Privacy | Online and Off

Sarah E Harvey

It was about seven years ago that I first realized that photos other people take of you can end up on the internet. Growing up, my family would occasionally have photos done by professional photographers. When I was thirteen years old, I had some photos done and a couple years later I found images of my photo shoot plastered on the internet. Do a quick google search of Sarah E Harvey and click on images, and you will see some of those photos of me as well as a high school photo and writeup that was done by a local news channel in 2020. 

Privacy is an illusion. I firmly believe that and after watching multiple Ted talk discussions, I am even more shocked to learn how privacy may becoming a thing of the past. I especially loved the talk given by
Juan Enriquez where he described our digital online life like a tattoo. He explains that tattoos tell a story. Whether that story is something serious, funny, beautiful, or even a mistake, a tattoo is permanant. Our digital tattoos also tell a story which can also be good or bad and can be used either for or against us. What if we make a mistake in life or do something to embarrass ourselves or our family and that information gets put into the digital world for all to see? 

We already know that surveillance exists. GPS, facial recognition, credit scores, reviews we write, cookies on our computers, and our online posting behaviors are among some of the more well known technologies. But what about the automatic license plate readers that are readily available on police vehicles. Such devices are able to record license plates, who is driving a vehicle, and who the passengers are. This means every time an officer drives by our homes or passes us on the road that we become part of a permanent record of sorts. In the Ted talk given by Catherine Crump, an American law professor, I learned that the federal government is soliciting mass amounts of data from police stations across the nation. It doesn't seem to matter if the data is linked to a wrongdoer or someone who is completely innocent. The data collected is made available on each and every one of us. My thoughts go to the 'what if's.' What if such surveillance has you near the scene of a crime? What if you had done nothing wrong but because your license plate or your face was recorded harm could come to you. 

Now think about your phone. Most of us cannot live without it. We don't leave home without it, we keep it in our presence all the time. It is there beside us while we sleep, when we go on vacation, and when we have what we think are private conversations. According to the Ted talk given by Christopher Soghoian, telephone companies have long been tapping telephone lines. Telephone surveillance is actually built right into the networks making surveillance part of their plan. This creates an open door for hackers and anyone else wanting to do harm to come right inside. This talk spoke about the cost we pay for such surveillance under the guise of things like national security. Compromises in security and privacy happen all the time. People's personal credit is hacked allowing identity theft. Entire governments can be hacked by people wanting to shut down major systems and to cause interruptioins. One point Soghoian makes is that the change that is needed will cause institutions like law enforcement to expend more efforts in doing their jobs.

Cyber crime and cyberbulling is a real thing where terrible things can happen to individuals whose privacy is invaded. Ted talk speaker, Darieth Chisolm, found out the hard way when compromising photos appeared on the internet after a difficult breakup with an ex boyfriend. Lack of legislation and laws do not make prosecution or remedies to situations like these easy to fix. Like most prosecutions, there are loopholes and gray areas that make justice impossible for most people. In Chisolms' case, her pursuit and fight did eventually lead to the prosecution of the offender and Chisolm now uses her platform to inform others about this type of abuse. Her case was the very first international case recognizing this type of crime. She advocates for stronger social responsibility in posting, more stringent enforcement of laws, and accountability for online companies. Her movement is called, 50 Shades of Silence, and has become a global movement giving voice to victims of cyber harassment and online crimes. 

Andy Yen, founder of a company called Proton, recognizes the need for a complete overhaul of the internet. Although the internet has certainly made life easier, it has also come with some negative things like data collection. When thinking just about emails, which we assume are strictly between the party sending the email and the one receiving it, we assume that communication is private and for our eyes only. That is far from the truth because of private and public keys that exist on servers and our computers. Yen's company has developed an email system where both the private and public keys are only held by the parties involved in the email. Companies are not interested in securing our data through email encryption because that would reduce their revenues. Optimized ads need to know all about us. Advertising generates revenue and since invading our privacy is key to that formula, companies are not on board with changing how secure our emails are. 

