Privacy+Topic+Responses+by+U.S.A.+Period+4

=**__Period 4 English:__**=

Students from Patrick Henry High School, in California, U.S.A., will share American facts and their own ideas concerning **__the privacy topics__** given out in class relating to George Orwell's book, //1984.//


 * __Student responses to these main topics:__**

Student response: Hidden cameras are present in everyday life. We think that we are in the clear when we take a seat on the bathroom toilet at a restaurant, or when we take off our towel in the locker room to jump in the shower. In reality though, cameras are everywhere and can be used by any everyday civilian. Pictures could be taken by an 85-year-old man or just a 20-year-old girl in today’s society. You cannot rely on your privacy any longer. An article written by Candice Delong posted on Oprah Winfrey's website called "Hidden Camera Horrors” states how cameras with cell phones are being used all the time now in locker rooms at gyms. She also goes on to give tips on the dangers of hidden cameras and how to watch out for people in places they would not expect to be taken pictures of them. Another article from NBC10.com called "Peeping Tom's Hidden Camera Found in the Bathroom" talks about an apartment superintendent who put a camera in a 22-year-old girl’s bathroom. She was in the bathroom and saw a red light and found it to be a camera and two tiles from her ceiling missing. The man Jules Warner had the camera linked through the wire into his apartment next door. As a result with today’s technology in America there is a feeling of lost privacy with all the sick people taking pictures of people in unexpected situations.
 * __Number 1:__** Unobtrusive (hidden) cameras placed in public and private places watching and taping people.

Submitted by: Matt, Noah, And Chris

References:NBC.com January 10, 2008

[|http://www.nbc10.com/news/15023180/detail.html?rss=phi&psp=news]

Oprah.com Date N/A

[|http://www.oprah.com/foodhome/home/repair/home_20031008_camera.jhtml]

Student response #1:
 * __Number 2:__** Parents use GPS (Global Positional System) to keep track of their children.

Of course this system is created for those anxious parents that always want to know where their children are. But I do think it is a sick idea, because also children have the right to be a little independent. That's true that nowadays the world is not a very safe place, but I think that mobile phones can be enough to mantain the control on children. In my opinion, mobile phones for children younger than 12 years are even too excessive, but if parents are so uneasy it can be ok, surely better than a GPS to know exactly children's position! It's a normal thing that children sometimes don't respect rules, don't say the truth to their parents, and it is also normal that doing this they commit some mistakes. But without mistakes, how could they learn how to be free, independent and at the same time responsible?
 * Submitted by Margherita R. (From Bergamo)**

In my opinion it's not a good idea to monitor children with GPS because I think that in this way children can't have the possibility to become indipendent. Surely in our society there are many dangers which make parents vey anxious when their children are not at home but GPS is not the solution to this problem. Sometimes children say some lie to their parents in particular when they do something which is forbidden but I think that it is a normal thing which all people have done in their life. Children have to do their experiences and they must have a little indipendence. If parents are so frightened when their children are not at home they will give a mobile phone to them (when children have more than 13 years). I'm very skeptical about the usefulness of Gps and this kind of object used to controll children: They must be little free to become responsible and adult persons.
 * Submitted by Elisabetta B. (From Bergamo)**

I think that using GPS system to control children's movement is a bad idea because they have the right to be free without any exaggerate anxieties.In my opinion children, but in general boys and girls, have to think by themselves and if they make some mistakes,they have to pay for it. I mean, the only way to learn is to do wrong. So to spy on people is useless, in fact children do what they want even if the have a GPS in their jacket. The most importrant thing is the dialogue between parents and their children. The trust is the only way to built a good relathionship without any system controlling. I don't think that in Italy there's a problem like this, I have never heard about parents spy on their kids. It's unbelievable that someone can follow someone else staying at home. In our century privacy can be violate everyday by everyone and this fact is very frightening

Student response #2:

