Controlling of Personal Information

6 Pages

20 Downloads

Words: 1721

Date added: 17-06-26

open document save to my library
Controlling of personal information: An in-depth Analysis Summary of Assigned Article Lisa M. Austin in her article, Control Yourself, or at least your core self-defines privacy as a control mechanism over one’s personal information.[1] The author provided legal framework for the protection of one’s privacy. Such legal frameworks include: Federal personal Information protection and privacy act as well as Canadian internet policy and public interest clinic. Furthermore, Austin differentiates between the first and second generation philosophers of technology through the idea of the “self”. According to first generation, technology is linked with culture and modernity and it is through these notion that the advancement in technology is so vast that it simultaneously can threaten an individual’s freedom.[2] However, second generation philosopher’s critique the first philosophers view on technology, critiquing the usage and development of technology[3] explaining that technology does not control human.[4]Moreover, second generation philosophers open up questions to legal scholars about the consequences of technology stating that “technology is not neutral rather it has a social and political value”.[5] Austin discusses the impact on the issues of control to the concept of the “self”.[6] The author goes further on to discuss how there are issues pertaining to ones control of privacy and the idea of the “core-self”.[7] The disclosure of personal information by an organization requires the individual to consent without limiting the disclosure of information that is “sensitive and intimate”.[8] She further conceptualizes the concept of the self in relation to ones “biographical core of information” that is personal information revealing “intimate details of an individual’s life style”[9] to the control of one’s personal information. She argues that the solution and the problem of control should be embedded in providing more control on how information and technologies interact. Austin explains the extent of protecting ones “self-presentation” that is choosing to whom one wants to present themselves to.[10] She discusses the example of a person’s photograph in a magazine, shifting from an audience that has access to the photograph to a much larger audience that reads the magazine. This causes, as Austin states a “prima facie privacy claim”[11] undermining ones capacity to protect “self-presentation”[12] posting a question for legal scholars of the concept of the “self” to advances in technology.[13] Part II: Comparative Analysis Article 1: Langdon Winner, “Do artifacts have politics” Winner as well as Austin speak about the implications of technological advancements on society. Winner argues that technology is arranged in a way that has political, social and economic ends.[14] Similarly, Austin argues that technology has a detrimental effect on an individual’s freedom where legal scholars need to re-evaluate how technologies are designed and implemented.[15] This rests on the assumption that, states should recognize the public and structural aspects of privacy in political and social context, having some form of “control”. Take for example, the use of cell phones or the developments of new technological surveillance. This makes an individual lose control over their personal information as individuals value privacy and protection of how much their personal information is known by others controlling the capacity of “self-presentations” of individuals[16] as Austin articulates, “Information and communication as placed the limits on personal information beyond ones control”.[17] Furthermore, Winner and Austin are in agreement that, technology is a common ground for neutrality[18] violating ones “normal expectations” [19]and constituting a threat to human freedom.[20] For example, Winner described the example of Robert Mosses, the urban planning of New York City where he build bridges and roads for the purposes of discouraging the presence buses and transportation, an idea similar to Caro’s social class.[21] In today’s digital era, technology provides information on a massive level of domain where hackers can get access to one’s personal information through the use of Facebook, twitter, LinkedIn as well as personal emails. Take for example, the love bug virus that was incorporated through the use of email, getting into user’s personal emails, tracking down passwords which resulted in billions of loses. As Austin states, there are privacy challenges associated with the way information and communication technologies interact[22] where “technologies can be used well, poorly, good, and for evil purposes.”[23] From this perspective, one can articulate the notion that with technological advancements, there is a strategic control in the sense that technologies can authorize power over others.[24] Both Winner and Austin, explains the impact of social life, the advancements of technology has on economic costs as well as benefits and risks associated to public safety. Moreover, Winner and Austin speculates the notion of “control” in different ways. For instance, Winner’s ascribes control to be embedded in political aspects for the removal of inequalities. On the other hand, Austin speculates control of information where individuals have the capacity to control the information that they want to share with others.