The scariest Ted talk discussion was led by Finn Lutzow Holm Myrstad regarding a child's toy called the Kayla doll. Introduced to children, the doll connects to the internet making it possible to interact with the child. What researchers found was that anyone with a smart phone could connect with the doll and have complete conversations with the child. This was a major security flaw and terrifying. The doll was banned but this leads me to wonder about smart thermostats and speakers we have in our homes. Are those also subject to anyone being able to hack in and listen to our private conversations? The doll used an app like so many technology products today. Apps always require those irritating terms of use protocols. I am definitely guilty of just accepting without reading one single word. 

Dating apps work in the same way. Sign up with an account, agree to the terms, and off you go. What research has shown is that some apps are having you agree to allowing the app to use your personal photos and allowing it forever with the inability to change your mind. You may ask yourself what is the harm? Think about the possibility that because your online personal Information is found on the internet that you could be discriminated against, suffer a financial loss, not get a job, or be called out on something that was posted ten years earlier. That is the reality of posting personal information and agreeing to terms of use without being informed. 

The need for safer internet usage where our rights to privacy are respected, is needed. Enforcement and laws need to be in place to help protect those rights. We are all subject to this loss of privacy. Data has already been collected on all of us. It is going to be held in storage forever. Our personal data will outlive us. This is a serious issue because there is something very sacred about privacy. Our online privacy is just as important as our physical privacy. We don't walk around naked nor do we choose to share our private thoughts so why would we want our personal information (photos, videos, location, emails, etc) to be shared with total strangers? 

The government is supposed to protect us and to defend our civil liberties. Is the government compromised? Are they beholding to big lobbyists and companies who want our information in order to make a buck? It seems their priorities are a little twisted and their loyalties are misplaced. I don't know what we can do to protect ourselves. I believe some of the technologies that exist are so obscure that we don't even know they are there. Certainly a starting point is to educate ourselves about the realities of the world we live in. We should definitely be conscious of the personal information we willingly put on social media and we should also assume someone is always watching. 

{Extra} China Shutdown Horrors

The topics we have discussed in my media law class has me taking notice of things I hear on the news and see on social media. Last night on the Tucker Carlson show, there was a great deal of talk about the covid shutdowns taking place in China. The people of China are protesting against the covid policies involving testing and lockdown procedures.  The people are calling for the removal of President Xi Jinping which speaks volumes. This comes after residents died after being locked inside a building that caught fire. Law enforcement in Shanghai has even gone as far as to enclose complete areas of the city using spiked fencing to prevent people from leaving. Temporary shelter areas are being constructed across several cities which look a lot like modern day concentration camps. 

John Ratcliffe, the former director of National Intelligence spoke about China being a complete surveillance state with little to no regard for the rights of citizens. Building massive quarantine camps, separating people and making them sleep in public bathrooms, separating children from their families is just some of what is going on. In the city of Shanghai some 25 million people were held up in their homes for  months. Suffering from shortage of food the lockdowns took their toll and the people understandably are beginning to break their silence. 

In my opinion, the lockdowns experienced here in the United States were a bit much. Closing businesses and schools, recommending people stay home and avoid one another, mandated mask wearing, and of course all the misinformation that was fed to the American public about the virus.

Apparently the Chinese government has taken over all social media so to censor what information people are receiving and having access to. A recent BBC report stated how, "Tens of millions of posts have been filtered from search results, while media are muting their coverage of Covid in favour of upbeat stories about the World Cup and China's space achievements." (BBC, 2022) 

Unbelievably, people here in the United States, like Dr. Fauci, famous celebrities and even people within our own government are not speaking out against the Chinese leader for what is going on in China. How is that even possible and what am I missing? Isn't China somewhat of a dictatorship that suppresses free speech? And doesn't China really dislike the United States and especially dislike the idea of a democracy? If this is so, how does our own government turn a blind eye to the horrors taking place in China? Wake up people!

