Google and Internet Privacy

With the rise of the internet, some people argue that privacy no longer exists. From the 2013 revelations of government surveillance of citizens’ communications to companies that monitor their employees’ internet usage, this argument seems to be increasingly true. Yet, Harvard Law professor Charles Fried states that privacy, “is necessarily related to ends and relations of the most fundamental sort: respect, love, friendship and trust” (Fried 477). However, Fried is not arguing that in a world where privacy, in its most simple terms, is becoming scarce that these foundations of human interactions are also disappearing. Instead, Fried expands on the traditional definition of privacy while contesting that privacy, although typically viewed

Ever feel like you are being watched? How about having the feeling like some one is following you home from school? Well that is what it will be like if users do not have the privacy on the Internet they deserve. EPIC (Electronic Privacy Information Center), a advocacy group that has been fighting the Clinton Administration for tougher online consumer protection laws, and other privacy protection agencies have formed to protect the rights and privileges of the Internet user. With the U.S. Government, EPIC has had to step in and help small companies and Internet users with their own privacy problems, hackers getting into their systems and ruining the networks, and crackers stealing and decrypting private

As human beings and citizens of the world, everyone values their privacy. It is a right that is often looked over and taken for granted by most. Since the beginning of time, there have been concerns about individuals’ rights to privacy and their personal information remaining confidential. Our founding fathers had concerns about this which is why, “…this right has developed into

Harper ultimately places the blame for the average American's loss of privacy on Cookies. " Cookies are a surreptitious threat to privacy the way smoking is a surreptitious threat to health."(7) Because Cookies are so secretive, people do not know what their actual usage is. They are used to "customize a visitor's experience"(5) and " gather information about users"(5) by storing the web sites one uses into text files. A solution Harer comes up with for the use of Cookies is browsers will reject third party cookies that the user does not allow to use. Also, that consumers will better understand both the pros and cons to cookies and how they choose to handle their web surfing.

Privacy is one of the most controversial, yet most essential topics in the discussion of civil liberties. Some treat it as a necessity along with life, liberty, and property, whereas other people see it as something that shouldn’t get in the way of things like security (Sadowski).

America was founded of the ideals of free speech and equality, but if one tries to exercise these rights to the fullest extent, one’s privacy would be jeopardized. The purpose

As a growing topic of discussion, privacy in our society has stirred quite some concern. With the increase of technology and social networking our standards for privacy have been altered and the boundary between privacy and government has been blurred. In the article, Visible Man: Ethics in a World Without Secrets, Peter Singer addresses the different aspects of privacy that are being affected through the use of technology. The role of privacy in a democratic society is a tricky endeavor, however, each individual has a right to privacy. In our society, surveillance undermines privacy and without privacy there can be no democracy.

The claim Bruce Schneier is making is that we have no privacy using the internet. The government is tracking our every move, every text, and every phone call. Even on iPhones, our last locations can be found in the phone. The internet use can be very dangerous, and just the thought of being tracked is scary. The claim Bruce is making are facts, because this is all true. Bruce claim was supported by his statistics such as all the social media sites. Overall, this essay to be an effective argument because it is true that the internet is a surveillance state. There is truly absolutely no privacy

The words, “Arguing that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say” were said by Edward Snowden who is a computer professional in America. Similarly, the essays “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty,” “Web Users Get as Much as They Give,” and “Facebook Is Using You” from Nicholas Carr, Jim Harper, and Lori Andrews respectively points out that the internet privacy is good and bad. However, the articles by Carr and Andrews are based on the negative side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is not good. On the other hand, Harper’s article is based on the positive side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is good and scary, but people need to be careful of their own information and browsing histories, and websites. Jim Harper’s essay is more relevant and reasonable than the Nicholas Carr and Lori Andrews’s essays. However, Harper seems more persuasive to readers because he believes that the internet is good if people use it in a right way, whereas Carr and Andrews believe that the internet is not good at all.

The information that we put online has no privacy what so ever and I’ve known that just never paid mind to it. If Google has all the search engines we use throughout the years what privacy is there? What is the whole purpose of keeping track of the information or the stuff we search? I do believe that there should be more laws concerning our privacy but how private will we be able to get. I don’t think that we have full privacy rights. At some extend we always end up sharing our information, either via online, via phone or via mail. I don’t think that there is much that can be done to protect an individual’s

The concern about privacy on the Internet is increasingly becoming an issue of international dispute. ?Citizens are becoming concerned that the most intimate details of their daily lives are being monitored, searched and recorded.? (www.britannica.com) 81% of Net users are concerned about threats to their privacy while online. The greatest threat to privacy comes from the construction of e-commerce alone, and not from state agents. E-commerce is structured on the copy and trade of intimate personal information and therefore, a threat to privacy on the Internet.

Privacy either encourages or is a necessary factor of human securities and fundamental value such as human embarrassment, independence, distinctiveness, freedom, and public affection. Being completely subject to mutual scrutiny will begin to lose self-respect, independence, distinctiveness, and freedom as a result of the sometimes strong burden to conform to public outlooks.

In my opinion, the meaning of privacy of our personal data when we use online services on the Internet is different from what Google and other Internet companies are interpreting the meaning of Privacy to suit their business need to generate advertisement revenue by allowing companies to display advertisement relevant to the web search by their customer on their website.

According to the text, Google relies on tracking along with other activities to maintain profitability, it has large stake in the privacy issue (p.471). Google has been working on updating their privacy policy to better comply with what the users want when it comes to their private information. In 2012, Google revamped their privacy policy and combined all its information it gathered from its users from the different Google services. Google drafted a 13-page letter answering all government questions (p.469). Google states that all users have the option of turning off certain features that collect users information. The new policy also states that it would not impact the amount of data it gathers or deletes and that it remains highly committed to user privacy (p.469). If Google can continue to follow this new policy where it commit to its users privacy and not have it clash with its profitability then Google users will be happy. Majority of Google users just want to make sure that when they use the Google search engine, their private information is secured and not leaked to hackers. Google has the power to respect its privacy and maintain its profitability by keeping the two issues separate.

Google’s release of its Gmail service in April, 2004 caused an immediate backlash of complaints by watch groups who voiced concerns regarding Google’s plan to use content extraction, a process of scanning the text of all incoming and outgoing messages for the purpose of placing paid advertisements on the page (Dixon and Givens, 2004). The Gmail privacy policy does state that content will be used to provide relevant advertisements, but the statement disguises this practice of ad placement as a “service” (Gmail Privacy Policy, ¶ 6) to the user, not as an annoyance as many would perceive it. Users who subscribe for the free Gmail service agree to the extraction of content within their messages at the time of registration, but those non-subscribers who engage in messaging with Gmail users do not. This is where the contention lies. Without the consent of both parties involved in an email exchange, is it ethically acceptable for Google to extract data from these messages? Personal and private information could be contained within a message sent by a party unaffiliated with the Gmail service. Were they