People of Walmart Have Rights Too

            Siva Vaidhyanathan argues that although the Google service is easy and convenient, there are a considerable amount of disadvantages for the Web users.  Google affects users habits, opinions, and judgment because of the way the information is presented and ranked on the site (p. 2).  It also affects the use and distribution of users personal information. “Google makes its money by using our profiles to present us with advertisements keyed to words we search” (p. 83).  Our personal information is then targeted back at us through advertisements so they can promote items to users most likely to buy. This means that our information is being spread to others (including businesses) without our immediate consent.  Unfortunately this could open potentially shameful information or pictures.  Information that we did not even consent to may be shown to the public, our parents, friends, or teachers.  It is through the Internets spreadability and the ease of finding things through Google that creates a feeding ground for information.  Take the site People of Walmart for instance.

            Individuals who are shopping at Walmart are taking photos of other people there and posting them online.  The pictures are bizarre and what most people would consider, humorous.  They are usually depictions of what people wear or of abnormal behavior.  Most often it appears the individuals shopping do not know people are taking their photo.  Already we have a break in privacy because people have no say where this photo will go.  The pictures taken can either be distributed to Google specifically, or to any other website.  At the site listed above, there is a submission tab to upload such photos to the Internet. 

            As Siva Vaidhyanathan states, this is an infridgement of privacy because the individual has no control over information shared or their reputation of self (p. 93).  Also, because the Internet is such a vast source, anyone can identify someone they know, especially because their faces are not even blurred out.  These shameful images can change what the person’s parents, employers, or friends think.  The five major privacy interfaces begin to take a much larger role because survellience of that photo increases.  In addition because information is constantly being spread to different sites, the removal process of a photo can because quite daunting.  This may result in embarrassing photos continuing to circulate the Web and be seen by all.  Sadly, with “Walmart victims,” they may not even be aware they are on the Internet until someone they know stumbles upon it.  If you ask me, that is the scariest part.

A WORLD FULL OF CAMERAS

            The Challenge of an Open Society by David Brin argues that there are two types of cities that are bound to happen with in the next 20 years.  Both of these cities include tiny cameras over viewing everywhere in town.  However, the primary difference between these two places is who has the authority to view the videotapes, police or citizens?  The advantage from these cameras is that street crime has nearly vanished.  Although this is a great benefit for all of the citizens, it forces them to give up their privacy.  Privacy is about self-possession, autonomy, and integrity (Garfinkel, p. 323).  People who live in these types of cities can no longer regulate what they wish others to see.  Their lives will be watched whenever they go outside of their house.  The lack of control is a breach in human desire. 

So the question now becomes, which is more important, privacy or safety?  According to Jean Thomas, the homeowner victim, safety is the most important.  She and her husband set up a video home surveillance system to protect their house from yet another burglary.  The following YouTube video shows how she caught the robbers.

Florida woman watches house being robbed via internet. (1 minute: 29 seconds)

            As seen in the video, Jean Thomas was at work and logged onto her house’s live video camera feed to find her house being robbed.  She saw live two men breaking in and going through different rooms seeking valuable items.  As soon as she saw the men she called 911 to have police dispatched. “The video allowed her and the police to act swiftly” (1:11).  Soon after her call, the officers showed up and caught the robbers.  Because of this live video camera, Jean did not miss her Wii, new flat screen television, or a safe full of expensive items. 

             This is similar to King’s Lynn crime reduction discussed in The Challenge of an Open Society.  Similar to one of the cities Brin discusses, King’s Lynn installed video cameras in “trouble spots” in an attempt to reduce the crime rate.  King’s Lynn fall in crime rate followed in suit to the future cities.  The YouTube video I displayed furthers this argument because we can see a clear example of how beneficial cameras can be.  Although as Brin suggests, with this type of surveillance, comes intrusion.  If people are on camera they are constantly going to be scrutinized by viewers and held accountable.  As Brin argues in this article, people expect accountability from others but want privacy for themselves.  Applying this to the YouTube video, Jean Thomas could be putting herself in unknown danger by having her house under live surveillance.  Someone could hack into her website account and then watch her video feed while she is at home, compromising not only her privacy, but her and her husbands’ safety. 

With new technology, comes a new hacker

Police Raids Online

            As John Biggs argued in Avast, Me Hearties: How The Pirate Bay Changed The Way We Steal, The Pirate Bay is disappearing.  This is because the database of files is being hosted in an alternative way.  All torrent files are being moved off the site and are instead being placed on magnet links.  Torrent files are “files” that point to pirated content (p. 2).  Therefore, sites like Pirate Bay are no longer directly linking the consumer to the pirated content on their own site, but now becoming “the Google of content” and implicitly guiding the user (p. 4).  John Biggs ends his article stating, “We will never tame it.”  This suggests that no one will ever be able to control the pirated content and truly bring justice to the illicit sites and users.

            The following example is a news blog from torrentfreak.com that discusses what happens when PRQ police attempt to raid the file-sharing sites: PRQ Police Raid Takes Down Dozens of File-Sharing Sites.  PRQ is a Swedish Internet service provider and web hosting company.  This blog discusses how the PRQ police were searching for particular hardware of a copyright infringement.  In the process of their raid, they took down a number of streaming sites.  As of October 1, 2012 these file-sharing sites were all inaccessible, with an exception to Pirate Bay.  (Pirate Bay was having downtime, but it was due to power failure, not the raid). 

            This article further shows how illusive Pirate Bay is.  As Biggs states, it will never be tamed.  It will never be controlled because technically it is a guide to the torrent files and not a direct source.  Therefore, copyright infringements or intellectual property violations will not be found in the IP addresses of Pirate Bay.  Perhaps another reason the police do not raid Pirate Bay is because they are not targeting piracy in general, but the interconnectedness of private archives.  They are mostly confiscating files from the customers’ servers.  Consequently, sites that adopt loopholes, like Piracy Bay, will never be shut down permanently.