 

 

 

Living in the Age of AI

Artificial intelligence (AI) is defined as,"the ability of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot to perform tasks commonly associated with intelligent beings. The term is frequently applied to the project of developing systems endowed with the intellectual processes characteristic of humans, such as the ability to reason, discover meaning, generalize, or learn from past experience." (Britannica, 2022) 

I for one take for granted the ease and commonplace of computers and their technologies are in our lives. Growing up in a time of convenience, where speakers in your home and car can answer questions, give information, and even set reminders, it is easy to understand all the positive aspects these technologies offer. Many of these make life easier and more efficient. But with such efficiencies come concerns. 

In the documentary, In the Age of AI, seen on Frontline PBS, the advantages and disadvantages  in changes AI brings is discussed. We know such intelligence brings faster, more efficient technologies and in this day in time when everyone wants information now, AI technologies play a huge role. I will begin by addressing key questions for consideration.

What are positive aspects of more and more complex artificial intelligence and machine learning? The positive aspects are that tasks that once took more time to complete can now be done instantly. Information that once took time to research is now available by voice commands. Want to know what the weather is two states over? No problem, just ask Siri. 

What did I learn after watching the documentary? I learned more than I really wanted to know or wanted to acknowledge because it really is disturbing. Technologies that we now enjoy in our cars, at home, and on our devices have made life easier in many regards but there is certainly a price to pay for this convenience. The documentary perfectly explained how such automation depletes jobs because machines can do the same work faster and without human intervention. This takes away jobs and opportunities from people. Unable to support their families and devoid of having a meaningful career some people could suffer from psychological problems like depression. People need a purpose and 'work' is one way purpose is given. Rise in unemployment occurs and especially within sectors that are predominately performed by women. This causes further inequality for an already marginalized group. There is no sector safe from this form of takeover.

With the replacement of jobs as we already see in automobile factories for example, comes a bigger moral issue. The film mentioned that AI is what drives inequality because it is a form of automation which is a substitution for capital for labor. Those at the top stay there while those at the bottom (our factory workers who are replaced) are now not able to compete and maintain employment resulting in decline in income. Does the convenience of all this automation come with a price? I believe the price is human existence. If you remove people from the equation, take away their jobs, take away their purpose, then we are left with a society operated by machines that are controlled by the elite. This doesn't sound much like a democracy does it?

There is no doubt that with any advancement there will be positive and negative outcomes. AI brings about significant good but if not kept in check or if used in the wrong way, it can be extremely dangerous. The film discusses the race between the two AI super powers China and the United States. The President Xi Jinping, of China is fully embracing technology to lead China into the forefront globally. As the two superpowers diverge in their goals and ideas and especially since the trade wars have created animosity and don't promote a sharing of any ideas, then our nation may be headed into greater tensions with China and possibly other rival nations like Russia. 

Author, Kai-Fu-Lee of the book, AI Superpowers China, Silicon Valley, and the New World Order, What I found surprising is that Lee believes AI has a lot of potential for fully liberating us from routine jobs and will encourage thinking in the next twenty years or worst case AI will be used for evil purposes by those in positions of authority. In the case of China where their own President was willing to re-write their own constitution for the purposes of making himself President for life. If a leader of a nation is willing to do that, you must ask yourself what else they may be willing to do? Is AI more suited for an authoritarian country than a democracy? 

I find it extremely frightening that such intelligence could end up in the wrong hands. In the hands of a country like China or Russia who may not place as much value on human life. The film discussed how in 2009, in the capital city the Urumqui riots occurred resulting in deaths, imprisonments, and even torture of its own people. China increased its AI surveillance of citizens under the guise of protecting the country from unrest and serving as a predictor of such behavior. Today there are barcodes on homes, and cameras on every corner. Companies like Megvii produce software technologies that have facial recognition capabilities, track automobiles, and even know who someone is by how they walk. This certainly brings up major privacy issues.

