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.
I read "We're Banning Facial Recognition. We're Missing The Point" written by Bruce Schneier. The general argument made by Schneier, is that banning facial recognition won't help the cause when it comes to the government, surveillance, and data collecting. More specifically, Schneier argues, instead, society should make rules and regulations regarding how data is taken, used, and exploited. They write: " The problem is that we are being identified without our knowledge or consent, and society needs rules about when that is permissible.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, we need rules about how our data can be combined with other data, and then bought and sold without our knowledge or consent." In this passage, Schneier is suggesting that banning facial recognition doesn't solve the problem and instead we should create rules pertaining to how data is collected without consent, how that data can be used, etc. This is a much better solution to Schneier because facial recognition is only one of many ways we're being spied on, and there will be other ways for people to watch you and collect your information despite Facial Recognition being banned. In conclusion, Schenier's belief is that putting rules in place is a much better alternative then simply banning the ways people can watch us and collect information.
I agree that rules should be in place when it comes to companies/the government surveillance us and using our information, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people believe getting rid of facial recognition solves the problem completely. When instead,there will be other ways to connect data and continue the same process.
((This was from Breanna Smith))
DeleteThe 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 and neighborhood apps aren’t the safest. More specifically, Tangermann argues that smart doorbells can get innocent people arrested and amazon echoes can listen to your conversations. They write, “Getting law enforcement involved makes things much more complicated. It’s one thing if you choose to allow Amazon Echoes to listen in on conversations in every room of your house. Making (what are very likely to be) ill-informed calls to the police on who has what kind of intentions on your street is something entirely different.” In this passage, Tangermann is suggesting that the Amazon Echoes and smart doorbells are guaranteed to get innocent people arrested or worse. In conclusion, Tangermann’s belief is that “...the proliferation of smart doorbells and slap-shod digital neighborhood watch portends a dark future.”
ReplyDeleteX's theory of harmful smart doorbells is extremely useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of racial profiling in neighborhood apps. As Tangermann states, “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. Splinter describes users warning the neighborhood of “sketchy” young African-American guys in hoodies and black beanies.” This is not right and I'm glad this article taught me these problems.
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 these smart doorbells and neighborhood watch apps aren't as useful as they make it seem. More specifically, Tangermann argues that it's actually a bad idea because you are being tracked by certain companies and they can find you at all times. 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 getting law enforcement involved makes things much more complicated. In conclusion, Tangermann's belief is that they will result in a dark future for this generation and more to come.
ReplyDeleteTangermann's view on people reporting local crime related activity on these apps is not too helpful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of innocent people getting arrested, convicted, or worse. The pros of the doorbells, less burglaries, don't outweigh the many cons Tangermann has brought attention to.
Haley McNulty
DeleteThe 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 that surveil the outside of your house can be discriminately targeting minorities. More specifically, Victor Tangermann argues 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” and that apps have had history of racial profiling by users in the database of neighborhood watch groups, flagging “‘sketchy’ young African-American guys in hoodies and black beanies”. They write, “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.” In this passage, Victor Tangermann is suggesting that smart doorbell cameras with functionality of instantly alerting police and private security companies at the whim of the user could prove to be dangerous to minorities who already face racial discrimination and oppression, and that many innocent people could be subjected to unfair and racist provocations with local law enforcement. In conclusion, Victor Tangermann’s belief is that smart doorbells enable ignorant people to call the police at anytime of day to hassle innocent minorities.
ReplyDeleteI'm of two minds about Victor Tangermann’s claim that smart doorbells are the issue. On the one hand, I agree that giving racist individuals the tools to instantly call the police to harass innocent bystanders is of course very wrong, and more efforts should be made to curb the amount of racial profiling exhibited on apps such as NectDoor, on the other hand, I'm not sure if smart doorbells are to blame as the ideas they pose is not revolutionary and they provide a useful service to people who need to know what is happening outside their home, surveilence, especially instant survieliance is not a new technology, and ignorant people when they feel threatened will call the police regardless if it’s available to do through the app or not. Of course the database for “suspicious individuals” in neighborhood watch groups is incredibly concerning, the mere technology of the doorbell is not responsible, and because the fault lies on people, I’m not so sure the doorbells should catch the blame.
