Privacy and the Individual Privacy is an issue that society is required to deal with on a daily basis. Individuals often question the extent to which ones right to privacy should be allowed to go. In attempting to find the right level of privacy, people must keep in mind issues such as public safety. There seems to be an inverse relationship between status and privacy. The more notoriety and money that a person gains, the less privacy he generally will have. Privacy is the quality or state of being apart from company or observation and is the freedom from unauthorized intrusion.
The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences states that a positive aspect of privacy is that it insulates the individual from social pressures to compliance and generally reduces the need to act in ways that are likely to gain the approval of others (privacy).
Beneficial effects of privacy are reduced exposure to theft, increased personal security, freedom from judgment for harmless activities currently not popular, and reduced conflicts between people with different beliefs. While many of the characteristics of privacy are beneficial to the individuals in some situations, such as the work place, privacy may work against the individual as well as the group Groups of people tend to work better when there generally is less or no privacy. For example, employees at a job can commit crimes and slack off on the job much easier when they have some privacy as opposed to when none is present. An element of privacy that is not beneficial is the facilitation of crime. Crime can be committed much easier when employees are not being monitored.
The Review on Environmental Crime Control
Outline and critically discuss what you see as the main examples of attempts to control crime using ‘environmental controls’ It is generally understood that crime prevention strategies developed with the neo-liberal governance that began in the 1970’s soon after the decline of welfarism. The rise of the neo-liberalism meant the weakening of rehabilitation efforts, the return of punitive punishment ...
This is a good illustration of how profit and privacy are related. The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences later went on to say that a negative characteristic of privacy is that it promotes seclusion between people. History has repeatedly shown, that the human species accomplishes more when its members work together. The building of the pyramids is such as example. The intimacy that status and privacy share can be easily illustrated by the life of an ordinary woman on the Internet. One individual who has to deal with the issue of privacy is Jennifer Ringley, a self proclaimed normal person. She broadcasts her entire life on the Internet and has written an article titled Why I Star in My Own Truman Show to tell about it. Her entire house is rigged with web cams, which are small and discreet cameras that transmit pictures to the Internet. She claims to not even notice them in her day-to-day activities.
Although Ringley definitely has the attention of many people, she says she doesnt change her behavior from what she would normally do at home just because people are watching, so this does not put her under the general definition of an exhibitionist. I believe her when she says that people watch her because they want to see what a normal person does and that most of them are not watching for a show but for a kind of reassurance that they themselves and the things that they do are in the normal range. The fact that she has the third most popular web site on the Internet proves her point. Jenni charges fifteen dollars for a three-month subscription to frequent updates at the website. Ringley did not mention anything about a fee for membership in her article and when I discovered this, my attitude toward her and her intentions changed. I then realized that her idea was a business plan as well as an example of an unexpected phenomenon. The fact that she gets paid changes everything. She may act differently in order to get more people hooked on watching her. The amount of money that she gets paid would influence my opinion.
The Term Paper on Fake Life on Internet
Hi ! its pulkit mohan singla , today talking about fake life on internet I always loved chatting,always loved to meet new people from different backgrounds and different countries. But never thought about its darker side. It feels awesome to know people from different areas ,and about them and their diversity. It really makes you connected to the whole world. and you sometimes even feel like a ...
If she had another job or form of income and that this web site was just something she does on the side then I would think that she doesnt do it for the money. If her primary income was from her website then I would definitely think that her behavior is under an influence. Many people are willing to loose some of their privacy, by taking their clothes off for instance, in exchange for money. Ringley is probably no different from those people, besides she is normal. Ringley is very popular and she most likely makes a great sum of money from her web site, so it is only understandable that she has close to no privacy at all. For individuals such as politicians, privacy is a sparse commodity.
These people have jobs that are highly publicized by the media, which basically presents what the public wants to see. Michael Kinsley, a reporter for the Washington Post and editor of the political magazine Slate, states that the proper test for a journalist trying to decide whether to publish some information about a politicians private life is not whether it is politically relevant in his or her own judgment but whether it is politically relevant in the judgment of his or her readers. This statement explains how the media often reports the negative or entertaining aspects of a politicians private life rather than the information that is reflective of his or her performance on the job. By reporting on a persons character and home life, the media is then able to gain readers or viewers and make a profit from them, proving again how the aspect of profit is connected to privacy. Many politicians build their campaigns based on their personality and character. In doing so, they reveal private things about themselves and so they intentionally loose their privacy.
In this case they shouldnt have as much privacy as your average citizen because they are making a conscious decision to give it up in order to win a campaign. I believe that politicians should have less privacy than other people because they do such an important job. One could only image in what terrible things a politician could do knowing his privacy was inviolately. In general, less privacy for politicians probably keeps them more honest. Unlike politicians, who deliberately give up their privacy, celebrities usually have their privacy taken from them. Another example of individuals who live their lives in the spotlight is celebrities. Celebrities provide entertainment for society and if they do a good job, can sometimes even become role models for members of society. Frequently, their private lives frequently become much more public then they intended.
The Review on Ethical Issues on Privacy in Life
A combination of fifty students and lecturers were asked to evaluate the ethical issues on privacy in life. A survey has been made to make a comparison of each individual response towards the privacy issues. This is to determine the ethical impact relates to accessibility or inaccessibility and the manipulation of information. Certain kind of information about individuals, which was once difficult ...
Unlike politicians, who try to get the public to know them, celebrities generally do not even invite people into their private lives. They often wish that their privacy was more respected, but are forced to accept the loss of it because that is a part of becoming a role model..