So what about privacy and are their pros and cons? I believe privacy is one of the biggest issues  that we should be concerned about. The mega technology companies like Google, Apple, Facebook, ATT, and Comcast can collect data about us. These companies collect data like what our preferences are, where we vacation, what we purchase, who we are friends with, what our routines are, and more. Are the smart appliances we purchase a good idea? Are listening devices truly helping us? When we use social media apps, our location and preferences are being tracked so that suggestions can be made but do we really benefit from such an interjection of suggestions? I know that the companies benefit but how much do humans actually benefit and is it taking away our own ability to seek out our own desires?

I believe our government would state that AI promotes our national security but does it? The benefits could include superior technologies that could save lives. For example being able to predict mechanical failures in weapon platforms is a positive outcome of AI technologies. The downside could be a breach of security within such platforms that could be used against us. Hackers are prevalent and are always looking for areas of vulnerability that could be used to their benefit. As more and more data is gathered, the potential  for a problem is high. Risk of identity theft, fraud, account hacking, interruptions in services like power or water are real considerations. Although companies can better detect potential threats, it is the online cyber criminals (both domestic and foreign) that continue to develop more and more sophisticated technologies of their own. Unless there is a tight leash on the data, we as individuals and nation will be compromised. There are always going to be those who wish to do harm and getting ahead of such risk is necessary this day in time. 

In a recent research poll conducted by Pew Research looked at how Americans view global threats. In the chart below, the findings indicate that Americans are concerned about how infectious diseases are spread, how our relationship with Russia is and certainly growing concerns over the China/Russia relationship. The bulk of respondents definitely felt that cyberattacks from other countries were a major threat to the United States proving that the awareness of such threats is a real concern.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/06/06/americans-see-different-global-threats-facing-the-country-now-than-in-march-2020/

The biggest takeaway for me is that with such advances in technologies comes risk and those risks must be weighed for how much benefit they bring versus how much potential problem. Like most things in life, if there are not rules and regulations governing those technologies, it is only a matter of time before we could fall victim to those who wish to bring harm both on our home turf and abroad. Yes our privacy is under attack and our freedom of expression as well. If you look at China and how they are currently treating their citizens and how very little care is taken to ensure the protection of their human rights, we should be very alarmed and mindful of these realities. 

Diffusion of Innovations

The Diffusion of Innovations was theorized by a communication professor named Everett Rogers. After reading the Wikipedia article, Rogers argued that, "diffusion is the process by which an innovation is communicated over time among the participants in a social system." (Wikipedia, 2022) New ideas are spread through five elements that include:

https://idealogicbrandlab.com/diffusion-of-innovation/

• Innovators | these are consumers who are first to try something and are usually first to buy new products right away and are willing to take risks
• Early Adopters | these people embrace change opportunities and do not need information in order to make a change
• Early Majority | this group is not the first and are rarely leaders. They adopt before the average and want to see the evidence an innovation works before committing
• Late Majority | this group is skeptical of change and are only interesting in trying an innovation after majority has done so first.
• Laggards | this group needs to be convinced, are conservative, and are the hardest group to convince

If you know of the giant technology company Apple, then you recognize how innovations have been swift over the last several years. With the introduction of the iPhone, iPad, iPods, and iWatch, Apple has certainly been in the forefront of technological advancements. 

I will look at the iPad since it is one of my favorite forms of technology. The diffusion of innovations can help determine who the adopters were and how the iPads growth grew because of them. Technology comes about out of a need to solve a problem. When the Apple iPad was introduced, Apple sold 450,000 in the first week, 1 million in the first month, and 19 million in the first year. It took Apple six months to catch up with how fast consumers were buying them." (Vogelstein, 2013)

Four years later, 26 million iPads were sold. The cult like following of this iconic brand has only encouraged the continual growth and popularity of the brand. With celebrity endorsements backing the brand, it is no surprise that the Apple iPad comprises the bulk of the tablet market. By the year 2019, 360 million iPads had been sold. 

