering data mining within technology systems. Agreeing with both authors we should be afforded privacy within our rights but since that is not the case, our government should be crafting and carrying out laws to better protect our privacy.

Unknown said...

As a mediocre coder I agree with Julia Angwin in her accusation that privacy protection has now become a “luxury”. Lanier, as a web-guru also makes valuable points about the unethical acquisition of personal information for commercial gain. Lanier states that it is because of the way in which computer networks have been developed that we now face these privacy issues today. Lanier writes in his book about the countless billions spent to employ top experts and invest in the creation of new software and hardware to utilize the Internet (and its users) in an attempt to redefine the economy. Angwin states that she had spent over $2.2k attempting to regain her privacy as well as protect herself from future intrusions. As an investigative reporter specializing in Internet privacy, she offers many cost-free options on her website that can improve personal security. However as detailed by Lanier in his book, these intrusive system networks are always evolving, making it all the more difficult to maintain personal security. Angwin mentions the emergence of a personal privacy concerned population in light of Snowden’s testimony regarding the practices of the NSA. With new up and coming search engines like and the android based “black phone” to be released soon, it is becoming apparent that consumers and internet users are becoming more aware of the legal yet unethical practices of data mining. However the way in which these invasive systems continuously evolve (as Lanier details) it is apparent that these are only temporary fixes and will eventually be defeated by the ever-growing forces behind data mining.
Lanier would agree with Angwin that privacy is being diminished by the advancement of data-mining technology. He would also agree it is because of the lack of knowledge about this issue that billions of people have suffered invasions of privacy. Lanier would also say because of his contributions to the computing industry that he too is in some way responsible for the issue at hand. Although there is no direct solution presented by either author in their texts regarding this issue, Lanier claims to protect ourselves the data mined from users should come at a cost to miners. Lanier says if we own our privacy, and it is take away from us, we should be compensated. By making the practice profitable to the end user, data-mining companies would spy less on civilians. This solution requires a massive reformatting of all network systems and essentially an evolution of the web. Angwin however looks for more practical solutions and has attempted to fight the system more aggressively. I personally agree with the general tone of both authors. I do believe that Lanier because of his history in the industry is more equipped to protect his own privacy then the average user. However his fear for the uninformed user is made quite clear in his book. I also agree in Angwin’s tenacity to fight the existing systems with privacy products, in an attempt to overcome what Lanier only describes as a futile effort without the reformatting of the World Wide Web. I believe Lanier is right in his solution to enforce new standards and practices regarding data-mining in the future, yet I also agree with Angwin that to stay protected and secure today that most options on the market are only available to users with a disposable income. It is apparent that something must be done in the interim until some form of reform takes place. However Lanier’s idea to put a price on personal data mined is one of the best solutions I have heard to reform the issue at hand.

KellySeiz said...

Lanier and Angwin, as Ticha so poetically summed up, are definitely "singing from the same hymn sheet" (such a good quote that I had to repeat it).

Their explanations for the "crisis in privacy" are similar but not totally identical...they both agree that the exchange of our privacy for these supposedly free services should be remedied, but they propose two different solutions: Angwin wants to buy her way out and Lanier wants to restructure the internet entirely.

Instead of altering the system, Angwin's actually contributing to it by buying the anonymity-ensuring devices. How much do you want to bet that Siren Servers will gulp up the info of her online purchase and start trying to sell her similar products? How can she ensure that she's deleted her entire digital footprint? In the NPR clip, she discusses her book on trying to delete her entire footprint and how she fails. Her explanation:
"Well, I mean, after spending a year doing this, I felt, this is not something any normal person would do...or SHOULD do."

Well, obviously... all "normal" people sacrifice their privacy without even realizing it.

Lanier's solution - based on Ted Nelson's Xanadu - in which value is given to every single piece of information and micro-payments are made to expand on/repost them - is a feasible one.

I understand that Angwin's book is more about the impossibility of resolving the privacy crisis, or from what little I've heard anyway. Lanier is the only one looking for an ultimate solution while exploring the economic affects of the Siren Server, granted while acknowledging the difficulty of restructuring the entire Web.

Unknown said...