The general argument made by Bruce Schneier in their work, “We’re Banning Facial Recognition. We’re Missing the Point,” is that banning Facial Recognition will not solve any of our problems. More specifically, Scheier argues that companies are collecting data about us without our consent. 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, Schneier is suggesting that we need to pass laws that make companies reveal what exactly they are doing with the data that they have on us. We could prevent the major corporations from seeing people as just objects to make money off of. In conclusion, Schneier’s belief is that we should keep an eye on companies that use all different kinds of tracking technology because they will not always are ethnically correct or even have our best interests in mind.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree with Schneier up to a point, I cannot accept his overall idea that companies have major power on us as. Yes, they do and can persuade you to buy things you were recently searching, for this does come off as creepy. You also have your ability to say no, boycott that certain company, protest, spread the word about what that company is doing on social media. If people begin to be discriminated by certain companies, cancel culture- though not exactly the best tactic- can be put into use and that company can lose business really quickly. It is difficult to speak against big corporations, but that is slowly changing. If people come together to stand with what they believe in, nothing can stop them. People have voice. If we need to use it, we will.
The general argument made by Tangermann in their work, “Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going to Endanger Some Innocent people” is that smart doorbells may seem like a good idea, but could actually put innocent people’s lives in danger because neighbors can misunderstand certain events or people they see in their neighborhood and inappropriately contact the authorities. More specifically, Tangerman argues that having smart doorbells can lead to racial profiling and discrimination against minority groups. They write, “Getting law enforcement involved makes things much more complicated. It’s one thing if you choose to allow Amazon Echoes to listen in on conversations in every room of your house. Making (what are very likely to be) ill-informed calls to the police on who has what kind of intentions on your street is something entirely different” and also that in watch apps people have reported “‘sketchy’ young African-American guys in hoodies and black beanies.” In these passages, Tangermann is suggesting that people do not always know what others are going to do, and base their actions on what they see. People act upon what they find suspicious to them, which can put innocent lives in danger when they are most likely just trying to live out their life. In conclusion, Tangermann’s belief is that smart doorbells will lead to an increase in racial discrimination caused by racist and/or ignorant people.
ReplyDeleteIn in two minds about Tangermann’s argument that smart doorbells cause major problems. On one hand, I agree that there are people will misuse this tool for an unintended purpose. It’s very simple for a racist person to call up the police after seeing something that they personally find “sketchy,” and there’s no doubt that this would happen to a handful of innocent people, and quite frequently. I think this is an issue that might not have a solid solution, but action should definitely be taken. On the other hand, I’m not sure if it would be right to take away outside home surveillance as a whole. I think there will always be cases where someone will need it, for example is some breaks into their house or even attempts to.
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 these surveillance cameras are supposed to be beneficial but could potentially be very negative. More specifically, Tangermann argues these could actually make things worse than it already is. The write "But it's pretty clearly a bad idea..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..It's pretty much guaranteed to get some innocent people arrested, or worse". In this passage, Tangermann is suggesting that the wrong people could be affecteed, it's invasion of privacy and it's not the way to go. In conclusion, Tangermann's beliefs is that these smart doorbells aren't so smart and is very dangerous.
ReplyDeleteTangermann's claim that these cameras aren't what we need , rest on a questionable assumption that is how do you know you're being watched (makes me think of 1984)? You don't know which brands are safer and wouldn't want people spying/scaring your kids. I agree that government related cameras don't sound anywhere near safe but what about the people who really want to keep an eye out for their property/home belonging.
The article “Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going To Endanger Some Innocent People” by Victor Tangermann is about the smart doorbells and how they have developed.Smart doorbells “started as an innocent way to check in on your front porch when your Amazon package was being dropped off while you were at the office”. Something that was meant to be a good tool for working people to “answer your door when you’re not physically around”. This has now changed greatly, there is now “tools well beyond what is needed to check that your delivery made it to your porch”. There are apps that can call the police directly to notify them of any suspicious actions. Victor Tangermann makes the 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”. The article in sum is about how the change in seeing your porch to calling the police is not a change for the good.
ReplyDeleteI agree that smart doorbells are good to an extent. As Victor Tangermann argues, when you get to use the apps that can call the police it gets to be a little much. I agree with the fact that innocent people are going to be convicted of things they did not do. I also agree that some aspects of the smart doorbell is a good thing but I would also add that some qualities of the apps are a good thing as well. I believe that being able to not only call the police but to be able to show them what they are walking into is a good thing. I think that if the police knew what they were getting into, there would be less people getting hurt. If the apps are used right and send in the right information, then crime rates would go down.