In the Diffusion of Innovations theory, the innovators for the iPad product would be the cult like followers of the brand. These individuals must have the next best thing Apple introduces and are usually the ones camped out front of the Apple store for days before it is launched. They are diehard fans and are need no convincing to buy the product. With Apple's focus on their innovators, it is no wonder that because of them the early adopters were forced to wait to get the new iPad due to limited supply. 

https://thebadcompanyblog.files.wordpress.com
/2011/03/diffusionofideas.jpg

The early adopters of the iPad product quickly followed suit and made their purchase. Information about the new iPad began to spread where interest and intrigue were             building among the majority of the population. With that communication from others, the early majority were ready to make their purchase. They had seen the evidence that the product was 'all that' as others had indicated. This social evidence was reason for them to make their purchase and this is when the product began to take off.

At this point, the iPad was being diffused throughout society. The iPads were being seen on television, across social media, and in everyday life. The late majority joined in the group of users after seeing the majority of others using the product. Lastly, the laggards were the final group to proceed in their purchase after much consideration and convincing. 

Some products move through the diffusion of innovation much slower than other products. The iPad compared with something like seat belts was very quick yet both were embraced and implemented throughout society. There are many factors that come into play on whether an individual is an innovator or laggard. Their socioeconomic status plays a huge role in whether someone can buy the newest gadget. Some people are just more naturally conservative in their openness to newer innovations. Age is another factor relevant in how open and responsive people are to newer ideas. When you look at the iPad, older generations of people were among some of the slowest to adopt this new technology. It wasn't necessarily that they could not afford it but simply were slower to embrace the technology because they couldn't connect with how they personally could use the product. 

When thinking about the cost-benefit analysis of the iPad, you must think about the cost expended to implement that new technology. As seen with the iPad the benefits far outweighed the cost. Making information portable as the iPad did was extremely helpful in industries like healthcare where doctors and nurses could have access to a patients medical information. Allowing pre-school children a way to access educational learning by simply touching a screen was yet another benefit. Another industry that was quick to adopt using the iPad was in the field of aviation. Replacing manuals, pilots used iPads instead of carrying around stacks of paper. Education was another field using the iPads. Incorporating iBooks, iTunes, and apps right in the classroom allowed greater communication between instructors and students. Many businesses implemented the use of the iPad right into their daily work areas. My dads office is one such example. He owns a wealth management firm and his staff uses iPads daily for training purposes, scheduling appointments, and offering a way for clients to do electronic signatures on documents. 

The iPad has certainly had a positive impact on society and how we communicate and share. The diffusion of innovation model supports the fact that the Apple iPad provided proof in the beginning that the product was useful and innovative so to get beyond the chasm that often slows or eliminates an innovations success. The Apple iPad is one product that shows how an idea and innovation can quickly be adopted by the masses, forever changing how we think about technology and how beneficial such technologies can be in the areas of saving time, money, space, and resources. 

{Extra} Free Speech Under Attack-Again

What is going on? My family watches FOX news most evenings so when I went home this weekend, I sat sort of half listening to the nightly news. It didn't take long before Tucker Carlson was discussing the case involving Josh Denny, a comedian who has recently been 'canceled.' Apparently, earlier this month the comedian was scheduled to perform up north when Antifa became involved causing the entire show to be cancelled. Threatening violence, the radical group even threatened the chief of police unless Denny's shows were cancelled. Instead of protecting the freedom of expre
ssion, the chief of police decided to submit to the threats and express to the public that it was due to a safety issue. Mayor Nunziato of Rutherford, New Jersey took full credit for the cancellation stating, "an event was planned for this evening at the Williams Center, news of which quickly circulated through social media. Online intelligence led the police department to believe that the event had the potential for concentrate confrontation. Therefore," Nunziato said, "after discussions with the owner, the event has been canceled." (Fox News, 2022) 

The interesting thing is that the person whose rights were trampled on wasn't Antifa, the police chief, or the mayor but instead was the comedian doing his job. Because violence was threatened and because the leaders who are supposed to ensure Constitutional rights caved to the bullies, it was Josh Denny who was the victim in all this. Our nation consists of people from all walks of life, with differing opinions and ideas. Isn't that what makes our nation so great; the opportunity and freedom to express a varying degree of ideas? Since when do we negotiate with radical groups or silence someone because we don't like their message? 