While reading the article, I noticed that several of the instances the author discussed where our privacy has been jeopardized by technology and fallen into the hands of marketers, were also addressed by Lanier, so I think that he would agree with Angwin’s perspective. However, Although both authors discuss the risk associated with our privacy due to data-mining, I think Lanier dives into it a little deeper, by arguing that it is more than just our privacy that’s in danger. For instance, the article states that privacy has become a luxury, because all of our data and information is the price we pay for “free” internet services, and “if you aren’t paying for the product, you are the product” parallels Lanier’s explanation for the loss of our privacy. In the first chapter, he states that “‘free’ inevitably means that someone else will be deciding how you live”, and essentially makes the same argument about how the more dominant information becomes in our economy, the less most of us will be worth. Furthermore, the article states how our data has also been used to charge people different prices based on their personal information. Lanier discusses the same instance, “differential pricing,” in Chapter 6, in which he gives the example of how Orbitz directed users of more expensive computers to more expensive travel options. However, while the author of the article believes that as we learn more about how our data is “being harnessed — and how it may be exploited in the future” - we are more likely we are to re-evaluate the true cost of these “free” services, and perhaps even try to “buy our way out”. According to Lanier, despite the supposed openness of everything in the Internet age, we’ll never really know how extensive the practices of Siren Servers really are, and perhaps we’re not as likely to “re-evaluate” and “buy ourselves out.” I feel like Lanier doesn’t believe we’ll have the same reaction Angwin hopes for because of his statement in chapter one that said “We want free online experiences so badly that we are happy not to be paid for information that comes from us now or ever..implying that the more dominant information becomes in our economy, the less most of us will be worth.”

Julia Tyles said...

I believe that Lanier would agree with Angwin. Angwin sates how “We get all those services free – and we pay with our personal data…” and Lanier says something similar, “…but because it will be free, provided we accept surveillance.” Since the technology were using is free we have to pay with all our personal information, which is the crisis that there is no more privacy. I agree that privacy has become a luxury good. There are no constraints on privacy and if we want to protect ourselves we have to spend a lot of money to do so. And even when we do spend all that money, it might not even work to its full potential of protecting us. I agree with Lanier that eventually there probably aren’t going to be anymore secrets and everything will be out in the open.

Unknown said...

Both of the authors pretty much aim at the same point here. Angwin talks about our personal information being used to alter search results, identify possible criminals, and charge people different prices. Lanier talks about how everything is out in the open in terms of privacy, and secrets are no longer a thing. Angwin brings up the idea of using different softwares to block people getting to our personal information, however it seems that people always find a way to hack our information whenever they choose. Both Lanier and Angwin promote the concept of public awareness of the issue to try to put an end to it.

It is crazy to think how much of our information is being accessed without us knowing when we do even simple things like Googling something. However, we still continue to do it. Technology is just so prevalent in everyday life that the idea of people accessing our information is not enough for us to stop. Our privacy comes at such a high price in today's society with technology being in every aspect of life. As Lanier said, privacy is now more of a luxury. Everything is out in the open, and most of us are not doing much to stop the issue.

Gianna said...

The saddest thing is that Angwin perfectly describes the way our society views privacy. Everyone reading this article should be shocked, disgusted, and not just accept that this is the way things are now, but that is what most of us do and I’m positive most of the people in our class would agree. We accept this lack of privacy as ok. Lanier would agree with Angwin because although it may sound like she is being a bit extreme there are so many ways that companies can access our information that we have no clue about. Angwin’s reference to the Google scanning and our Gmail is what Lanier is talking about when he discusses the crystal ball. I agree with Angwin completely especially in regards to the privacy protections services that are available. Angwin spent over $2,200 on these programs and didn’t know whether or not they were working so she paid thousands of dollars to maybe have “privacy.” I just believe there is no way for us to be 100% positive that we are being protected by these services from all the companies that are mining for our information. When she compares the food industries standards and requirements and that that may soon occur with data. I don’t really see any other option for us to do with our data in the future.

Unknown said...

I believe Lanier would agree with the article because it is backing what he talks about in the book on the privacy front. In the book, on page 109, Lanier even used The New York Times website as an example. He stated that a visit to The New York Times webpage “invokes a competitive swarm of more than a dozen tracking services, each of which is attempting to become a dominant compiler of spy data about you.” So in clicking the link to even read the article, my privacy has been invaded. My visit to The New York Times is now a factor in which ads I will receive and what google searches will come up, and this is how it is for every site we visit. Lanier discusses how there is spy data all over the internet that is used for politics, economics, and advertisements. In Who Own’s the Future, it is pointed out that the purpose of the information economy is to spy on you and protecting yourself would “can seem like an assault on the very idea of the Internet,” but the roles can be reversed and it can be said that the information economy is an assault on our privacy.