The idea of placing tracking devices in the clothes of children or family members is an extreme invasion of privacy. Even though there are slight positives to this act, most of the effects are extremely negative. Imagine being a teenage girl and having your parents know your whereabouts at every moment in time, you would not be able to get away with anything. Being your own person includes privacy of mind, meaning you wouldn't agree to people being able to monitor your thoughts, so why would you want people to monitor your location. The government would agree with this tracking system because of situations like kidnappings or runaways. In a way parents would be treating their children like their pets. There are also the chance that stockers or child molesters could use the tracking system for the wrong reasons. Putting your child in clothes equipped with a tracking device is like putting them up to be followed by creepers. There are already ways to track your children, for example through cell phones, tracking them through their clothes, and now even school uniforms is pushing the limit of personal privacy.

Soon there isn't going to be a way to get around buying clothes with tracking devices in them because such big brands are agreeing to start including the small computer tracking chip in their clothing. Such brands include Ambercrombie and Fitch and Calvin Klein with are popular brands among teenagers. With these brands accepting to put these types of tracking devices in there clothes means invasion of privacy for teens everywhere. Especially if these teens do not have a clue with whats going on with technology in the world today.

If parents and companies actually go through with these type of things, it will be a complete invasion of privacy. People would not feel as though they could live their lives because of the fact everyone knows where they are at all times. The privacy issue is a huge factor to all teenagers. Many teens would boycott the clothing lines that are putting these type of devices in their clothes. So in the end, using these devices would just be a disaster for clothing lines and harder for teenagers to try to get away with things.
 * Submitted by** **Monique Freymiller and Taylor Hensley** **(From America)**

Student response:
 * __Number 3:__** Employers that use GPS (Global Positioning System) and hidden cameras to keep track of their employees.

Student response: The privacy issue is that online data mining of people's personal information involves people searching and learning about people's interests and activities. Sometimes people are able to get personal information for identity theft. The issue is that if someone submits personal information on a website pretty much anybody can see it and steal your identity. Sometimes there are benefits in allowing people, such as the Federal agency, to look at people's personal information. They can catch criminals, stop people before they commit a crime, and also contact acquaintances or relatives. For the American citizen online privacy is more harmful because people can see your every day life and also personal information. Sometimes people are able to get personal information for identity theft. The government should not invade privacy 24/7 because it makes us feel like we are not a union anymore and that we are just people living under them, not having any say in what they do or make a law on. What the government should do is give us our privacy sometimes, and then rarely check our privacy. It's a situation that can be met half way for the citizens and the government.
 * __Number 4:__** Online data mining of people's personal information.

In over 25 percent of reported identity theft cases, the victims know or are related to the identity thief, about 11.8 billion Americans have been victimized by identity theft that is 1 in 20 adults. The federal trade commission says that 10 million Americans have had their personal information used for fraudulent purchases, more than 50 % of identity theft victims were the victims of credit card and other types of account fraud. New account fraud, where an ID thief opens up new accounts in your name, and other frauds were estimated to have victimized 3.23 million.

Approximately 28 % of Identity Theft victims said that their credit cards had either been lost or stolen. Identity Theft costs almost $53 billion. both new account and existing account frauds is almost $53 billion dollars annually. More specifically, business victims experienced a total loss of $47.5 billion or an average of $4,800 per business victim per year. Individual victims account for a total loss of $5 billion and $500 per victim annually.

Americans spent 300 million hours resolving issues related to identity theft. Between individual and business identity theft victims--an average of 30 - 60 hours per victim was spent on handling various matters related to identity theft including new accounts, existing account and other frauds.

Information provided from:About.com. Retrieved January 14, 2008, from: http://idtheft.about.com/od/dataandstat1/p/GeneralStats.htm

Submitted by T.K. and Billy.

Student response:
 * __Number 5:__** Online data mining of people's consumer information.

