Vanishing Voices Summary

Bacon's rebellion was led by a group of former indentured servants who were now free, without

The FBI, a institution that violates the privacy the public in thousands of ways is trying to have another way to do it, only this time, it is reasonable. They want Apple to create a software to disable the wipe-out function when the security code is entered incorrectly 10 times. This will help the FBI access information that could be very important about serious events such as terrorist attacks, murders, etcetera . It has been brought up recently because the San Bernardino shooters phone is in the possession of the FBI and it could have information about who else was involved, or have information on future attacks. Apple does not want to do this, they believe it is an invasion of privacy, but the creation of the software is essential in the case, and will help with many other cases in the future.

While examining the packet of resources, two pieces caught my attention, “Vanishing Voices” by Russ Rymer and the Self Portrait Between the Borderline of Mexico and the United States by Frida Khalo. In “Vanishing Voices”, Russ Rhymer explains, “Parents in tribal villages often encourage their children to move away from their insular language … towards languages that will permit greater education” ( Rymer 7). This demonstrates how isolated ethnic groups abandon their culture in order to pick up the global language for economic prosperity. It indicates that remote societies are conforming to globalization for a greater economical gain. Likewise, the bottom of the self portrait of Frida Kahlo clearly displays how plants are converted to provide energy for modern technology. The plants represent the developing countries, while the technology serves as the most-developed countries which are eliminating remote cultures, and are using those countries’ resources for their own commercial advancement. These sources interested me as I had been accustomed to an Indian culture for 7 years, before assimilating into the American culture. I understood that I must learn the English language while preserving a part of my Indian heritage. I spent my 10 years in the U.S. learning English while slowly losing graph of my Indian language. It related to my life story as both sources centered around the theme of discarding one’s native culture to help learn the new language. Lori Hale, who is

In December of 2015, 14 people were killed and more than 20 people were injured in one of California’s most deadly shootings in recent history. A couple, Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, opened fire in a conference center in San Bernardino. The two were later killed in a shootout with the police. Their case didn’t end there. The FBI searched their house, in which they found much evidence to back that this was a terrorist plot. But a crucial piece of evidence which they found was Syed Farook’s iPhone 5C. In today’s society, phones contain more information about ourselves than even we can remember. Emails, messages, notes, bank details and much more can be found on our phone. So when the FBI was able to get hold of Farook’s phone, they were more than content. But there was one more hurdle in front of them: encryption. Since we have so much information on our devices today, we have to have some form of protection against people who want to steal our personal information, scammers hackers and many. Apple has done this by encrypting almost every piece of user’s private information on their devices. The FBI wants a way around this encryption so that they can retrieve important information on Farook’s iPhone. They want Apple to create a shortcut that would allow them to bypass all of the security on Farook’s phone, but Apple is refusing saying that they want to protect their user’s privacy. Is the FBI forcing Apple to create a

What started as a private issue spread like wildfire as it was made public by Apple. This problem has created two sides that ask whether Apple should have the right to not oblige or if the FBI has the power to force them to make these means a reality. This specific issue opens up a greater problem that takes it outside the US and affects anyone with any kind of technology connected around the world: should the government have the right to access information on your phone? It’s a seemingly yes or no answer, but the precedent this situation will create makes it a lot more important as it can determine what the future of privacy on technology is like. When looking at the facts, rationality, and emotions that stem from whether the government should have the means

The paper will examine the creation of back-doors for cellular devices and if that act would violate civil liberties, relating specifically to Apple and the FBI.

As professionals, we are not giving the importance to our career. As described in the book from Silence to Voice: "Nurses have the opportunity to explain their work when a patient expresses gratitude for excellent nursing care." (Buresh & Gordon, 2013), but instead we said things like it was nothing, is my job, we are here for it. We do not give importance of what we do, and the public think is not important anyway. If as nurses, we do not think that what we do is important, if we do not affirm what we do, if we do not demonstrate we are professionals, who is going to do it?. Being honest I was one of this nurses saying is ok, it is my job, but going through out this class, and in only two weeks I started changing my responses to patients.

Technology has become more accessible to the point it has become easier for government to watch everyone's move. In this generation technology takes over everyone's daily life, where people wakes up and the first thing is look at is the phone. A phone there are many things on it, like text, pictures and videos. Phones can do many things, but there is a possibility where the government can tap into a phone and look through it. The government can watch everyone’s: text, history, private info, and pictures. Government has no right to looking through people’s personal info because it violates Fourth amendment, Blackmail, and Creates fear.

