|
JustinPerezFirstPaper 4 - 12 May 2022 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | Rihl Juliette, If your mom can go in and see it, so can the cops’: How law enforcement is using social media to identify protesters in Pittsburgh, Public Source (August 6, 2020) | |
>
> |
Certainly an improvement, much better edited than the first draft. But the new sentences needed the same tightening, so there's more brevity to achieve. The conclusion is out-of-scale: Tails for laptops seems like a small and ill-fitting prescription for minority youth, or however it would be best to think of your intended readership.
| | | |
|
|
JustinPerezFirstPaper 3 - 24 Apr 2022 - Main.JustinPerez
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| | | -- By JustinPerez - 10 Mar 2022 | |
>
> | Current State of Smart Devices
The current stage of smart devices is currently focused on safety and security. It has presented itself as, “Alexa, call the police,” or “Hi its Siri, I have detected an abnormal heart rate,” or “Ring, you have an unexpected visitor at your front door.” Safety has become the key selling point instead of convenience. As the world enters a period of mass misinformation, fearmongering, and sensationalism, companies have tailored their selling points to take advantage of those feelings in exchange for listening to every conversation, tracking extensive biometric data, and access to a live feed inside and outside your home. In an article for Forbes, Scott Goodson quotes a phrase he read on Metafilter, stating, “If you are not paying for it, you are the product” (tinyurl.com/yc3dpnaj). As discussed in class, we are one butterfly landing on a petal away from total state surveillance. Every citizen in the United States subscribed to one of these services has transferred the responsibility of their safety to private companies because they believe the benefit outweighs the concern. This paper will evaluate whether this should be a concern, and whether this concern should plague only certain groups in the United States. | | | | |
<
< | As we enter the next decade of smart devices and their alleged purposes, companies have begun to tie their devices to safety. Whether it presents itself as, “Alexa, call the police,” or “Hi its Siri, I have detected an abnormal heart rate,” or “Ring, you have an unexpected visitor at your front door.” Safety is inherent in human nature. Everyone wants to feel safe and secure. For a one-time purchase price for the hardware, these devices take advantage of those feelings in exchange for listening to every sound in your home, tracking extensive biometric data, and watching every second of what occurs at your home. Scott Goodson in an article for Forbes quotes a phrase he read on Metafilter stating,“If you are not paying for it, you are the product.” All of these companies are not providing these services because of their altruism, instead, it is for data collection. Under the current structure, the motive serves capitalist gain purposes, but as is discussed in class, we are one butterfly landing on a petal away from total state surveillance. Every citizen in the United States that subscribes to one of these services has handed a sliver of their privacy for convenience and now the perceived benefit of safety. | >
> | Who Should Care?
Who should care? The difference likely lies in the perceived oppression an individual has faced. An article by Angela Chen points out that, “about 73% of black Americans, for instance, are at least a little worried about what law enforcement knows about them, compared with 56% of white Americans” (https://tinyurl.com/5bxr4ctu). Black Americans have undergone systematic oppression and state surveillance since the formation of this country. Still, in the summer of 2020, police accessed social media during the Black Lives Matter protests to identify protestors as suspects for crimes (https://tinyurl.com/u4r3zx8m). While white counterparts are less fearful of the potential for private companies to use these safety smart devices as surveillance, Black Americans suffer the actual consequences due to over-policing.
Due to the inherent privilege that comes with being white, the white majority in this country does not need to be alarmed by the increasing encroachment of total state surveillance. American history lacks examples of state infringement on white people’s rights. McCarthyism? presents the best argument against this premise, but that period was brief, and individuals were able to use the legal system to combat the accusations. For Americans of color, these devices present deadly consequences. They have the potential to allow broader policing of communities without extensive police manpower. Ultimately, the white majority in this country has the privilege to turn a blind eye, as their rights have historically been protected. Meanwhile, people of color should deeply care, but do not have the privilege to do so. | | | | |
<
< | But why should we care? I have struggled with this question since the first class. Reflecting on it generally, I feel there is a disbelief that our society is so susceptible to the forms of oppression other countries face through total surveillance. My generation, the generation that mass consumes these products, has never seen oppression in that way. In my 23 years of life, the only event in the U.S, in which I felt my privacy was infringed upon by the government, was during the protesting in the summer of 2020. Police used access to social media to identify Black Lives Matter protestors in order to identify suspects for crimes. | >
> | Now that We Care, What Can We Do?