Having companies track people's online data of what brand of products they buy is in our opinion is an invasion of privacy. This is giving the corporations to much power. Companies can also put computer chips on products to monitor who buys them. What is to stop these companies from doing something more drastic just to sell more products? In the film Minority Report which takes place in the future the way companies advertise is when a person is walking by an ad the ad take a scan of their eye and takes the person pictures and name and other information and puts them in the products advertisement. So if there is an ad of a car the ad take the scan of their person eye and puts them in the seat of the car. Is this how the future is going to be like? Corporations are not going to have restrictions on how they advertise. People are going to be targeted by companies about what products they purchase. Certain ethnic groups are going to be targeted by companies to buy certain products that only that ethnic group buys. Perhaps the only positive thing about this whole issue is that this is a way that helps companies sell their products and know who buy them.

Submitted by Hallisther Huerta, Robert Adonia, and Jesse Salenaz

Student response:
 * __Number 6:__** Collection of personal information, secretly, by government FBI or other agencies to fight terrorism; allowing private citizens to have their house or cell phones tapped or using electronic devices to search people's background.

There has been an ongoing problem with terrorism and there has been constant tapping of peoples phone lines and Internet. This topic is talking about how people are being searched going into public areas so they can ward off terrorism. The privacy issue in this certain situation is that students and people would be being searched and a lot of people would not like that. Being searched is a big invasion of personal space and privacy. With the school shootings going on, it seems wise to have the students searched before they enter the premises of the school. Even though it seems like a good idea, searching students at school could also bring about a lot of controversy. It would be a lot more practical to have everyone searched before entering a more public area like a mall. Because of all the shootings and terrorist attacks, it could be more beneficial to have people searched before entering public areas. It could be beneficial because it would definitely cut down all the weapons being carried around and would prevent any more shootings to happen. Submitted by Ryan K. and Shannon B.


 * __Number 7:__** Internet online safety concerns for children. Many companies sell blocking systems to various organizations and private groups.


 * At Home:**

"In a 2000 study, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the Justice Department said that one of every five young people ages 10 to 17 surveyed said they had received a sexual solicitation over the Internet in the previous year." Furthermore, "one in four US teen girls" and "one in seven boys" reported that they met strangers off the Internet. Christina Long, a 13-year-old from Connecticut, is one of the many victims of Internet predators. As a result of putting herself at risk by meeting strangers over the Internet, Christina was strangled to death last May, and police believe she met her killer on line. As a result of so many cases of sexual solicitation via the Internet, many companies have begun creating and selling Internet blocking systems in order to help keep Internet users safe. Some examples of these Internet blocking systems include Cyber-Patrol, Net Nanny and Predator Guard. The introduction of Internet blocking systems is definitely beneficial to individuals in today's society. For example, through the use of Internet blocking systems, parents can make sure that their children will not accidentally come across inappropriate websites or accidentally get themselves into a situation that increases their risk of being sexually solicited over the Internet.

(Found at: Wiredsafety.org, retrieved January 11, 2008, at: [|http://www.wiredsafety.org/askparry/special_reports/spr1/index.html)] (Found at: USAtoday.com, last modified January 29, 2003 retrieved January 11, 2008, at: [|http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/edwardbaig/2003-01-29-baig-safety_x.htm)]


