ASSIGNMENT: BIG CORPORATIONS ARE WATCHING YOU
1. Preview each article below and decide which one you want to read in full.
- Summarize the article's thesis, evidence, and reasoning. Try using the SUMMARIZING WHAT “THEY SAY” "They Say / I Say" template to write your paragraph.
- Then, Make a judgment about the article's thesis. Try to use at least one bullet point from the "THREE WAYS TO RESPOND: STRUCTURING 'I SAY'" from the "They Say / I Say" template
HOMEWORK:
1. Continue writing about the article. It is due tomorrow at 11:59pm.
2. Continue reading 1984 Chapters V-VIII. ThoughtLog on 1984 Chapters V-VIII will be graded at the beginning of Monday's class. There might be a Reading Check as well.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe general argument made by Tangermann in their work, “Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going to Endanger Some Innocent People”, is that these gadgets do much more than make sure your Amazon delivery arrives on your porch. More specifically, Tangermann argues that having these new updated surveillance doorbells are a bad idea. They write, “Doing so can result in companies tracking where you are at all times, live-streaming your children’s most private moments, and even altering the course of presidential elections.” In this passage, Tangermann is suggesting that it’s not paranoia and that these scary and dangerous effects are taking place . In conclusion, Tangermann’s belief is that pros don’t outweigh the cons. It’s better to be safe than sorry if anything bad happens.
ReplyDeleteTangermann is surely right about how having these new doorbells is scary and dangerous because, as she may not be aware, recent studies have shown that the Nextdoor app has become a cesspool of racial profiling.
ReplyDeleteThe general argument made by Bruce Schneier in their work, We’re Banning Facial Recognition. We’re Missing the Point, is that facial recognition is in the hands of the wrong people and being used improperly. More specifically, Schneier argues that there needs to be more laws and restrictions as to who can access our data without us even recognizing. They write, “Similarly, we need rules about how our data can be combined with other data, and then bought and sold without our knowledge or consent. The data broker industry is almost entirely unregulated; there’s only one law — passed in Vermont in 2018 — that requires data brokers to register and explain in broad terms what kind of data they collect. The large internet surveillance companies like Facebook and Google collect dossiers on us more detailed than those of any police state of the previous century. Reasonable laws would prevent the worst of their abuses.” In this passage, Shneier is suggesting that big corporations and data brokers be held accountable and treated fairly when it comes to dealing with the average Joe's personal information. In conclusion, Shneier’s belief is that while change is happening and facial recognition is slowly being banned, we still have a lot of work to do and a lot of word needs to be spread for that to happen.
I think Shneier is mistaken because he overlooks the idea that MAC addresses are the identification for a given device and the manufacturer. This being said they can't really obtain any actual personal information without bypassing the manufacturers securities, which in fact is very illegal. However IP addresses are more individual and is more based on the internet or Wi-Fi making this data much more informational towards a given person.
Alanis Santiago
ReplyDeleteThe general argument made by Victor Tangermann in their work, " Smart doorbells that call the police are going to endanger some innocent people, is that the smart door bells made by amazon are more dangerous than they are a positive thing. More specifically, Tangermann argues that this new invention will endanger innocent people. They write, " In a world in which minorities experience violence in what seems like the slightest excuse, the proliferation of smart door bells and slap-shod digital neighborhood watch portends a dark future." In this passage, Tangermann is suggesting that these doorbells are putting targets on people's back such as those who are a part of a minority such as, African Americans. In conclusion, Tangermann's beliefis that this new technology is putting a power in people's hands that can be used for bad intentions and cause misunderstanding by making nothing into something.
Tangermann's theory of what the problems these doorbells may cause, is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of society and the people who have to walk around with fear because they have a target on their backs. It also focuses on minorities and in what ways people with authority are being misled to falsely accusing someone of something they might not have done.
The general argument made by Victor Tangerman in his work, “Smart Doorbells That Call The Police are Going to Endanger Some Innocent People” , is that apps made for the purpose of surveillance of one's neighborhood are going to lead to innocent people being harmed. More specifically, X argues that that majority of people targeted by false accusations by surveillance apps like are minorities. He writes, “As BuzzFeed reported, the Nextdoor app has become a cesspool of racial profiling. Even the app’s efforts to curtail racial profiling with a neat, little algorithm back in 2016 couldn’t stop the overwhelming torrent of ignorance.” In this passage, Tangerman is suggesting that with the “safety” technology, minorities are being put at risk due to racists abusing the reporting system. In conclusion, X’s belief is that neighborhood monitoring apps are going to lead to an increase in preventable danger brought on by ignorance and racial profiling.
