Does Privacy Still Exist?

The World Wide Web was created roughly 30 years ago. Today the internet is used for just about everything, such as shopping, communicating, business matters, and so much more. The typical person lives their lives online. Most people know that what they post or use the internet for is not really private, but the question is: "How many people really know what that means?".

This week in class we watched Ted Talks about one's privacy, one of them was about 'electronic tattoos'. It essentially compared ones life online to tattoos on our bodies. Yes, tattoos on one's body are permanent, that is why some people refrain from getting them, but our digital footprint is even more permanent. Electronic tattoos will live far longer than our bodies will, that is why it is important to be careful what you share or use the internet for.

However, even if one does not use the internet or they are careful about how they use it, they still can be tracked in other ways. For example, this Ted Talk focused on automatic license plate readers. When someone first hears about automatic license plate readers they might not think much of it but they can be used for more than you think. Location records are kept by police departments of every plate that passes them by resulting in a huge pile of information about where Americans travel to. This information can reveal where you live, if you go to church, and just what you do on a daily basis. One instance, in particular, that was highlighted in the Ted Talk was of this man who went to his police to see what they had on record of him. There were several pictures of him from the license plate tracker, even pictures of him and his daughters getting out of their car in his driveway! The important thing to note is this man has no criminal record.

The last Ted Talk that I found interesting talked about wiretapping. Our telephone companies have provided wiretapping assistance to governments, they have "built surveillance features into the very core of their networks". Our phones are wired for surveillance first. Anyone could be monitoring your phone usage, your own government, a stalker, essentially any party that is able to hack into the surveillance system of your telephone company. Luckily, iPhone has built-in encryption tools that make it hard for someone to hack into your messages which the government is not happy about because the encryption tools are on by default. Government officials believe all communications should be available to governments in order to keep everyone safe. Their argument is that we all use the same communication devices as a terrorist, therefore, we should be using devices that allow wiretapping. This is an interesting point, but I disagree. I do not like the idea of any government being able to wiretap anyone's phone throughout the entire world because this also means any hacker could wiretap those phones.

There seems to be no way to live a private life in this day and age. One can try their best to live a private life but there seems to be no escape to at least some of your personal information being exposed. The scary thought is that all of these monitoring devices that exist can be misused.

Cord Cutting

This week in my Media Law and Literacy class each group did presentations on differing topics. The topic from another group that I found most interesting is Cord Cutting from the group presenting on Policy.  

Cord Cutting is when people cancel their Cable and Satellite TV plans and replace it with streaming services. This had become very common nowadays through how popular streaming platforms' own original shows are becoming, how convenient it is, and how much money is saved.  

Since 2012, pay-TV has lost 10 million subscribers which allows streaming platforms to raise their monthly fees but it is still cheaper and less of a hassle than pay-TV. Not only are several households switching to streaming services, but those who are still watching traditional TV are watching less.  According to the presentation, it can save between $24-$100 depending on which plan one previously had. Other positive aspects of switching to streaming services are that it removes subscriptions to unwanted channels, there is little advertising, you can watch whenever and wherever due to downloading features. One can also watch an entire TV series without having to wait for a new episode to release. Additionally, subscribers of streaming services have access to exclusive TV series and movies. For example, both Netflix and Hulu release their own original series and movies.

My family is among the many households that have replaced our pay-TV plan with streaming services. We had Direct TV but it was annoying how many extra channels we had to pay for that we did not even use. We found ourselves using Netflix, Hulu, and Amazon Prime more than our pay-TV plan. 

My parents have seemed to have found a great alternative to pay-TV which is YouTube TV. YouTube TV is a live TV streaming service that has many major TV channels available such as Fox, HGTV, ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, ESPN, Disney Channel, and many more without all of the extra channels pay-TV makes you add to your plan. YouTube TV has become the number one service for cord-cutters. 

When I move into my own home I will not be purchasing a Cable TV plan because I do not watch live TV. I believe many people among my generation and the generations that follow will do the same. 

WikiLeaks

This week in Media Law and Literacy class we separated off into groups to build a presentation for next week's class. My group was assigned to present on Mediasphere including the topics of MSM, Alternative Media, Echo Chamber, Whistleblower, WikiLeaks, and Citizen Journalism. The topic I researched was WikiLeaks. 