 * At School:**

"It's every school technology coordinator's bad dream: A young student sits down in front of a networked classroom PC to do some research for a class assignment about the presidency. Opening a web browser to go to the White House web site, she types www.whitehouse.com, unaware that the web site housed at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. exists in the .gov -- not .com -- domain. The mistake is minor, but what happens next isn't: This student's on line field trip to the Oval Office is about to be rudely hijacked to a commercial pornography site featuring graphic photos of sex acts on its front page." This is a real-life example of how easily children can be misled and exposed to on line pornography, or any other kind of inappropriate material. A simple solution to this problem is to use an Internet blocking system so "students will be safeguarded from exposure to pornography, hate speech, violent imagery, and other inappropriate content on the Internet." Some people oppose this because they feel that software companies do not accurately know which sites are educationally appropriate and which are not. They also argue that there is no guarantee that all inappropriate site will be blocked. One way these systems work is they block websites that contain certain unwanted words. "The simplicity of the keyword blocking approach can easily lead to cases of mistaken identity, though." For example, if a word such as 'sex' is blocked, the censorware product will block web pages such as those for Mar__s Ex__plorer. Also, if a undesirable word is found, the software may just delete it from the site but will not let the viewer know. "For example, because 'homosexual' is in the list of CYBERsitter's forbidden words, the sentence, 'The Catholic church is opposed to all homosexual marriages' appears to the user as, 'The Catholic church is opposed to all marriages.'" Perhaps in the future the blocking software could be updated to notify the viewer that some content has been altered due to a blocking program that blocks inappropriate words. Another method that is used is blocking certain URLs. We do not know exactly how many school districts are using blocking systems, "but in a recent poll of 295 teachers, technology directors, school board members, and other educators attending the national Technology+Learning conference, 51 percent said they were currently using censorware for all or some students in their district." Internet blocking is beneficial to society because it is able to block inappropriate websites on a school campus, such as pornography or instructions on how to build a bomb, whether the student accesses the website unintentionally or on purpose. Even if some websites are mistakenly blocked or words are deleted, unknown to the viewer, I think these cons are outweighed by the pros of preventing students from accessing inappropriate websites at school.

(Found at: Electronic School Online, retrieved January 10, 2008 at: [|http://www.electronic-school.com/0198f1.html)]


 * Submitted by: Robin and Ashley**

Student response: The government has a "Government no-fly list" that identifies people that are not allowed to fly on an airplane. Research how the government determines who should be on this list and if you agree or not and why. Basically what the Government no-fly list is a list where there are people's names on it that are not able to fly on a plane due to the fact of suspicion of terrorism. After 9/11, the government is scared to let any one on a plane just like nothing, so if a person looks suspicious, they will not be flying on that or any plane. The federal government's "no-fly" list had 16 names on it on Sept. 11, 2001. Today, it has more than 44,000. And that doesn’t include people the government thinks should be pulled aside for additional security screening. There are another 75,000 people on that list. People who are dead are on the list and people that are 80 years old.
 * __Number 8:__** The government has a "Government no-fly list" that identifies people that are not allowed to fly on an airplanes.

- Having the same first and last name as a terrorist or have the same birthday. - Questioning the airport authorities if they check you. - Having a suspicious name they would stop to check you. //Resources from: http://epic.org/foia_docs/airtravel/inquiry_reports.pdf// Ours groups opinion on government no-fly list is that it is wrong because people travel a lot to get around the world for business. Seeing that there was only 16 names on the list in September 11, 2001, and now today, over 44,000 people are on the list. Instead of having a list of people who should not fly, they should have a better security check on people because some of the people who are on the list need to travel for their jobs or visit relatives. We believe that having a no fly list is fifty percent a good thing because terrorist do not always come by plane, they can arrive by boat, train, etc.
 * __Possible ways of being on the no-fly list__**

Submitted by: **Carolyn Morgan & Kenny Tran & Felipe Echeveste**

especially after 11 september 2001 many governments in the world have created special "no-fly lists" to identify the people that are not allowed to fly on airplanes. in my opinion this is a good system to avoid terrorist attacks and to protect citizens safety, even if these people's rights are completely trespassed. I think that if the government believes in these people's danger, the existence of these lists is a right consequence to what they probably did towards the nation, but it can't be the only strategy to prevent terrorism. I think that airlines' check-ins should be more serious towards the suspected, and also strangers' passports should be controlled better, even if there will always be the possibility that terrorists manage to take a plane passing all the controls.
 * submitted by luca schiavini**