Apparently, this is done all the time. Thinking back about recent lectures that discussed Abraham Lincoln's sedition act and the Quartet of cases, these were all incidents of stopping speech. Whether that was speech against a presidency or speech against war, stopping the speech of a comedian or even speech by you and me is becoming commonplace. 

One question I have is, how has the opinions/ideas of the minority become the dominating rule for the masses? I'm sure I could word that a little better but what I mean is, how can a group like Antifa have such control over the rest of us? Is our leadership that weak that we have become a confused nation that caves when threatened or is it maybe something larger at play? I certainly don't have the answer but I am definitely becoming more 'aware.' As a twenty year old, it is so easy to just believe what you hear on the news or on a social media channel because it is easy and quite frankly, our perspectives and understanding on these issues are limited. It takes effort to search out the deeper implications and meanings of things going on around us. Is the America I know changing into something different and in twenty years will our nation be completely unrecognizable? 

A few years back (2018) Pew Research did a study on, The Public, the Political System and American Democracy.  This study looked at how American's views on certain aspects like rights and freedoms, how freedom to protest is protected, and are the rights and freedoms of people respected. The biggest takeaway was that, "the perceived shortcomings encompass some of the core elements of American democracy. An overwhelming share of the public (84%) says it is very important that “the rights and freedoms of all people are respected.” Yet just 47% say this describes the country very or somewhat well; slightly more (53%) say it does not." (Pew, 2018)

One specific focus looked at American's belief on whether democracy was working. If you look at the below chart, it shows that 61% of the majority think that significant changes are needed in our government.  A surprising finding was that, "when asked to compare the U.S. political system with those of other developed nations, fewer than half rate it above average or best in the world.”(Pew, 2018) That suggests to me that significant change is needed because there is something quite broken. When a comedian is silenced, when a radical group is allowed to dictate their threats to the leaders who are supposed to protect our freedoms, then something is inherently wrong.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/04/26/the-public-the-political-system-and-american-democracy/overview_5-3/

Dissent | First Amendment | Mainstream Media

Mainstream media sources have become overly biased with a love of sensationalizing everything. Turn on CNN or FOX news and you can hear the exact same story told in two very different ways. Slanting the story or at minimum, focusing on parts of the story that fit their narrative is common place for all news media. Am I surprised that websites like Antiwar and The American Conservative are not known or heard of in mainstream news? No absolutely not.

If you look back on history, there is plenty of evidence pointing to the fact that our government did not always act in the best interest of its people. President Abraham Lincoln passed the Sedition Act making it possible to jail those who criticized the government including newspaper journalists in the north who were against the war. Government leaders have always been concerned about perception and less about welcoming all points of view.

In a recent Pew Research report, Public Trust in Government: 1958-2022,  examined the publics trust in government since 1958. As you can see from the chart below, that trust has fallen since the 1960's. Events like the Vietnam War, Watergate, and the 9/11 Attacks have sparked a greater distrust. This report recognizes party differences may contribute to lower numbers. For example, when democrats control the White House, there is less trust by those in the Republican Party. Trust measures were also looked at according to race, by party and ideology, and who controls the Presidency. The main takeaway for me was the fact that the overall numbers had steadily declined since the 1960's indicating a steady decline in the governments reputation to do the right thing.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/public-trust-in-government-1958-2022/

Does times of national crisis make the citizens of our nation distrustful of its government and if so why? Another finding was that when Pew looked at race in relation to trust in government, it was African Americans that were the most distrustful of government except during the time that former President Obama was in office. This same type of finding is true of whites where during times of Republican Presidencies like Trump or Reagan, whites were found to be more trusting of the government.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2022/06/06/public-trust-in-government-1958-2022/

So why would we need to put such efforts into finding websites like The American Conservative? Our government has a longstanding behavior of not always acting in our best interest and especially when citizens speak out against it. The Quartet of cases of 1919 are one such example. When four individuals (Scheneck, Debs, Frohwerk, and Abrams) spoke out against the governments involvement into World War I, those anti-war protestors were jailed and the Supreme Court did not find in their favor. 