I completely agree that we need to protect our privacy. Our information is being harvested every time we log onto a computer which we can clearly see, if we simply pay attention. For example, I often look up flights to Limerick, Ireland, and now the majority of my Facebook advertisements involve discounted flights to Limerick or hotels in Limerick. After I tweeted about flying to Limerick I started getting random Irish travel companies promoted on my timeline. And although those discounts may benefit me when planning my trip, it is still a tad bit creepy that my Google searches now dictate my social media advertisements. Our information is simply given away. Lanier also discusses how people adapt to these information systems, whether they realize it or not. When I click on a promoted ad on Facebook I am succumbing to the mining of my own information. I am feeding the beast. When I decided to go on the clothing website Tobi, it was not because I had heard about it from friends but because it had popped up so many times I figured “why the hell not?” And yes we may benefit from tailored ads that give us discounts but at what cost? Is saving a few dollars here and there really worth our privacy?

Unknown said...

I think Lanier would agree with Angwin, and they have similar perspectives. They both agree that we are giving up privacy for the convenience technology provides us. Companies no longer respect barriers between them and the consumer, they are constantly selling or finding information so they can sell things to us. I liked Agwin's comparison to organic food, enough people got sick of all the chemicals being used in food so they pressured stores to supply organic. If enough people make privacy a larger issue companies will have to do something. As Lanier puts it the problem is we forget “free” means someone will be able to control how we live. It is hard to get lost in the great things technology can provide and forget about what the ads on the side of webpages really mean.

Unknown said...

Both Angwin and Lanier both speak of similar types of economic systems. "Data-saturated" or "information-based" economies are essentially the same things. In Lanier's book, he mentions that private information has become akin to fine art. The distinct and limited pieces of certain artist's work becomes currency for the wealthy. "It becomes a private form of money, as instantly recognizable as a hundred-dollar bill." Angwin mentions that because most of the products or services we use online are free, we become the product. The new "private form of money" becomes our data and our web activity. It is distinct to the individual, such as the art style of Picasso.

If we compare the two analogies, Lanier says that the wealthy corporations are using our data as an exclusive form of currency. This allows them to create dossiers on us, to which they can do what they choose with it. What Angwin is choosing to do is fight fire with fire. However, these big businesses have boundless amounts of money, while the consumer of privacy software does not. To mention the title of Angwin's article, privacy has become a luxury good. More importantly, data has become the luxury. Those with money and motive what that information. If you try to protect your data, you better have the wallet to back it up. Which leads me to the conclusion that both authors would agree with one another. They both agree that there has been a new creation of a different type of economy. Lanier mentions a plug-in called Ghostery, which blocks trackers from finding you (and it does a good job, check it out.) Lanier says that using this service is kind of like going against the internet. But I believe he is mentioning that about what these corporations see that data as.

Unknown said...

Angwin's article was on point about privacy and Lanier would agree. Discovering more and reading Lanier a lot of what we do to acquire information is in order for servers to take information about us. Nothing that we do is private. The pure definition of privacy has been annihilated. We should protect our privacy more, or at least become more aware about what information we put out there. The other day I was on Amazon looking for a Member's Only jacket for my father and I went to log on to my Gmail and magically in the corner there was an ad for leather jackets (like what?!) I used to think Google was awesome for remembering/knowing what I searched for. Now to find out that what I search for on Google is in my advertisements and stored for recommendation is really weird. It is convenient but it is also an invasion.

Angwin was right about our private information becoming the price for these internet services. Lanier stated "A computer on a network can also act like a wannabe demon if it tries to sort data from networked people into one or the other side of some imaginary door, while pretending there is no cost or risk involved." But there is a risk involved! Everyday, as naive as people really are we let these servers take whatever they want. So much of the information we put out there is accessible and the fine print doesn't help. Angwin asked "Do we want privacy to be something that only those with disposable money and time can afford?" I think definitely not. Technology plays such a detrimental role in our everyday lives, we lose control.

Unknown said...