The 4th Amendment protects only to the extent police abide by those principles in practice. Although the exclusionary rule deems certain evidence inadmissible, people of color will still be subject to police misconduct that often relies on workarounds of the 4th Amendment. Justice O’Connor’s deciding vote in Florida v. Riley becomes more important in determining whether individuals' usage of these services results in reasonable expectations of privacy. In Riley, the Court answered whether defendants had a reasonable expectation of privacy when a helicopter was in public airways at an altitude at which members of the public travel with sufficient regularity. As these devices continue to push the limits of “social connectedness” and “overall safety,” we find ourselves in the wilderness of which services are reasonably expected to be considered private. Does the family with a Ring device at their front door not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, allowing police to use their camera as a live feed to surveil a potential criminal fleeing through their neighborhood? Most Ring owners post videos from their devices for the public to view, which lowers their expectations of privacy in these videos. The white majority has the privilege to rely on the legal system to fight for invasions on their privacy. This was true during McCarthyism? and is true now. People of color should resort to other methods of maintaining privacy. Using Tails and limiting their contact to surveillance technology is the first step in combating the new wave of devices. Still, government agencies can use new tactics to bypass these barriers. As a result, people of color should be informed about these privacy skills. | | | | |
<
< | Looking at the matter with a more specific lens, why should I care about companies tracking my data with the potential to exploit its use, when police officers infringe the privacy rights of people of color each day without repercussions for various reasons. The 4th amendment protects only as much as the police abide by those principles in practice. Although evidence will not be admissible in a potential legal proceeding due to the exclusionary rule, people of color and lower income individuals that find themselves using one of these devices will still be subject to police misconduct that often relies on workarounds of the 4th amendment. | >
> | Conclusion
These devices are in most American homes, in some way. The question is not whether we should trust the government to protect our privacy interests, but whether the tension between who cares and why will ultimately dissipate to allow broader protection for those that most need it. | | | | |
<
< | As we move further and further towards the normalization of these services, O’Connor’s deciding vote in Florida v. Riley becomes more important in determining whether individuals' usage of these services result in reasonable expectations of privacy. In Riley, the court dealt with a determination of whether defendants had an expectation of privacy when a helicopter that was in public airways at an altitude at which members of the public travel with sufficient regularity is one society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. As these devices continue to push the limits of “social connectedness” and “overall safety,” we find ourselves in the wilderness of which services are reasonably expected to be considered private and which are not. Does the family with a Ring device at their front door not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which allows police to tap into their camera in order to surveil crime in the neighborhood, because most Ring owners post these videos for the public anyways? Or does the alleged suspect have a reasonable expectation of privacy that his biometric data recorded by his Apple Watch will not be used as a pseudo-polygraph machine during an interrogation? | >
> | Chen, Angela, Most Americans think they’re being constantly tracked-and that there’s nothing they can do,” TechnologyReview? (Nov 15, 2019) | | | | |
<
< | All of these devices are here, in most people’s homes in some way. The question is not whether we should trust the government to protect our privacy interests, but whether enough individuals realize in time to protect their privacy interests in their data. Based on how reliant on these services my generation is, these privacy interests are ripe for exploitation were the day to arise. | >
> | Goodson Scott, If You're Not Paying For It, You Become The Product, Forbes (Mar 5, 2012).
Rihl Juliette, If your mom can go in and see it, so can the cops’: How law enforcement is using social media to identify protesters in Pittsburgh, Public Source (August 6, 2020) | | | | |
<
< |
Why aren't these links in the text?
| | | | |
<
< | Goodson Scott, If You're Not Paying For It, You Become The Product, Forbes (March 5, 2012).
Rihl Juliette, If your mom can go in and see it, so can the cops’: How law enforcement is using social media to identify protesters in Pittsburgh, Public Source (August 6, 2020). | | | | |
<
< |
The steps to improvement here are pretty clear. First is a strong edit. Every word that is not pulling weight must go. Once all the slack words are gone, each sentence must be rewritten to use fewer words and simpler grammar. In the second step, all the rewritten sentences should be reordered under the outline you didn't make for the first draft. You say that devices capable of being used for comprehensive societal surveillance are sold as increasing safety and security. You say—ignoring that these devices are sold worldwide by companies that operate globally—that it doesn't matter how they work because the US has not in your lifetime been subjected to tyranny. (Though you also point out, without explaining the tension, that some people in the US are subjected to something much more like tyranny quite often.) Your conclusion is that the question is not one thing but another thing, neither of which is what the rest of the essay has been about. Rigorous outlining, incorporated in the draft as headings, preferably, will help the reader access and make use of your ideas. Taken together those measures should result in a much improved draft.
| | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable. |
|
|
JustinPerezFirstPaper 2 - 02 Apr 2022 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | | |
<
< | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | | |
<
< | Paper Title | >
> | “I’m Here”… Just in Case | | | -- By JustinPerez - 10 Mar 2022 | |
<
< | “I’m Here”… Just in Case | | | As we enter the next decade of smart devices and their alleged purposes, companies have begun to tie their devices to safety. Whether it presents itself as, “Alexa, call the police,” or “Hi its Siri, I have detected an abnormal heart rate,” or “Ring, you have an unexpected visitor at your front door.” Safety is inherent in human nature. Everyone wants to feel safe and secure. For a one-time purchase price for the hardware, these devices take advantage of those feelings in exchange for listening to every sound in your home, tracking extensive biometric data, and watching every second of what occurs at your home. Scott Goodson in an article for Forbes quotes a phrase he read on Metafilter stating,“If you are not paying for it, you are the product.” All of these companies are not providing these services because of their altruism, instead, it is for data collection. Under the current structure, the motive serves capitalist gain purposes, but as is discussed in class, we are one butterfly landing on a petal away from total state surveillance. Every citizen in the United States that subscribes to one of these services has handed a sliver of their privacy for convenience and now the perceived benefit of safety. | | | All of these devices are here, in most people’s homes in some way. The question is not whether we should trust the government to protect our privacy interests, but whether enough individuals realize in time to protect their privacy interests in their data. Based on how reliant on these services my generation is, these privacy interests are ripe for exploitation were the day to arise. | |
>
> |
Why aren't these links in the text?
| | | Goodson Scott, If You're Not Paying For It, You Become The Product, Forbes (March 5, 2012).