Finding ways to silence those who go against the government is repressive. Today, we see the government overreaching to control what is said on social media. Around the world, government leaders do this all the time to control things like protests or to cover up abuses that take place. This continues playing out with privately owned companies or with famous celebrities who silence through 'canceling.' The era of cancel culture instills fear and takes away a persons right to free speech. Taking away the voice of the people is nothing new and in todays climate, it is sadly becoming the norm.

A few years back, Ben Shapiro (one of my favorites) was visiting the University of Minnesota to give a speech on Capitalism and the First Amendment when the university decided to make him give his speech off campus and in a smaller venue than originally planned. Shapiro explains that the University absurdly obscured why the location was moved and blamed it on safety and security. Here is yet another example of how this public university under government influence attempted to limit and obscure information it deemed unsuitable.

The University of Minnesota is a left leaning democratic school that felt the need to at minimum, limit those who could attend Shapiro's speech by offering Shapiro and those in attendance a smaller venue that could not hold as many people. Limiting access and information is just one way those with power try to control their agendas. This type of game playing is seen all the time and it is why the public only sees what a university or news source or an internet company chooses. Making things difficult like travel or access is one such way to 'control' what information gets through and serves to discourage anyone from having a different opinion than that of the government.

In order to hear strong antiwar voices you must seek obscure websites. To believe that those in charge (ie: our government leaders) will make available all sides and all information so that We The People have complete information is simply not the case. Our government controls much of the information we regularly receive and our military is a very profitable institution for our government. War is profitable through arms production, reconstruction efforts, private contracting, and more.  Keeping citizens in the dark is a lucrative business.

Regulating the information we receive while controlling those who speak out against the government is priority number one. Websites like AntiWar and The American Conservative strive to give voice to those who do not necessarily agree with our government and recognize it necessary since mainstream news sources fail to do so. Both websites give their views openly and without favor so to provide readers another perspective and outlet for information. When we silence, threaten, or control what citizens of the United States can say and what information they are given, their fundamental human rights are violated. In doing so, progress and innovation cease to exist and citizens are unable to make informed decisions based on all information. I believe much of the problems we see today in our nation is a direct result of our leaders wanting to make themselves look favorable.  Controlling media outlets and concealing information keeps citizens in the dark and only makes the problems worse. 

{Extra} Got me thinkin'

As my media law class progresses, I am beginning to take notice of patterns our government has taken both for and against its own citizens. After a recent lecture on the Progressive Era of (1914-1929), two particular years stood out to me and got me thinking. The years in question are 1917-1918. 

By this time, the United States had entered into World War I and with that many people were against the United States involvement. When Congress passed the Espionage Act, giving way for people to legally be jailed for speaking out against the war efforts and ultimately bringing about the Sedition Act of 1918. This Act was created so that people could not speak out against the government. That not only applied to government employees but also to regular citizens. 

In thinking about this, and recalling how the Edward Snowden case unfolded, I am left questioning if Snowden's 1st amendment rights were protected. Could it have been a case of whistleblowing that our own government wanted to keep from American citizens? The question of whether  Snowden is a traitor or a hero varies on who you ask. 