The article is very similar to that of Jaron Lanier’s writing in Who owns The Future. I am almost positive that Lanier would agree with the author’s perspective. The author makes great points on how everything we do via the internet is being tracked simultaneously at the very same time whether we like it or not. This is something that Lanier also brings up in his book while talking about the vast ideas of Siren Servers. He states that siren servers are constantly obtaining personal data from everything click you make on the web. Unlike the New York Times article Lanier does not mention any of the privacy protection aspects that are brought forth. Lanier states that the real reason why these data giants are in a constant hustle for your information is not because they are interested in you, but rather they are interested in what you are interested in so they can blast you with the appropriate ads in which they make their money off of.

The explanations that are brought forth in the article are not exactly the same but definitely very similar. Julia Angwin of the New York Times article focuses more on services that can protect against the invasion of privacy. At the same time she also explains what the data is used for and how the massive companies use it. This is what Lanier focuses on for a majority of his book.

I agree with both point of views and the aspects about privacy that they bring forth. Lanier makes very informative statements of how the process of privacy or data mining works and the true reasoning behind it. I agree with him when he says that this process is benefiting these huge siren servers such as Amazon, and Google very greatly in terms of revenues. On the other hand I also agree with the ideas brought forth by Julia Angwin. I think it is very important to find a reliable and affordable way to protect our privacy as we dive into the web. Perhaps a perfect technology is here yet that can accomplish this but perhaps sooner or later there will be. This product can be more beneficial to humanity then we may realize.

Unknown said...

I think Lanier would agree with Angwin. Angwin is saying we have to pay for our privacy, nothing is private especially not online. She says she paid thousands of dollars for her privacy, but to be honest, you can pay all the money you want, once it's on the Internet, it's always going to be there. Lanier argues a similar idea. He says that we are so accustomed to the convenience of technology that we forget about our privacy.

I agree with both. Honestly, I never even thought about my privacy while using technology. I am cautious with certain information but I don't pay for programs to block certain things. Like I said before, once in the Internet, it's there forever. There are ways to track IP addresses, steal identity, etc.

Anonymous said...

I wish I was shocked when reading this article, but I am not. This article by Angwin really describes what we go through everyday when it comes to privacy. It amazes me that he goes through all this trouble to protect himself and it is costing him over $2,000! WHAT! It just shows how capitalistic our society really is. Everything comes with a price, and it even cost you money to feel save while using your own computer or phone. I have always known about the data mining, and the listening to phone conversations but recently I started seeing some interesting ads on my computer via Facebook or Twitter. I work at TGIFridays, and its funny because it says that in my profile on Facebook. When I log onto Youtube to watch a video, the commercial that comes on before the actual content that I want to watch is always a Fridays commercial. I always thought it was just a weird coincidence, but then it ended up being that Google hacks everything! Now, no matter what website I go on, there is always a Fridays ad somewhere on the page. When I read this article I just though about the lawsuit that Google just went through for hacking all of the unsecure wireless internets via their Google earth car. 7 billion dollars they were being sued for, and what for exactly, for stealing all of the passwords, numbers, credit card info, everything that had to do with people that had an unsecure wifi network at their homes. Its sick and it makes me so angry that now people have to pay hundreds of dollars just to feel safe when using their own technology. You cant even call someone without being afraid about who is listening to what you are saying. It’s scary and it makes me question every move I make on a daily basis. You have people telling you how important it is to have social media and technology in your life to get a job and to be successful but really all of the things that we use on a daily basis are what is killing the generations to come. Lanier talks about how it is not the internet per say, but how we as people use it and how it is set up that is the problem. He talks about how the third party will always share the information about people to whoever wants to hear it. He also refers to the fact that since people don’t know how to honestly use a computer or the internet that they get taken advantage of. This is the problem that I see in relation to this article. I see the fact that they are giving us these options to be safe and to protect ourselves from being hacked but how do we even know that they are working? Maybe that’s a scam to? Our world runs on money so why not trick someone into paying for protection?

RogerG said...

I feel Angwin is not looking at the picture broadly enough.

The fact is, these products and services are only attuned to the varieties of spying that were available when the products and services were introduced. The first problem with this is that the privacy tools are assuming we are AWARE of all the means of spying currently available to governments and businesses. If Snowden has taught us anything, it is that the government has ways of spying on us that we are unaware of; that the only reason these means work in the first place.

So there could already be ways for the government, hackers and businesses to get around these services. The second problem with these services is that any updates necessitated by new means of spying would be reactive. If a new way to spy came out, the anti-spying software would only be updated in reaction to this. The ways to spy are too varied to make the system preventative.

The third problem with this system is that the average person cannot afford these means. $2,200 is a lot to spend for something that won't work anyway.