Rihl Juliette, If your mom can go in and see it, so can the cops’: How law enforcement is using social media to identify protesters in Pittsburgh, Public Source (August 6, 2020). | |
>
> |
The steps to improvement here are pretty clear. First is a strong edit. Every word that is not pulling weight must go. Once all the slack words are gone, each sentence must be rewritten to use fewer words and simpler grammar. In the second step, all the rewritten sentences should be reordered under the outline you didn't make for the first draft. You say that devices capable of being used for comprehensive societal surveillance are sold as increasing safety and security. You say—ignoring that these devices are sold worldwide by companies that operate globally—that it doesn't matter how they work because the US has not in your lifetime been subjected to tyranny. (Though you also point out, without explaining the tension, that some people in the US are subjected to something much more like tyranny quite often.) Your conclusion is that the question is not one thing but another thing, neither of which is what the rest of the essay has been about. Rigorous outlining, incorporated in the draft as headings, preferably, will help the reader access and make use of your ideas. Taken together those measures should result in a much improved draft.
| | |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: |
|
|
JustinPerezFirstPaper 1 - 10 Mar 2022 - Main.JustinPerez
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title
-- By JustinPerez - 10 Mar 2022
“I’m Here”… Just in Case
As we enter the next decade of smart devices and their alleged purposes, companies have begun to tie their devices to safety. Whether it presents itself as, “Alexa, call the police,” or “Hi its Siri, I have detected an abnormal heart rate,” or “Ring, you have an unexpected visitor at your front door.” Safety is inherent in human nature. Everyone wants to feel safe and secure. For a one-time purchase price for the hardware, these devices take advantage of those feelings in exchange for listening to every sound in your home, tracking extensive biometric data, and watching every second of what occurs at your home. Scott Goodson in an article for Forbes quotes a phrase he read on Metafilter stating,“If you are not paying for it, you are the product.” All of these companies are not providing these services because of their altruism, instead, it is for data collection. Under the current structure, the motive serves capitalist gain purposes, but as is discussed in class, we are one butterfly landing on a petal away from total state surveillance. Every citizen in the United States that subscribes to one of these services has handed a sliver of their privacy for convenience and now the perceived benefit of safety.
But why should we care? I have struggled with this question since the first class. Reflecting on it generally, I feel there is a disbelief that our society is so susceptible to the forms of oppression other countries face through total surveillance. My generation, the generation that mass consumes these products, has never seen oppression in that way. In my 23 years of life, the only event in the U.S, in which I felt my privacy was infringed upon by the government, was during the protesting in the summer of 2020. Police used access to social media to identify Black Lives Matter protestors in order to identify suspects for crimes.
Looking at the matter with a more specific lens, why should I care about companies tracking my data with the potential to exploit its use, when police officers infringe the privacy rights of people of color each day without repercussions for various reasons. The 4th amendment protects only as much as the police abide by those principles in practice. Although evidence will not be admissible in a potential legal proceeding due to the exclusionary rule, people of color and lower income individuals that find themselves using one of these devices will still be subject to police misconduct that often relies on workarounds of the 4th amendment.
As we move further and further towards the normalization of these services, O’Connor’s deciding vote in Florida v. Riley becomes more important in determining whether individuals' usage of these services result in reasonable expectations of privacy. In Riley, the court dealt with a determination of whether defendants had an expectation of privacy when a helicopter that was in public airways at an altitude at which members of the public travel with sufficient regularity is one society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. As these devices continue to push the limits of “social connectedness” and “overall safety,” we find ourselves in the wilderness of which services are reasonably expected to be considered private and which are not. Does the family with a Ring device at their front door not have a reasonable expectation of privacy, which allows police to tap into their camera in order to surveil crime in the neighborhood, because most Ring owners post these videos for the public anyways? Or does the alleged suspect have a reasonable expectation of privacy that his biometric data recorded by his Apple Watch will not be used as a pseudo-polygraph machine during an interrogation?
All of these devices are here, in most people’s homes in some way. The question is not whether we should trust the government to protect our privacy interests, but whether enough individuals realize in time to protect their privacy interests in their data. Based on how reliant on these services my generation is, these privacy interests are ripe for exploitation were the day to arise.
Goodson Scott, If You're Not Paying For It, You Become The Product, Forbes (March 5, 2012).
Rihl Juliette, If your mom can go in and see it, so can the cops’: How law enforcement is using social media to identify protesters in Pittsburgh, Public Source (August 6, 2020).
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|