Student response: Ever since the camera cell phone has been created, the invasion of personal privacy has been somewhat of an issue to people everywhere. People who own these gadgets can easily invade a person's privacy by taking unwanted photos or even videos of them. There have been various cases of privacy invasion, such as pictures being taken in locker rooms or bathrooms, especially in schools or in public places such as the mall or at a restaurant. This device is also being used to take pictures of credit card numbers so they can later be used to make purchases. These instances can be hazardous to the victims, because people should be able to feel safe using a public restroom, or walking around the mall in a skirt or using their credit card in a public place. "Keep a watch out for people standing near you in the checkout line at retail stores, restaurants, grocery stores, etc. who have a camera cell phone in hand. With the camera cell phones, they can take a picture of your credit card, which gives them your name, number, and expiration date." It is unfortunate, but there seems to be no way to correct this problem. As some people continue to misbehave with their camera phones, it may result in laws against using them for the entire population. As far as laws go, they can create laws against this issue that can be never ending, but there is no possible way for the government or anyone for that matter than can make someone stop taking pictures of people who do not wish for there picture to be taken whether they know that person or not. The only way the government could take control the of cell phone camera use would be to make a law stating that there cannot be a camera present when the use of a credit card is in use, and as far and invading personal privacy there is nothing the government or anyone for that matter, can do about it. So in this case the government is not too powerful because they really can't stop this issue. "According to recent studies, over half, and potentially as many and over 3 quarters, of traditional college-age students own a cellular phone". This just goes to show that the government has absolutely no control over this issue and can't stop people from buying cell phones with cameras, especially since the majority of people rely mostly on their cell phones. References: Camera Cell Phones Used to Take Pictures of Credit Cards, November 1, 2004, found at: http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_camera_cell_phone.htm
 * __Number 9:__** Cell-phone cameras and how they can be used on people without their permission.

Cell Phone Camera Misuse, 2003, Link: Submitted by: Ashley Jessop, Rachel Merriwether , and Ryan Davenport

The use of cell-phone cameras has now become a real problem because everyone uses phones to do everything but call. It's clear that privacy has been reduced since technology has come into our houses and cell-phones turned to be the best way to spy someone because we have always a cell-phone at our hand. It's very easy nowadays to watch and control through these means of communication but we can't even notice to be monotored by somebody and this is already privacy invasion. It's not necessary to keep taking pictures or taping until we are punished by laws, even if it's very difficult to be caught. We actually should not record others people's action if we don't want the same for us.Time ago this issue was very common in schools for example and children used cell-phones to film their mates and put their images on the internet. The consequences of that were mostly act of bullysm or teasing; in fact this possibility to record can threat children's behaviour and create psycological problems. For someone this obsession can turn into a job like blackmail people or publishing compromising photos or videos; there is no security in this abuse of cell-phones especially because images can be posted on the internet by everyone of us. This system is available to everybody and it's very risky. Moreover it's useless to introduce laws about using cell-phones because it's impossible to control who constantly spy.

Submitted by Laura P.

Student response:
 * __Number 10:__** Social networking sites such as FaceBook and MySpace can be corrupted by false information.

Student response:
 * __Number 11:__** People becoming their own doctors by researching diseases on the Internet and possibly following wrong medical advice.

Submitted by Jennifer Merris, Alexxis Hauserman, Should we really trust doctors with our lives?

Should we really trust doctors with our lives? Question or thought? We go to doctors to get better but some doctors medical advice may not be the advice that we need. Jennifer and I believe strongly in the fact that there should be some kind of law preventing bogus medical information from being posted. People have no idea what is true and false online, many look up advice when in need. It is a proven fact that most doctors mistakes are a thinking error. There are people out there posting false cures for diseases on the Internet and helpless people looking for a cure are reading them and thinking that if they do what these supposed doctors are saying to do that they will be cured. But unfortunately you can't believe everything you read on the Internet.The survey, published online by the Journal of General Internal Medicine, was based on survey responses from 538 faculty, resident physicians and medical students at teaching hospitals in the Midwest, Mid-Atlantic and Northeast. Researchers at the University of Iowa found that while nearly all respondents 97 percent said they would disclose a hypothetical medical error that resulted in minor medical harm, 93 percent said they would disclose an error even if it had caused disability or death. But only 41 percent said they had actually disclosed a minor medical error they made, and just 5 percent said they had revealed a major error during their career. Moreover, 19 percent said they had made a minor medical error but not disclosed it; 4 percent said they had made a major error and not disclosed it. Many doctors cant help if they diagnose someone with the wrong medicine but with a medical degree you really should know what you are doing, doctors should realize that they are responsible for the well being of other human beings. “There is a measurable disconnect between what physicians say they think is the right thing to do and what they actually do,” said Eric Campbell. Eric Campbell of Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston who lead the survey strongly believes that doctors should know their information before giving it out to the public. Doctors surprisingly willing order test that are not needed and often very expensive. In 2000, the U.S. Institute of Medicine reported that up to 98,000 people die every year because of medical errors in hospitals alone. That is a big number to just ignore, why hasn't their been any consequences for these doctors. Obviously many doctors haven't been punished for their mistakes. We believe that by having aw consequence for the doctors who make these careless mistakes, if there was a consequence or law then we bet that most of the mistakes wouldn't be passed by. Doctors work really hard to earn their medical degrees and for it to be taken away as a consequence would really wake up doctors to be more hands on during their job and think rather than guess.