The major problem, however, has to do with how all-encompassing hierarchies are. Feminists describe the patriarchal hierarchy in these all-encompassing terms, expressing the concept that even if the president were a woman, supposedly more powerful than any other man, she would still be subservient to the patriarchy, since hierarchies aren't simply stratifications of people, but abstract structures in which people exist.

Siren Services are political in the sense that they are hierarchies of power. The more information someone has access to, the more power they have. Economics is simply part of it.

The problem with concentrating power is that it leads to a positive feedback system. Once someone is control of something, they tend to manipulate the structure of the system so that they maintain control. This is especially true of Siren Servers, since they are global in reach, and therefore are more likely to become monopolistic.

Perhaps I'm about to be abstract to the point of inaccuracy, but it seems that the anti-spying stuff described in the article does not exist in a separate system. They do not create a separate internet. Instead, they work within a Siren Server's hierarchy, valiantly trying to cover what it's doing with bits of cloth.

It's still in a system controlled by Siren Servers, though. As long as we're part of this political hierarchy, all we can try to do is hide, but, not being at the controls, this is futile.

Unknown said...

I think it's worth mentioning, on a humorous level, that when I signed out of my hawkmail account and into my separate one to post this comment a message came up with something about "HELP US KEEP YOUR ACCOUNT SECURE." Typical.

I think Lanier would agree with many of the statements supporting the author's point of view. Foe example the author says "In our data-saturated economy, privacy is becoming a luxury good." It shows that nowadays we need to actually spend money to but security on the internet. And it may only be a false sense of security because what you are doing when you purchase the kinds of packages and systems that are mentioned in the beginning of the article, is basically selling your private information to a company. Much of technology and internet services are free but the 'protection' is not. Because of this new factor privacy is no longer equally available to people of all economic classes.

I agree with the fact that even though you may buy protection and security, you can never really be sure you are getting what you are promised, and this is reason to be concerned.

Mariah Brown said...

I believe Lanier would agree with this article. In his book he states his opinions about online privacy and hackers. He goes into great detail about the importance of privacy and the lack thereof on the internet today. Lanier is very vocal about his opinions of the internet and the lack of protection, Lanier wants to make people aware, his metaphor of the crystal ball is what the author is basically discussing in her article.

I think her explanation about privacy is similar to Laniers’. Angwin brings up a very interesting point should people have to pay for privacy? Has privacy become a luxury good? This is an issue that has presented itself largely in recent times. It is disheartening for Angwin to suggest government regulation of outlets that provide privacy. This is a reminder of just how serious the epidemic of a non-private internet is. I agree with both authors. The internet is invasive. Often times when I use the internet I feel like I’m being spied on. I don’t feel like my information is secure. I cannot afford to buy privacy protection and it is a shame to know that this is how it has to be with the technology I use on a regular basis.

Unknown said...

I think Lanier would agree with Angwin’s argument in this article. Lanier argues that our privacy has no longer become something that we can control. Even worse, many of us do not have a clue of how to even start protecting ourselves. In the article, Angwin argues that privacy is becoming a luxury that many cannot afford. I agree with Angwin because as more people gain access to the available technologies, more of us willingly or unknowingly give up most of our personal information. We accept the technology and allow them to access our personal data without reading the implications or contracts of what the applications can gain access to. I believe this is because partially due to the demand of convenience, along with the lack of knowledge people have with the technology. Lanier predicts that one day the world could potentially lose all of its privacy, becoming like a “crystal ball.” This is similar to how Angwin is viewing the lack of privacy in the world today. I do not think she is over reacting as well. It almost seems that we not far from a “crystal ball.” Through the many technologies that we all value so much and overuse, we instantly give up our privacy. It is harder to protect our information and like Angwin discusses, even if you attempt to protect yourself, you still do not know if you can even trust the protection. Privacy is moving toward becoming a luxury that people pay for at a high price such as the 630-dollar phone. But like Angwin argues, how can we be sure that these so called protections are even safe or working? Furthermore, denying access from these technologies is harder as one is automatically signed up for the sharing of their information until he or she declares that they do not agree, and seek out the necessary steps to change the settings.
I think Lanier and Angwin agree that part of the problem with the privacy crisis is not just about the technologies knowing your personal information. The technologies take a step further and have the ability to charge you a different price for a product, leaning what you like. Or learning your political interests and targeting you with information based off that. These are issues that not many people realize are taking place and I think that is the importance of the crisis. Society is willing and eager to use the new technology, without knowing the implications and information that the technology can access. The reality is scary, thinking about how much information we readily give up today. Angwins last thoughts provoke the question of privacy becoming a luxury that only people with money can afford. I agree with this prediction, as society grows more comfortable with technology, allowing it to infiltrate our lives everyday.