ReplyDeleteTangerman's theory of ‘smart’ doorbells and the like being exploited to threaten minorities is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of how prevalent racial profiling is in our society. There is a enough struggle they have to deal with through in-person interactions, but when you layer on the use of technology that connects directly to the police, a whole new area of misconduct will arise. I read another article that supports Tangerman’s argument and lead me to agree further with it. In Pendarvis Harshaw’s article “Nextdoor, the Social Network for Neighbors, is Becoming a home for Racial Profiling ,” he writes about the experience of a woman’s friends. They were lost, looking for her house for a party. But because they happened to be black, a fury of reports on the Nextdoor app went off, even suggesting calling the police for the two men walking around. Multiple other instances like this occur all across apps like this, which is why I agree while these apps had the best intentions in mind, they will eventually lead to unwarranted injury and tragic death.
The general argument made by Bruce Schneier in their work, We’re Banning Facial Recognition We’re Missing the Point, is that facial recognition is only a small part of the problem. More specifically, Schneier argues that focusing on one particular method of identification defeats the purpose of the surveillance society we’re in the process of creating. They write, “Facial recognition is a technology that can be used to identify people without their knowledge or consent. It relies on the prevalence of cameras, which are becoming both more powerful and smaller, and machine learning technologies that can match the output of these cameras with images from a database of existing photos.” In this passage, Schneier is suggesting that there are many other ways that technology can pull our personal information from and identify us through. He also makes a point that it is just another invasion of privacy that the people did not give consent to. In conclusion, Schneiers belief is that banning facial recognition is only a small step in fixing this problem and we need to start having serious conversations about the technologies of identification.
ReplyDeleteBy focusing on the fact that banning facial recognition is not truly solving the problem, Schneier overlooks the deeper problem of the fact that people are quick to fill out their personal information which does not help the problem. I feel as though technologies of identification have a lot of information just based off of what people are more than willing to share online. Think about how you have to set up an account for almost anything online and the questions you’re asked before hand. That alone is you giving out information about yourself through a screen.
I say 'NO!' to this. Why the hell would you want to use facial recognition and have it later leaked to the world when a hacker bypasses it? And better yet, what could it even be used for? Scanning people's faces? Sharing people's DNA? Honestly, nobody really knows. Facial recognition, to me, is an irrelevant future object for the future generations to come.
ReplyDeleteIn response to my I Say part, my They Say part.
DeleteThey say the general argument made by Bruce Schneier in their work, ‘We’re Banning Facial Recognition. We’re Missing the Point.’, is that facial recognition should not be banned. More specifically, Bruce argues that we’re all missing the point with the facial recognition ban. They write, ‘Facial recognition is a technology that can be used to identify people without their knowledge or consent.’. In this passage, Bruce is suggesting that facial recognizers do not allow people to consent to it. IN conclusion, Bruce’s belief is that we’re all missing the point of the facial recognition ban, and that it shouldn’t really be banned in the first place.
ReplyDeleteThe general argument made by Bruce Schneier in his work, We’re Banning Facial Recognition. We’re Missing the Point, is that banning facial recognition is the wrong way to combat modern surveillance.
More specifically, Schneier argues that we must put a few regulations in place on all three steps of the process. He writes, “The problem is that we are being identified without our knowledge or consent, and society needs rules about when that is permissible[…]Similarly, we need rules about how our data can be combined with other data, and then bought and sold without our knowledge or consent [...] Finally, we need better rules about when and how it is permissible for companies to discriminate [In terms of the current technologies of surveillance and control].” In this passage, Schneier is suggesting that these adjustments are appropriate if we want to begin to regulate the way large corporations buy and sell our information collected using recognition software. In conclusion, Schneier’s belief is that a total ban on facial recognition software will only be a hindrance.
In my view, Schneier is right, because facial recognition software is a very important tool but it shouldn’t be taken advantage of for a companies benefit. More specifically, I believe that recognition software is very useful because it helps identify people, which is very beneficial, but if large companies are buying and selling our information without our permission in order to individualize our experiences with their company, then that should be put to an end. For example, when we search on Google, more often than not, we may see the thing we we’re searching for on our Instagram feed. Although Schneier might say that the companies don’t need to put an end to using that information but they must obtain more permission to use that type of information, I maintain that if others are profiting off of our information it should be put to an end or we should be compensated for our information. Therefore, I conclude that although facial recognition is a very useful tool, large companies shouldn’t be and to exchange or sell our information for their own benefit.