The NSA performed an unlawful invasion of privacy by using web encryption. Technologist, Christopher Soghoian, states that the NSA used supercomputers to gain access to encryption that provides online privacy and security. “The encryption technologies that the NSA has exploited to enable its secret dragnet surveillance are the same technologies that protect our most sensitive information, including medical records, financial transactions and commercial secrets” (qtd. in Winter). Christopher’s explanation of the encryption technologies describes how anyone could be affected by this surveillance. This is considered unlawful because the NSA hacked technologies that protect our private information. This affects the security of the nation knowing that it is possible for someone to gain access to information that people have once though were private to them. This is not the first time that the NSA has tried to gain access to private information. In fact, “For the past decade, NSA has led an aggressive multipronged effort to break widely used internet encryption technologies”

With the seemingly exponential propagation of inexpensive digital communications technologies over recent years, the general public is becoming more aware of the issues surrounding information privacy and government surveillance in the digital age. Every Tom, Dick, and Harry with a smart-phone has to be wary of how they use their private information for fear of that information being collected and used in a way contrary to their wishes. "Leaky" smartphone apps that transmit private information across the internet can be unethically used by government agencies. The issue of privacy is a balancing act; the public usually wants increased privacy and the government usually wants increased access.

Encryption in book Blown to Bits by Hal Abelson, Ken Ledeen, and Harry Lewis is carefully analyzed by these three Computer Science majors is from the beginning of ciphering till exploitation occurred between the NSA and the Congressmen/Presidents of 1990’s. The industry and technological advancements for encryption began with the Egyptians who ciphered their language in Hieroglyphics around 2000 years ago. This creation led to a problematic industry for the Information Age because of the abuse of privacy. Though the fraudulent consequences of privacy are not protected by any amendment limitless resistance to being exposed for personal information has been growing ever since the beginning of security standards. What happened in September 11th, 2001 was not merely an inevitable catastrophe because the FBI warned the US Government and president years before 911 occurred. Encryption being a safety requirement in our era is the encoding of data transferring through communicative means. Anyone can have access to the data however there is a password when trying to steal or intercept someone 's information. The best way to encode your translation of personal information between two or more people is by verbal talking through whispers/soft speaking. Regulating encryption has always been a request from the NSA and the FBI because of exchanging violent plans or initiatives to seek perilous outcomes. The government feeds of privacy, not protected by the Founding Fathers or the

The case of Apple Vs FBI is basically the FBI trying to have Apple change their operating system (OS) in their phones so they can be encrypted if they need to be. Currently, Apple phones are set up to protect against hacking. The FBI wants to gain this access so they can stop a terrorist from being able to use mobile technology as means of harm and to gain knowledge of what the attack could be.

The recent case between the FBI and Apple brought a worldwide ethical dilemma into the public eye, and it could have detrimental effects to the entire tech industry. The FBI wanted Apple to create backdoor access to encrypted data on one of San Bernardino shooter’s iPhones, and Apple refused just as many other large tech companies such as Amazon and Microsoft are doing nowadays. This situation creates the ethical dilemma of whether the government should have complete access to all encrypted data, and how consumers will react knowing their private data is not actually private.

In today’s society, technology has become one of the most used and most sought after developments of the millennium. In a recent case the FBI petitioned for Apple to unlock the phone of Syed Farook, the man responsible for shooting and killing 14 people in San Bernardino, California. The FBI believed Apple should create a new software that would not erase the data from iPhones after ten failed attempts to unlock the phone. Apple replied that they had a responsibility and an obligation to protect the privacy of their customers. Supporters of Apple 's response have argued, creating a new software was not a wise decision. In the past, government agencies have been known for their abuse of power. Had Apple chosen to create a master key for this particular case, there would be no limit to government invasion of privacy. In the end Apple could have potentially lost costumers by changing the protection of their cellular products. The issue has already been raised that creating software to access one locked device could potentially open the door for hackers to invade millions of other people’s devices. I agree that Apple should not create a new software to unlock the phone because once a master lock is created there are no limitations to who or how the coding can be used.

Digital privacy concerns, which have been a major issue in our country since 2001, increasingly violate our basic human rights as global citizens. The growing amount of government surveillance has manifested in the enactment of acts such as SOPA and CISPA. Although their intent on stopping digital piracy and attacks were clear, both were immediately met with harsh criticism; they allowed big corporations to violate our privacy rights by sharing our personal information with both other companies and the government. Our President, although publicly expressing his acknowledgement of the issue, failed to discuss an array of other pressing dilemmas regulated by the recently exposed National Security Agency (NSA), especially those involving