[25] So, if technological advancements can undermine one’s personal and “biological core information” with having little control on protection, then is it safe to say that there could be some form of control in relation to copyright laws? Article 2: Jessica Litman, “The demonization of piracy” Recent advances in technology has undermined a person’s ability to control some form of personal information. According to Litman, the idea of control is based on copyright laws where authors have some form of control over what they disseminate, distribute and disclose information to the public[26] giving the exclusive authority ship of one’s work[27] for the compensation of monetary value.[28] Similarly, Austin proposes the idea that individuals have some form of control over the disclosure of information as outlined under the Personal information protection electronics documents act.[29] Moreover, Austin proposes that in order to solve the detoriation of control over privacy, there has to be more control[30] and to protect the “exclusive rights” of author’s writings they need to have control over the content.[31] In light of such issues, both Litman and Austin speculate over the notion that there has to be some form of control over the disclosure of information and the information that is pertained under copyright laws which can be undermined by a lack of control. Furthermore, Litman states that, in order for there to be some form of control over the work and to protect the rights of the authors, the public has to use some form of authorization in order to access the content.[32] This will prevent any harms to an author’s rights or the limit the authors have posted on the accessibility of the content, making sure that personal information is not undermined. Technology does not drive human beings rather human beings drive technology, where they have means of controlling the type of information they want the public to know. However, under copyright laws, there comes a breach over the control of information on the use-age of materials. Litman describes this notion as “piracy” that is the downloading of materials by illegal means[33] Take for example, the downloading of music.[34] This not only violates aspect of copyright laws but also the fact that companies are losing control of digital privacy undermining the freedom of individuals as Austin articulates, out of control technology relies on a new age of freedom[35] making indviduals lose control over information.[36] Furthermore, Litman proposes a case “The digital Millennium” copyright, where the owner restricts the access to copying and prohibits the distribution of information by giving the control back to the owners[37] where they determine when, how and to what extent they want to share the information with others.[38] One can contemplate the notion that, copyright laws are providing a powerful incentive for controlling one’s work which could pose an effect on individual’s freedom. Thus, copyright laws are providing a set of “exclusive rights” to authors to restrict their content to the public. In essence, both authors Litman and Austin, ascribe the notion of control over the perception on the concept of the “self” representation which can be diminished when illegal work is distributed. References: Lisa M. Austin, “Control yourself or at least your core self” (2010) 30 Bulletin of Science and technology 1. Langdon Winner, “Do Artifacts have politics?” (1980) 109 Modern technology: Problem or opportunity 1. Jessica Litman, “The Demonization of Piracy” (2000). Tenth Conference on computers, freedom & privacy
[1] Lisa M. Austin, “Control yourself or at least your core self” (2010) 30 Bulletin of Science and technology 1, at pg. 26 [2] Ibid at pg. 27 [3] Ibid at 2 [4] Ibid at 3 [5] Ibid at 4 [6] Ibid at 5 [7] Ibid at 6 [8] Ibid at pg. 28 [9] Ibid at 9 [10] Ibid at 10 [11] Ibid at 11 at pg. 29 [12] Ibid at pg. 28 [13] Ibid at 12 [14] Langdon Winner, “Do Artifacts have politics?” (1980) 109 Modern technology: Problem or opportunity 1, at pg. 122 [15] Supra note 1 at pg. 27 [16] Supra note 1 at pg. 29 [17] Ibid 16 at pg. 26 [18] Supra note 14 at pg. 125 [19] Ibid 16 at pg. 124 [20] Supra note 1 at pg. 27 [21] Supra note 17 at pg. 124 [22] Ibid 18 [23] Supra note 14 at pg. 125 [24] Ibid at 20 [25] Supra note 1 at pg. 29 [26] Jessica Litman, “The Demonization of Piracy” (2000). Tenth Conference on computers, freedom & privacy at pg. 1 [27] Ibid at pg. 2 [28] Ibid at pg. 3 [29] Lisa M. Austin, “Control yourself or at least your core self” (2010) 30 Bulletin of Science and technology 1 26-29 at pg. 26 [30] Ibid 26 pg. 28 [31] Supra note 23 at pg. 6 [32] Ibid [33] Ibid 28 at pg. 7 [34] Supra note 23 at pg. 7 [35] Supra note 26 at pg. 26 [36] Ibid at 30 [37] Supra note 23 at pg. 9 [38] Supra note 26 at pg. 28
Read full document← View the full, formatted essay now!
Is it not the essay you were looking for?Get a custom essay exampleAny topic, any type available
banner
x
We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we'll assume you're on board with our cookie policy. That's Fine