The general argument made by Victor Tangermann in their work, smart doorbells that call the police are going to endanger some innocent people, this is going to happen because these doorbells are showing faces of people, people that probably don’t mean harm but they are showing the faces of people and that’s not okay. More specifically,Victor Tangermann argues that this could be really dangerous because they are showing the faces of everyone that rings the doorbell this is not okay because its showing the faces of kids (if there are kids in the house) and adults. They write, “ We’ve seen it time and time again: handing over your personal data to profit-driven mega-corporations can have some pretty negative consequences. Doing so can result in companies tracking where you are at all times, live-streaming your children’s most private moments, and even altering the course of presidential elections.” In this passage, X is suggesting that we get rid of stuff like this because it is going to hurt just random people and that is not okay. In conclusion, X’s belief is that the pros outway the cons and that everyone experiences violence and the rapid increase of smart doorbells and other online neighborhood watch teams will make a bad future.
ReplyDeleteBy focusing on how they help people, Victor Tangermann overlooks the deeper problem of this because he should be adding a little more info in to show why having these are a bad idea. -Christina N.
The general argument made by Victor Tangermann in their work, about amazon's smart doorbells, is that these doorbells allow big corporations to track people's personal information and allows individuals to make decisions on whether to involve law enforcement or not. More specifically, Tangermann argues that these technical devices can endanger people's information and would most likely lead those who are innocent to get arrested or something chronicle. They write, “Escalating normal neighborhood goings-on in to involve law enforcement becomes a whole lot more dangerous when everyone is sitting around with their finger on the panic button. It’s pretty much guaranteed to get some innocent people arrested, or worse..” In this passage, Tangermann is suggesting that people could easily make mistakes or judge others indiscreetly whenever a situation seems dire in their eyes due to the accessibility that they have. In conclusion, Tangermann’s belief is that people shouldn’t have access to such devices due to their ability of abuse and endangering others.
ReplyDeleteTangermann's theory of people’s information getting tracked and the abuse of these doorbells is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of how much people rely on technology for trivial manners, which the government takes advantage of. Its seen in the article that although the doorbells did make use of the issue, with peoples packages not getting to their doorstep, the cons outweigh the pros making it very difficult to foresee the issues at hand.
The general argument made by Victor Tangermann in their work, “Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going to Endangers Some Innocent People”, is that big corporations are giving their consumers to much power for a simple device of making sure a package is delivered. . More specifically, Victor Tangermann argues that some apps that are supposed to do more good than harm are more likely an invasion of your privacy. They write, “ We’ve seen it time and time again: handing over your personal data to profit-driven mega-corporations can have some pretty negative consequences. Doing so can result in companies tracking where you are at all times, live-streaming your children’s most private moments” In this passage, Victor Tangermann is suggesting that these so called “neighborhood watch apps” are doing more harm than good. In conclusion, Victor Tangermann’s belief is that apps like these can cause more paranoia than being a helpful neighbor. In reality a person who thinks they are being a helpful neighbor could be doing more harm than good, by either looking to hard into something that isn't even remotely close to anything suspicious.
ReplyDeleteTangermann’s theory of smart doorbells is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of how easy it is for citizens to abuse power. It just shows how much people live in fear and some times can overreact or read too much into a situation. Tangermann also makes apoint how these apps can cause racial profiling on minorities ,who already fell like they have a target on them. In reality the author brings up an important issue of how much power should an average person have in making sure that a package is safely delivered to their home.
Alexa
ReplyDeleteThe general argument made by Tangermann in his work, ”Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going to Endanger Some Innocent People”, is that although the cameras may keep you and your packages safe they can also put innocent people into danger. More specifically, Tangermann argues that if the camera thinks that someone is a threat towards the house it will immediately call the police which could put an innocent person into danger. Even if they were never a threat to begin with. They write, “ Escalating normal neighborhood going-ons in to involve law enforcement becomes a whole lot more dangerous when everyone is sitting around with their finger on the panic button. It’s pretty much guaranteed to get some innocent people arrested, or worse.” In this passage, Tangermann is suggesting that these cameras allow people to watch every moment around their houses. Once they think something suspicious it takes a click of a button to say that they are in danger. Which often times is worse because then police could be told to target someone who isn’t a threat. In conclusion, Tangermann’s belief is that people will take advantage of these cameras and use them to endanger innocent people/neighbors.
