A specific application on the iPhone that
[completely invades our] privacy is “Footprints.” This application opens a new
window to invading our privacy by allowing others to know our location 24/7.
Yet, many parents approve of this assaulting application because they are
curious about their children’s whereabouts, thus leading to an invasion of
their children’s privacy. Parents will say using this application it is not an
invasion of privacy because they feel they have the right to know exactly where
their children are at any given moment; however, in reality, it is an invasion
of privacy because these children may not know that their parents are tracking
them and following their every move. Another negative aspect of this
application is that the user of the application may not be able to remove it.
As reported by Amy Lee in the Huffington
Post, the new application Footprints has
“a parental control feature that makes it impossible for the child to remove it
(the application) without the passcode” (Lee). The application may be intended
for parents to be able to look after their children but others can easily abuse
it. There is no doubt that technology is advancing more each day. However, does
this mean we are vulnerable to an invasion of privacy? Google is the number one
search engine; moreover, Google Maps: Street View is a feature that lets you see
a 260-degree street imagery of the place you search can be used by anyone. When
the picture is taken, it might catch you in a funny position, or it might give
more details that one might want to be available for the public eye. A specific
example of this feature invading our privacy occurred in 2012. There was a case
of a 50-year-old Frenchman who sued Google because the feature Google Maps
Street View caught a picture of this man urinating on the front lawn of his
home. The man claimed he thought no one was looking, but he was wrong. His face
was blurred our, but the people in his small village still recognized him. As a
result, he was the laughing stock. This man was not happy at all and demanded
his photo be taken down, along with 10,000 Euros. “Everyone has the right to a
degree of secrecy,” his lawyer, Jean-Noel stated.
A specific example of
this feature invading our privacy occurred in 2012. There was a case of a
50-year-old Frenchman who sued Google because the feature Google Maps Street
View caught a picture of this man urinating on the front lawn of his home. The
man claimed he thought no one was looking, but he was wrong. His face was
blurred out, but the people in his small village still recognized him. In
result, he was the laughing stock. This man was not happy at all and demanded
his photo be taken down, along with 10,000 Euros. "Everyone has the right
to a degree of secrecy," his lawyer, Jean-Noel stated.
According
to the Federal Trade Commission’s website, On November 29, 2011, Facebook agreed
to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that deceived its users into
thinking that their personal information on Facebook could be made private, and
then proceeded to repeatedly share others personal information and make them
private. One of the eight complaints mentioned that when Facebook promised
their consumers that the photos and videos in their deactivated accounts were
inaccessible, “Facebook, [continued to] [allow] access to the content, even
after user had deactivated or deleted their accounts”(ftc.gov). This depicts
the kind of deceit that Facebook would do simply for the sake of revealing your
personal life to companies.
Nathan
A. Sales, a professor of law at George Mason University states, “America needs
the Patriot Act because it helps prevent terrorism while posing little risk to
civil liberties. The law simply lets counterterrorism agents use tools that
police officers have used for decades. And it contains elaborate safeguards
against abuse” (Sales). The tool that Sales is referring to is technology,
which he believes has given police officers and counterterrorism agents the
power keep our nation safe. In one
case, 16-year-old Ashton Lundeby was handcuffed and taken into custody for
allegedly making “bomb threats” over the phone. However, Lunedby’s mother
claims that she tried to explain to FBI agents that her son’s IP address was
stolen, and the hacker had made the bomb threats seem as though the calls were
coming from Ashton’s phone. In her coverage of the event, reporter Amanda Lamb stated
that according to Lundeby’s mother, not only was her “[explanation] ignored,”
but, “agents seized a computer, a cell phone, gaming console, router, bank
statements and school records” (Lamb). This, however, is all accounted for in
the USA PATRIOT Act, which grants FBI agents access to such records in a case
where a terrorist threat is involved.
There
is no question that the ever-increasing wave of new technology is going to do
great things for improving on the lives of humans worldwide. However, it is
also clear that too much of a good thing
is a bad thing. Too much technology leads to too many technologically ready
files that can be accessed by others. Technological resources such as Facebook,
iPhone applications, and Google Maps invade our privacy in a detrimental way;
however, the government’s invasion of privacy is used for beneficial purposes
such as those discussed in the USA PATRIOT ACT of 2001.
Works
Cited
Lamb,
Amanda. "Mom Says Patriot Act Stripped Son of Due Process." WRAL.com.
Capitol Broadcasting Company, 29 Apr. 2009. Web. 19 Nov. 2012.
Lee, Amy. "Footprints IPhone App
Lets You Track Your Kids, Spouse, Friends (PICTURES)." The Huffington
Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 05 May 2011. Web. 24 Nov. 2012.
"The
USA PATRIOT Act: Preserving Life and Liberty." The United States
Department of Justice. N.p., 26 Oct. 2001. Web. 19 Nov. 2012.