WikiLeaks was founded by Julian Assange in 2006 and it is an international non-profit organization. It releases news leaks and classified media. It is essentially a whistleblowing platform that receives its content from anonymous sources. It is a place that releases information for the public to have access to the raw documents that other news outlets would not consider publishing. 

This platform forces transparency and gives the public more information to determine their own judgment based on the matters being discussed. However, if things are not substantiated it could spread false information among the general public. 

WikiLeaks has affected society as a whole and it will continue to do so for as long as it's around. For example, President Trump used information from WikiLeaks in his 2016 campaign to use against his opponent. WikiLeaks is not a credible source that politicians and our entire society should rely on. WikiLeaks has enough power that it can influence political campaigns, public policies, how businesses are run, etc. but it should not. No matter what the instance is, society could be basing its foundations off of rumors. Society is basically taking a gamble on what to believe and what not to believe. 

Misinformation about certain segments of society can also occur. Spreading false information can happen to any segment of society whether it is about the minority or majority, the rich or the poor, what age you are, what gender you are, and what your sexual orientation is.  Any group can be a target. 

Wealthy people are impacted by WikiLeaks as they can become a target. This article mentions a few billionaires who suffered from a WikiLeaks posting. In addition, those who are not well educated could take the information at face value. As for young, they may not have enough life experience or awareness to determine what might be true and what might be false. They are more likely to fall for false information because they are naive and gullible. As for my generation, we tend to get our news from less traditional sources and often opt out of researching matters independently to check those sources' credibility. We typically believe anything we see online. We have a reputation of just reading the headlines and making our judgments from there. 

Attitudes could be influenced by information whether it be true or false. There are instances where crucial information is revealed through WikiLeaks that people have tried to hide which I think is important for the public to be aware of. Also, mainstream news sources can be biased so WikiLeaks can provide another point of view. However, users of the site must remember to investigate what is published to determine the facts. 

My Online Presence

This week in my Media Law and Literacy class we discussed how anyone can learn about you through a quick google search. I personally have had social media accounts since I was around 12 years old. I have since deleted many of my old posts and even created a whole new Facebook account while I was in high school to avoid embarrassment. The social media sites that I have accounts on are Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and YouTube. I believe I share more about my life online than most people. 

On Facebook, I do not write posts but I always share pictures. I share photos from just about everything in my life, anyone could learn a lot about my interests and who I am just based on my photos. Someone could discover that I am a dancer, I attend High Point University, I have three dogs and two cats, I enjoy pizza, I have a boyfriend, I have two nephews, I like to travel, I am in a sorority, I enjoy concerts, and so much more. However, I do utilize the privacy settings on Facebook. 

On Twitter, I have not created my own post in years but I occasionally will retweet someone's tweet. Someone who views my Twitter would be able to get a glimpse into what kind of person I am. 

On Instagram, I post my favorite pictures and usually tag the location of where I took them. My Instagram is public for anyone to see, however after reading this article that talks about one's online presence I will most likely stop tagging locations near where I live. I do not feel the need to private my Instagram as I tend to view it as a way for future employers to see what I am like outside of the interviewing process. 

Very few people I know post on YouTube but I am one of those people. I have documented parts of my life on YouTube and it is intended for anyone to see. Except for locations, everything I post on my various social media accounts I am not afraid for anyone to have access to.

I will not, however, add my phone number to my accounts and my email is private on all my accounts as well. 

Despite the amount of information I put online, when I google "Emily Johnson" I do not pop up. I have a very common name so this makes sense but even when I search my name and add my hometown after it, only my LinkedIn shows up. What I found interesting is when I search my dad's name followed by my hometown my address pops up, along with his phone number and my phone number, his birthday, his political affiliation, that he married my mom, and that he has two sons. It lists both my brother's names but according to google, I do not exist in my family. After not being able to find much of myself on google I tried one more search, "emmie_emily", the username I use for my social media accounts. I was disappointed yet not surprised to see that several pictures of myself showed up. 

For me, social media is a way for friends and family to stay updated on my life but for others, social media can be damaging. Some may compare their lives to others based on what they post. I only post about positive moments in my life on social media and so do many others. Therefore, people need to remember to not compare themselves to others based on their social media accounts because it is not the full reality.