Unknown said...

Lanier would agree with the author’s perspective because they both believe that people have the ability to access personal information that we have no idea exists about ourselves.

Lanier’s explanation for the crisis in privacy is that free is defined, as someone else will be able to control how people ultimately live. This evident by how ads we see on the Internet are tailored to a person’s interests based on their previous Internet history. Angwin said she spent money on privacy protection services that she’s not sure even actually work.

I think there’s no way for people to be truly protected from Internet because there’s too many ways for your information to be accessed. People might as well not even bother to go out of their way to protect their stuff because in the grand scheme of things someone will be able to get it.

Harris Yudin said...

Lanier would definitely agree with the ideas being brought up by Angwin in the article. Both agree that our lack of privacy is an issue that is not currently being addressed. They both feel that we, as a society, are choosing convenience over privacy, and are not interested in or disgusted by the level of which our information is being accessed.

Angwin makes a very interesting comparison between privacy-protecting services and organic food, implying that our lack of privacy is as detrimental to our overall well-being as are unhealthy, chemically-induced foods. As does Lanier, she believes that our lack of privacy on the Internet is inexcusable and unfair.

Lanier's crystal ball idea that eventually everyone will have access to all information about other people is a bit extreme, but speaks to the point that Angwin is trying to make that something needs to be done in order to grant more people the ability to protect themselves on the Internet.

I don't completely agree or disagree with Angwin or Lanier, but I obviously believe that privacy is an important thing for everyone to have.

The bottom-line is, you can't win with people today. Everybody wants advancements in technology and to be able to accomplish tasks more quickly and easily, but then turn around and complain that the very same technology they craved is allowing for a violation of their privacy. There is no getting around it, and while yes, it would be nice for privacy-protecting services to be more affordable, there is no escaping the monetarily-based society that we live in.

Unknown said...

I'd hate to sound very blunt about this, but, in today's society, there is no such thing as privacy protection data or software. As much as people would say that the government can never find what they have on their computer, but they always find a way. Angwin stated that she spent over $2,200 and spend countless hours to protect her privacy. But Lanier did spark something to my attention which I do agree with, at some point in our time, whether if it's now or later, that there probably isn't going to be anywhere secrets kept, it's all eventually gonna be shown somehow to others. There is no way that you can protect yourself from the internet. There are so many ways that your information can be accessed. There is no need to spend your money to get something that possibly can be a scheme.

Protection software+Money=Big Brother is watching.

Unknown said...

I think Lanier would absolutely agree with Angwin's entire article. I found this article extremely refreshing and relevant when viewed side-by-side with what the class half discussed/half screamed about last time we met. It just goes to show you that all this technology we use isn't free--not by a long shot. In fact, we are paying companies hundreds of dollars so that we can be a customer to buy even more services. It's a self-perpetuating cycle. In a funny way, even after some spend thousands of dollars to keep their data private, they still go out to buy more phones/game systems/smart watches that they'll need to again spend money on to privatize their data. So basically instead of being a known shopper, their private shoppers, but the companies still get their money.

On a less cynical note, I think both authors agree that any noteworthy reform will begin with public awareness, and the fact of the matter is that most people don't realize the extent of this data-mining. And even for those who do and take the $2,000 precautions, they don't even have much guarantee that the precautions are working. I think it's Angwin's analogy to the food packaging industry that won me over. If government were to step in and reform data-sharing in a way that would plainly label things, and explain in a concise way where our data was going, everyone would be better off. In fact, children should be required to take a series of courses at a young age through schools to start this learning curve. But the notion that the responsibility rests totally on the shoulders of the consumer is ludicrous, especially when so much of where our data goes and how its used is hidden by legal jargon--or sometimes not even available at all. Overall, it seems like the internet is still the wild-wild-west, and I don't particularly feel like there's a sheriff anywhere in sight to protect me.

I also think that those $2,000 precautions outlined just go to show us that even if a compute savvy person wants to protect their computer, they can't--not to the full extent that third party providers can who charge outrageous sums.