For me, I fall more on the traitor end of the spectrum regarding the actions taken by Edward Snowden. Although my sense of what is ethically right or wrong determine my view on why Edward Snowden should be viewed more conservatively and as a traitor, I do also find merit in those who view him as an American who felt compelled to inform about the governments wrongdoings. Edward Snowden should be viewed more as a traitor because he did break the oath for the office he served. He did take an oath to uphold the Constitution so handing over information to journalists did break that oath. Snowden did not seek out others in high office to assist him in his disclosure and he gave classified documents to people outside of the American government. His actions should give pause to those who support him since he chose to not face the consequences for a cause he so firmly believed in. Now, that is my opinion clearly based on my limited knowledge and understanding of the law.

However, when recently learning about the various Sedition Acts that have been passed in our nations history, the government has often had free reign to prosecute people, not just government employees who spoke out against the government or the governments efforts in certain areas. Snowdens claim was that he was speaking out against how our government was illegally spying and surveilling its citizens. 

So, my question turns from not whether Snowden was a traitor or hero but whether he had a right to disclose such information. Perhaps working for the government mandates that some of your first amendment rights are negated and when you take on high ranking positions that you essentially forfeit some of those rights. If this is so, it seems like this would allow our government the ability to control and to limit a persons rights under the guise of national security or some other 'thing.' So how is that okay?

Don't we want full disclosure on things that we as American citizens should know and if the government is allowed to to limit such freedoms under the guise of say national security, doesn't that send a message to the public that they should keep quiet on things of importance for fear of backlash from their own government?

There are numerous times in history when coverups happen, where the governments agenda was put before the needs and rights of American citizens. For me personally, I believe there is right and wrong. I do not side with Snowden and believe he did break the law but also simultaneously believe that he had a right to inform but should have done so through proper channels.

 EOTO Presentation Impacts

Learning about some of the history that went into developing many of today's communication technologies was fascinating. It is hard to imagine what life would be like were it not for the positive impacts these technologies have had on our daily lives.  Admittedly, I take most communication technologies for granted. Today, there are new developments in the field of communication almost every day. Large technology companies like Apple hold 3-4 events each year where they announce new products and software to the public. It is these technological advancements in communication that allow us closer connections with people around the world. Want to buy something from Etsy that is made in Germany? You can do that with the simple click of a button. It was pioneers such as Benjamin Franklin (the postal service), Steve Jobs (Apple Products), Guglielmo Marconi (radio), and Philip Nipkow (television) and many others  who contributed to how we enjoy communication today.

Many of the communication technologies were complex and others grew out of existing forms of communication. For example, if you have ever put a little smiley face or heart at the end of a text message, you were communicating your feelings and emotions within the punctuation of your typed sentence. Simple? Yes but so effective. Using emoji's to express concern, anger, or excitement allows you to convey meaning in your digital communication, specifically nonverbal communication where the receiver of the emoji has no visual cue and relies strictly on the emoji to communicate those cues. The presenter discussed how in 1963, the creator of the smiley face, Harvey Ball, developed the smiley face for an insurance company. This highly recognizable smiling graphic led to the eventual creation of what we recognize today as emoji's. 

Another communication technology discussed during our class presentations was the invention of the printing press. Invented by Johannes Gutenberg was credited with this communication technology in 1436. The printing press was refined from the early beginnings when the medieval printing press and then the wine-and-olive press were first used. With this technology came great access to communication through print. With the ability to crank out books and news prints, people had access to material like never before.

Google is a technology company and google search engine was created in 1988 by two college students. In the beginning Google received $25 million round of venture capital funding. In the year 2000 Google really took when they became the client search engine for Yahoo. By the year 2004, users were searching on Google 200 million times daily and by year 2011 that number was up to 3 billion. With that many users searching for that much information proves that Google has certainly impacted the area of communication. Today Google is a way of life. Assisting with online searches, global maps, organizing workflows through Google docs and pages, and the ability to house our digital media, only adds to our communication capabilities.

Many of the technologies we take for granted today have been major influencers in the world of communication. Those discoveries and inventions have brought people closer together. Today, digital technologies like the internet, email, and smart devices allow connectivity in the blink of an eye. Building upon previous discoveries in the field of  communications, new technologies will continue to develop, forever changing the world we know.