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.
The general argument made by Tangermann in his work, ¨Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going to Endanger Some Innocent People¨, is that _smart doorbells are going to cause more harm than good. More specifically, Tangermann argues that minorities will suffer as well with these doorbells. They write, “ As BuzzFeed reported, the Nextdoor app has become a cesspool of racial profiling.” In this passage, Tangermann is suggesting that these doorbells use needs to be stopped because its causing more problems than solving them. In conclusion, Tangermanns belief is that these doorbells although have good intentions they are causing problems in the community.
ReplyDeleteTangermanns theory that the doorbells are proving to be a problem for minorities extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of blacks in different communities who are being targeted as being suspect in the neighborhood just for wearing a black hat or being themselves.
The general argument made by Bruce Schneier in their work, We’re Banning Facial Recognition. We’re Missing the Point, is that we need to get rid of facial recognition as it is an act of discrimination.More specifically, X argues that the way we identify people now is wrong and the spying being done on us by the goverment and major companies is bad. They write, “And most of the time, it doesn’t matter if identification isn’t tied to a real name. What’s important is that we can be consistently identified over time. We might be completely anonymous in a system that uses unique cookies to track us as we browse the internet, but the same process of correlation and discrimination still occurs.” In this passage, Schneier is suggesting that the identification systems even if they are anonymous or not in any type of identification they have the same process of correlation and discrimination occurs. In conclusion, Schneier belief is that we need to get rid of the system of identification now becausethe system of correlation and discrimination and the spying being done by the government is not the way to go about identifying people.
ReplyDeleteI'm of two minds about Schneier claim that need to get rid of the system of identification of today because the system of correlation and discrimination and the spying being done by the government is not the way to go about identifying people.On the one hand, I agree that we shouldn't be spied on at all by the government or major companies . On the other hand, I'm not sure if get rid of this system is good completely because it seems the government uses it for identifying any threats that could be happening or the companies use it for ads targeted toward you. For me I would hate if I am a cat person getting ads targeted for dog people. I think that is why I am mixed about it.I feel as though we are owed like an agreement that says that the government or these companies are using our data for certain things.
DeleteThe general argument made by Bruce Schneier in their work, “Were banning Facial Recognition. We’re missing the point.”, is that, facial recognition is not something we should ban. More specifically, Bruce argues that the whole point of this modern surveillance was to be able to treat people differently. He writes, “one particular identification method misconstrues the nature of the surveillance society we’re in the process of building. Ubiquitous mass surveillance is increasingly the norm.” In this passage, he is suggesting that the identification technology is something that is in process and is commonly misunderstood by society to which mass is surveillance is needed. In conclusion, he suggests that it should be kept but talked about and decide how much we want to be spied on.
ReplyDeleteI see Bruce’s theory and conclusion statement of possibly having “a serious conversation about all the technologies of identification, correlation and discrimination” extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of “how much we as a society want to be spied on by governments and corporations — and what sorts of influence we want them to have over our lives.” Furthermore, I agree with the following idea/proposal of possibly having/supporting a “partial ban” on the technology since it would diminish possibly all the bad factors.
The general argument made by Victor Tangermann in their work, "Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going To Endanger Some Innocent People", is that smart doorbells could potentially put more live's at risk than saving them. More specifically, Tangermann argues that innocent miniorities will potientally have the police called on them. They write, "the Nextdoor app has become a cesspool of racial profiling... Splinter describes users warning the neighborhood of “sketchy” young African-American guys in hoodies and black beanies." In this passage, Tangermann is suggesting that doorbells such as these should stop being produced. In conclusion, Tangermann's belief is that there should be better precautions before things such as these are invented since they can fall into the wrong hands.
ReplyDeleteI Read “Smart Doorbells That Call the Police Are Going to Endanger Some Innocent People” by Victor Tangermann. Tangermann is arguing that on a whole, smart doorbells are doing more bad than they are doing good. He is specifically saying that they are bad due to the racial profiling that inevitably comes out of it. He writes, “In a world in which minorities experience violence at what seems like the slightest excuse, the proliferation of smart doorbells and slap-shod digital neighborhood watch portends a dark future.” He is saying that these doorbells are dangerous because of the racism that already exists in today’s society.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Tangermann is correct, because these are all very real scenarios. He isn’t saying that there is the potential for this to happen. He’s stating the claim that it IS happening, and that’s why the doorbells are a bad idea. Some people may not agree, but that is because they’re simply just ignorant to all the racism still circulating in today’s society.