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, even though these smart doorbells are suppose to be considered as the "safest" object, they can also be a danger to peoples life. More specifically, Tangermann argues that these cameras allow people to mistake innocent people for doing the wrong thing. Meaning that there could be a various amount of misunderstandings due to these cameras. They write, " “Getting law enforcement involved makes things much more complicated.. Making (what are very likely to be) ill-informed calls to the police on who has what kind of intentions on your street is something entirely different." He also goes on to explain how " it's pretty clearly a bad idea..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..It's pretty much guaranteed to get some innocent people arrested, or worse." In this passage, Tangermann is suggesting that these people could possibly go to jail for a crime that they didn't commit. Hes also suggesting that, these cameras are kind of watching everything you do and thats not always a good thing. I agree with the fact and reasons why Tangermann thinks that the smart doorbells are dangerous, but then again, lets not forget that their are dangerous people out here and in a way the cameras are also very helpful. This leads me to understand why some people like their house to be watched because without the cameras, people would just get away with crime. So its a 50/50 for me, yes they can be dangerous but they can also be helpful.
ReplyDeletethis kaylah
DeleteThe general argument made by Bruce Schnider in their work, "We're Banning Facial Recognition.We're Missing the Point", is that the ban on facial recognition is the least of our worries. More specifically, Schnider argues that Reasonable laws would prevent the worst of [the data broker industries'] abuses. They write, "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." In this passage, Schnider is suggesting that in order to gain our right to privacy, we shouldn't just place a ban on facial recognition by itself. We should instead pass more laws to place data brokers in check.. In conclusion, Schniders’s belief is that the ban on facial recognition isn't enough and that we should do more to regulate the data broker industry.
ReplyDeleteI'm of two minds about Schnider's claim that companies having information about what we search will have a negative effect, so we need more regulation. On the one hand, I agree that data brokers should have more regulations placed upon them for privacy, however I'm not sure if the data brokers selling the info to companies would have a negative effect, since it would just help companies get money, allowing employees to get paid more, which would help the economy greatly. I just can't see why it's so bad for them to use the information that way.
crystal Owens
The point Victor Tangermann is trying to make in "Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going to Endanger Some Innocent People" is one of precaution and worry for others. His general thesis is that companies like Ring, under Amazon, are producing door bell cameras that are intended for security measures, but will lead to even more dangers. He is worried about things such as racial profiling, and arresting innocent people, or even worse, harm to those people when law enforcement shows up. Tangermann stresses the fear of "companies tracking where you are at all times, live-streaming your children’s most private moments, and even altering the course of presidential elections." Of course this isn't what should be happening with these companies, but for-profit mega corporations don't have your best intention in mind, it's money they want, and not only that, but we live in an online world. People using Ring, Amazon echoes, etc. are at risk of falling victim to hackers who access their personal information and lives. Where Tangermann brings attention to racial profiling, I agree that these companies make products that ultimately negatively affect minorities who are targeted by prejudice, where anyone can call law enforcement and make suspicious calls "warning the neighborhood of “sketchy” young African-American guys in hoodies and black beanies." When in reality these ill informed neighbors target people who fit into their prejudice ideal of what criminals really look like, and calling law enforcement on these innocent people just poses a threat, as law enforcement widely brutalizes people of color across the US. Their lives are threatened when they are simply walking down the street and are at risk of being shot and harmed just because someone saw them in their doorbell camera, and called authorities on them. This proves Tangermann's main focus that these devices pose more harm than good for citizens minding their own business.
ReplyDeleteThe general argument made by Tangerman in their work,”Smart Doorbells That Call The Police Are Going to endangers Some Innocent People” is that the cameras used for safety are being used more to invade the privacy of the neighborhood. More specifically, Tangerman argues that including the law with a digital neighborhood watch in dangerous. Buzzfeed reported, “the Nextdoor app has become a cesspool of racial profiling. ” Tangerman said, “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.” These cameras also invade your privacy. These companies can track where you are at all times or live-stream your children’s most private moments. In conclusion, his belief is that these cameras are invading privacy within the neighborhood. They will cause problems for innocent people.
ReplyDeletedeanna donahue