For more information look at www.google.com to find these various websites: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/545042 [|http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/medical-myths-even-doctors-believe/]

Student response:
 * __Number 12:__** Identify theft is becoming a serious problem. Research how often this occurs, how horrendous it is, and what safety guidelines people should follow to prevent this.

Telephone wiretapping began in the 1890s. Wiretapping has been carried out under most Presidents, usually with a lawful warrant since the Supreme Court ruled it constitutional in 1928. Wiretapping was legalized for use by police or other recognized governmental authority. Telephone wire tapping is the monitoring of telephone conversations by a third party, usually done without the permission of the caller. The telephone wire tap historically worked by placing a monitoring connection to the wires of the telephone line of the person who was being monitored and tapping the electrical signal carrying the conversation. Courts have ruled that the government interest involving activists such as discovering and preventing terrorist attacks that may endanger American lives, outweighs the privacy interests of individuals. Telephone tapping was traditionally strictly controlled in order to protect an individuals' privacy. Historically, telephone tapping required authorization by a court, and normally was only approved when evidence showed it was not possible to detect criminal activity in less intrusive ways (Found at: The View, FISA and Secrecy in American History, December 31, 2005, retrieved January 10, 2008, at: [|http://prosandcons.us/?m=200512).]
 * __Number 13:__** Patriot Act:

The Patriot Act expanded the governments ability to wiretap. It allows wiretapping without obtaining court authorization.The USA Patriot Act is an Act of Congress that President George W. Bush signed into law on October 26, 2001. It stands for **U**niting and **S**trengthening **A**merica by **P**roviding **A**ppropriate **T**ools **R**equired to **I**ntercept and **O**bstruct **T**errorism Act of 2001. The Act permits law enforcement agencies to search telephone and e-mail communications, medical, financial and other records, and often times without a warrant (Found at: USA Patriot Act, April 13, 2002, retrieved January 10, 2008, at: [|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_ACT).]

The Patriot Act threatens our first amendment rights to free speech. The government is authorized under the Act to spy on a person simply because that person might criticize government policy. The Act violates the First Amendment by authorizing the government to investigate U.S. citizens based in part on their exercise of free speech. If people think that their phone conversations are being monitored, people will feel uncomfortable expressing their thoughts, especially if what they think is perceived as anti-government. This is “Big Brother” looking over our shoulders with the stated purpose of “protecting” us against terrorists. The Patriot Act allows the government to act without oversight. The inevitable result of giving law enforcement so much power ultimately will lead to the government controlling our thoughts. The government will argue that domestic wiretapping has resulted in discovering terrorist plots and is necessary to keep America safe. However, in reality the government is just intruding upon individuals’ privacy. Wiretapping violates our right to free speech and privacy. Without judicial oversight the Act is open to abuse and could monitor anyone, even just protest group that view things differently than the government. The government in these instances is too powerful. The government should not be authorized to intrude on individuals' freedom, especially those protected by the Constitution. As the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution states, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Submitted by: Julie Tobar & Brittany McDonough