Tangermann's theory that ”Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going to Endanger Some Innocent People” is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of people thinking that smart doorbells will keep people safe. In reality these cameras just allow people to target someone even if they may be innocent.They also waste law enforcements time because when they get a call and it’s nothing to worry about they could have been somewhere that is more important. These cameras are also known to discriminate against people by thinking that they are “suspicious” because people have their hoods up. Overall, these cameras may be useful for some but for others it allows them to create trouble throughout their neighborhood.
The general argument made by Victor Tangermann in his article, ̈”Smart Doorbells that call the police are going to endanger some innocent people” is that smart doorbells are a “bad idea”. More specifically, Tangermann argues that although Smart Doorbells are useful in terms of surveillance, with the advance of apps like ̈Neighbor” that allows you to contact law enforcement if anything suspicious is happening in your neighborhood, it becomes dangerous as people are given the power to instantly contact enforcement based on their assumptions. Tangermann writes” the Nextdoor app has become a cesspool of racial profiling. Even the app’s efforts to curtail racial profiling with a neat, little algorithm back in 2016 couldn’t stop the overwhelming torrent of ignorance.” This use of evidence Tangermann provides is suggesting that these assumptions that people make can lead to innocent individuals being accused of something they didn't do. In conclusion, Tangermannn’s belief is that monitoring apps will ultimately be the fault of innocent individuals becoming “endangered”.
ReplyDeleteTangermann’s theory of the smart doorbells is useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of racial profiling. With stories on the news, its clear racial profiling still exists. Agreeing with Tangermann, the concept behind the doorbells in its use of surveillance is nice but at the same time, it's giving people easy access to target innocent individuals. Not to say that without the installment of the smart doorbells innocent people aren't going to be targeted racially but with it, it makes an already existing problem(racial profiling) worse. As bad enough people are already racially profiled, they now have to worry about people watching their moves on a device and now have to take extra precaution in every little move they do because one act that look suspicious can lead to now neighbors calling the police because they think they see suspect activity. In all, safety over our neighborhoods are important and these neighborhood monitoring apps try to aim for this however in come up with ways to avoid racial profiling through the app from happening.
My feelings on the issue are mixed. I do support Victor Tangermann's position that calling law enforcement on just anyone you find suspicious is not good and can result in innocent people going to jail, but I find Tangermann's argument about this a little strange because yes there are people out there who will call the police on anyone without thinking, but that feature can be very helpful because people stealing packages from doorsteps is on the rise and if you catch them on video, you can send those people to law enforcement and probably get your package back, however, I find Tangermann's research on the app Nextdoor "has become a cesspool of racial profiling" to be equally persuasive. It isn't fair that an algorithm determines who is guilty and who isn't based on features.
ReplyDeleteThe general argument made by Bruce Schneier in their work, discussing banning facial recognition, is that the people are missing the point. More specifically, Mr. Schneier argues that facial recognition is was being banned from a lot communities across the United States to end the endangerment of sharing too much information to the unknown. They write, “Communities across the United States are starting to ban facial recognition technologies. In May of last year, San Francisco banned facial recognition; the neighboring city of Oakland soon followed, as did Somerville and Brookline in Massachusetts (a statewide ban may follow). In December, San Diego suspended a facial recognition program in advance of a new statewide law, which declared it illegal, coming into effect. Forty major music festivals pledged not to use the technology, and activists are calling for a nationwide ban. Many Democratic presidential candidates support at least a partial ban on the technology”. In this passage, Bruce Schneier is suggesting that this is suppose to help the people, but facial recognition bans are the wrong way to fight against modern surveillance. They should be focusing on one specific thing of that identification method misunderstood the nature of the surveillance society we’re in the process of building. In conclusion, Bruce Schneier’s belief is that in countries like China, a surveillance base is being built by the government for social control. In countries like the United States, it’s being built by corporations in order to influence our buying behavior, and is incidentally used by the government. In all cases, modern mass surveillance has three broad components such as, identification, correlation and discrimination.
ReplyDeleteI agree that they are going about things the wrong way because it is not the people’s fault it is seemly the companies or corporations who created these products that should be at fault and should fix the problem.