SUMMARIZING WHAT “THEY SAY”
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 Ring; which is an Amazon owned smart doorbell company, created an app called Neighbors for their doorbells to watch out for the arrival of your Amazon products, but specifically to watch out for suspicious behavior around your home and alert others to such behavior. Yet, such systems like Neighbors do more harm than good. More specifically, Tangermann argues that the Neighbors app and others like it are used to appropriate racial profiling and unpermitted collect of personal information that is given to the government. They write, “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. Splinter describes users warning the neighborhood of “sketchy” young African-American guys in hoodies and black beanies,” and “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 the first passage chosen from the source, Tangermann is suggesting that even with good intentions people use the Nextdoor’s system out of personal prejudice against those of minorities; especially those of darker skin colors. While, the other passage, Tangermann is suggesting though as an ‘extreme’ example of altering presidential elections, corporations that seem trustworthy shouldn’t be fully trusted with your personal info as they will take advantage of you. In conclusion, Tangermann’s belief is that smart doorbells do more harm than good, especially with the inclusion of apps like Neighbors and Nextdoor.
STRUCTURING “I SAY”
Tangermann’s theory of smart doorbells and their detection apps being more of an invasion of privacy and causes extreme issues in perception is useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of what makes people feel safe or have a sense of safety. Other than smart doorbells looking through your information; the internet itself can be pointed to having the same problem. Have you had someone tell you that as soon as they consider something or talk about something in front of the screen, ads relate to such things start to appear? Creepy right? It just shows how privacy and safety can be very hard to keep intact.
The general argument made by Victor Tangermann in their work, ¨Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going To Endanger Some Innocent People¨ is that new doorbell cameras are becoming more dangerous and are hindering people from their safety. More specifically, Tangermann argues that these smart doorbells are getting in the way of the privacy of children, it is tracking your location through personal information, and it has been proven to show racial profiling. They write, ¨Splinter describes users warning the neighborhood of ´sketchy'young African-Americans guys in hoodies and black beanies." In this passage, Tangermann is suggesting that innocent people are being targeted when it should be the opposite. Young men are being seen as a threat when they are doing nothing wrong. In conclusion, Tangermannś belief is that smart doorbells continuing to function the way it does will result in the endangerment of other innocent people, specifically children and minorities.
ReplyDeleteTangermannś theory of eliminating smart doorbells for the safety of other people is extremely useful because it sheds light on the difficult problem of the racial profiling of minorities and privacy. Even though there may be a chance that the person may be dangerous, it is better for the system to work diligently towards further looking into the situation. These people who are just living their daily lives are being targeted for things they have not done just because of how they look. Furthermore, it takes away privacy from the people of the neighborhood and in and out of the homes. Children no longer will have privacy in their rooms and the neighborhoods would not have that privacy either. While, the doorbell system is suppose to keep people safe, it is making it harder for people to live their lives privately and safely.
The general argument made by Bruce Schneier and their work “We’re Banning Facial Recognition, We’re Missing the Point” is that instead of honing in on banning facial recognition technology, we need to focus more on tackling the issue of being spied on without giving consent. More specifically, he argues that we need to have a discussion to set parameters on the types of data collection for identification, correlation, and discrimination, and what corporations can do with this data. He writes “There is a huge— almost entirely unregulated— data broker industry in the United States that trades on our information.” In this passage, Schneier is suggesting that there are methods beyond facial recognition technology to track us, and eliminating the problem is not so simple. These methods include MAC addresses from phones, credit card information, license plates, even health records. In conclusion, Schneier’s belief is that the nature of the surveillance society is being misconstrued by everyone focusing on only one method of data collection. I agree in this sentiment, and Schneier’s point should definitely be emphasized since not as many people are educated or believe the truth about corporation spying. Even myself, going into the article, was all for banning facial recognition but now I understand it is not so easy, and there’s much more to it.
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 smart doorbells are actually scary and cause harm. More specifically, Tangermann argues that We can be watched and tracked and it can alter important factor of our lives. 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, Tangermann is suggesting that we should stop getting smart doorbells. In conclusion, Tangermann’s belief is that smart doorbells are questionable and cause trouble.
ReplyDeleteTangermann's theory of how smart doorbells can cause trouble is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the ways society can be negatively impacted by technology when it is used incorrectly. This technology is scary and questionable.
- Devyn
Delete^that was an accident
Deleteno it wasn't actually ignore me
DeleteIn “Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going to Endanger Some Innocent People”, Tangermann argues that cameras attached to doorbells will do more bad than good when it comes to protecting your neighborhood. He makes a really good point that, “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.” If everyone is sitting around waiting for something bad to happen eventually they will either make something up or they exaggerate a minor situation and incriminate an innocent person.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Tangermann, that smart doorbells will incriminate some innocent people because I believe that if you sit around waiting for something bad to happen it will or you’ll make it up yourself. Why would you want either of those things? Now I don’t think that smart doorbells are completely terrible but there should be some limits to what you can do with them.