The general argument made by Tangermann in their work, “Smart Doorbell That Call The Police Are Going To Endanger Some Innocent People”, is that these gadgets gives you more than enough tools well beyond what is needed to check the delivery at your front porch. More specially, Tangermann argues that these gadgets actually do more damage then just keeping an eye on your deliveries. They write “ Handing over your personal data to profit-driven mega-corporations can have some pretty negative consequences. Doing so can result in companies tracking where you are at all times, live-streaming your children’s most private moments…” In this passage, Tangermann is suggesting that these gadgets are doing way more then asked like getting access to your personal info and into your private life. In conclusion, Tangermann’s belief is that these gadgets pros don't outweigh the cons and therefore is not a good idea ; they get access to unwanted information and put a target on minorities backs which leaves the world on edge.
ReplyDeleteI’m of two minds about Tagermann’s claim that Smart Doorbells should be removed or used differently. On the one hand, I agree that these smart doorbells do make it easier for people to be judgmental about the wrong person and gives people the ability to obtain personal information on you. On the other hand, I’m not sure if getting rid of it overall is a good idea. I’ve used the smart doorbell and I was able to see who stole some of my fashion nova packages. My neighbors also has video of someone breaking into her car. I do think if used the right way, we will be able to see what we once thought was impossible. However I do understand that not everyone will use it for the right reasons and that we will be sacrificing privacy.
The general argument made by Tangerman in their work, Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going to Endanger Some Innocent People, is that advanced surveillance can cause more bad than good to the community. More specifically, Tangerman argues that giving citizens the freedom to interpret the intentions of strangers based on subjective peculiarities in order to publicly denounce said strangers is illiberal. They write, “This isn’t just paranoia — these scary effects are already happening. As BuzzFeed reported, the Nextdoor app has become a cesspool of racial profiling. Even the app’s efforts to curtail racial profiling with a neat, little algorithm back in 2016 couldn’t stop the overwhelming torrent of ignorance..” In this passage, Tangerman is suggesting that this technology is enabling people to pick apart subjective suspicion as a way to justify their prejudices. In conclusion, Tangerman’s belief is that smart surveillance gives too much power to the ordinary person, forcing others to live in fear of being profiled as a danger to society.
ReplyDeleteI agree that “Smart Doorbells can endanger innocent people” because my experience with simply going grocery shopping confirms it. As a person within the black community, it’s instilled at birth that people will instinctively look down upon you, forcing you to have to try twice as hard in life. Due to this, I’ve lived my life constantly trying to break the wrongful stereotypes of black people. Therefore, whenever I shop anywhere, I’m very careful with my own mannerisms in making sure that I don’t look like I’m a thief.
-Avis Ogden
The general argument made by Tangermann in his work about smart doorbells, is doorbells with the small cameras in them that invade the privacy of innocent people. These cameras may be used to protect people and their property, but his argument states that these doorbells invade their privacy and leak their information to other people. The cameras may be used by the government to record families, which will put families in danger in their own homes. It was also mentioned how people have their “fingers on the panic button” and by people doing this, it will put the people in greater danger when the police respond to the signal. He seems to be saying these doorbells should not exist because the cons of these devices are worse than the pros of the device. They should not exist, because they don’t do the job they are supposed to. Even though these are supposed to protect people and keep their families safe, they don’t do the job they are suppose to and end putting millions in danger.
ReplyDeleteI agree with his thoughts because, these are obviously not doing their job. They are supposed to protect people, but instead they are taking their personal information and the government uses it against them. These should not have the ability to get this kind of personal information, and see what those people are doing whenever they want. These cameras are a little extreme, and they should not be used if this is what they are going to do.
-Sarah Rosenberg
In the article, the argument Tangermann is trying to express has to do with the use of smart doorbells resulting in lack of privacy, racial profiling and innocent people being arrested. They've been created in order to help secure people's packages and homes but they are beginning to be utilized for communication with the cops. Sounds like a good idea but in reality, he's trying to argue that innocent individuals (people of color) are being targeted for being "suspicious", giving people the opportunity to report anything that might make them a little too uncomfortable. As well as being used to discriminate, there's a major privacy issue and by installing these doorbells, you're basically allowing yourself to be under constant surveillance.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what Tangermann has to say, people of color are already targeted and discriminated against and I think that smart doorbells are giving people the opportunity to feel in a position of power and just able to report anything they want and have it handled. Similarly, I don't think certain corporations should just have access to whatever they want but as a society, people fall for it.
-Maleyah Reed