|
|
Post by Kiana Radliff on Sept 13, 2015 14:39:15 GMT -8
The author of the article states “The Ashley Madison hackers will inspire copycats. This time, the victims were wannabe cheaters. Next time, the target might be one that inspires less prurient schadenfreude: Rehab centers, churches, foundations, political campaigns -- or Planned Parenthood. After the Ashley Madison hack, we have to adapt to what is essentially a post-privacy world. It's survivable, if you're not a digital dinosaur.” Though this author may be only trying to prove a point that the Ashely Madison hack was a great invasion of privacy; however, the author greatly exaggerates the topic when claims that we live in a post-privacy world. People need to understand that the internet was never a place of privacy in the first place, so using the Ashely Madison hack as an example is ineffective to his argument. We still have privacy and he claims that it is gone completely.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kiana Radliff on Sept 13, 2015 14:49:29 GMT -8
I agreed with Lucas when he said "I believe that our privacy is not extinct at all because of the fact that we get to choose what we put onto the internet." The internet has never technically been private in the first place, so the author of the article doesn't have evidence strong enough to support his claim that privacy is extinct.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elise Coash on Sept 13, 2015 18:35:38 GMT -8
I think that the hack exposes the fact that anything is possible on the internet. The possibilities are endless. Anything can be created on the internet and any thing on the internet can be discovered with or without your consent. This puts the average person's privacy at risk because it highlights the fact that people can hack into almost anything on the internet and it is a matter of time before someone gets a hold of information about citizens from a massive hack of the United States Government. The people who were using this site should have known that this was bound to happen. The internet is the last place to do something shady unless you are a skilled hacker. Political figures and reality stars such as Josh Duggar are so stupid for using this site. Someone was bound to find out that they were using it. There is absolutely no privacy on the internet!
|
|
|
|
Post by Elise Coash on Sept 13, 2015 18:38:10 GMT -8
I agreed with Lucas when he said "I believe that our privacy is not extinct at all because of the fact that we get to choose what we put onto the internet." The internet has never technically been private in the first place, so the author of the article doesn't have evidence strong enough to support his claim that privacy is extinct. I don't agree with this statement. This is because of the fact that the government is monitoring much more than what we put on the internet. The government takes that information and uploads it to hard drives. It is a matter of time before a hacker has a massive hack and uncovers our deepest darkest secrets. |
|
|
|
Post by Krista Spurlock on Sept 13, 2015 19:57:55 GMT -8
Privacy is not entirely extinct. There are still some situations in which you can keep a private life. However, privacy online is extinct. Anything you look at, say, post, etc. can com back to bite you. It's just a matter of time. That's why we need to be careful on the internet, because we aren't safe on it.
Privacy being extinct is a bad thing. I personally believe that everyone should have the right to keep to themselves and not let the world know what their doing every second of the day. You should be able to have secrets and do things without suffering the consequences of. Privacy may never return though, so everything being out in the open is an idea we should get used to.
We should care about this because we are the generation all these monitoring systems and security breaches are going to affect. This is happening now, to people we know, and we will be affected one way or another.
|
|
|
|
Post by Krista Spurlock on Sept 13, 2015 20:01:59 GMT -8
Elise- you are spot on.
You said that "Anything can be created on the internet and any thing on the internet can be discovered with or without your consent" and this is so true. You may think that you unsubscribed from a website or deleted an account or cleared your history, but there are so many ways to still get caught. You have to know that you will get caught eventually. Whether it's years from now or tomorrow, you will get caught. And people will publish information about you on the web without your consent, which may be wrong, but if you've been doing something you shouldn't have been doing on the internet, you probably deserve it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Savannah Smith on Sept 13, 2015 20:16:47 GMT -8
Privacy is not extinct, it is losing respect. The entire topic depends on how we define "privacy." I personally define "privacy" as mutual respect between two or more parties not to snoop or pry into each other's business. On the internet we do not see each other, which is why it is difficult to respect each other's privacy; we are not able to communicate that we want respect in regards to personal matters. People who were checking to see whom on their contact list was subscribed to Ashely Madison were being disrespectful and inconsiderate that their friends or family wouldn't want to share that with the world. Things like this are not alright, and they should be treated so, because it is wrong to take away someone's choice of sharing certain information about themselves. Team Impact, I believe, should be held accountable for violating the privacy of thousands of people, and should have to face some form of consequence. We aren't on this planet for very long, why can't we just mind our own business??
|
|
|
|
Post by Jordan T on Sept 13, 2015 20:33:43 GMT -8
I guess I'll just articulate more on my opinion from last week seeing as there hasn't been a new posting.
Privacy isn't extinct but it is unlikely to be found on the internet as there are many hackers who will be able to disclose any of your secrets at any moment. If you anger the wrong people, it is only a matter of time until you are exposed. Privacy on the internet is basically extinct and so the only sure way to be safe is to talk in person where it is unlikely that people will hear you. You can never hide from everyone on the internet because, even if the government can't find you, hackers can like in the Ashley Madison case. There is no real way to stop people from breaking into your privacy as there will always be a hacker that is good enough to break the strongest firewall. For this reason, those who fear internet exposure should simply use it less rather than complain about how horrific it has become.
|
|
|
|
Post by Joey Murrer on Sept 13, 2015 20:39:31 GMT -8
Hmmm no new topic.
I also agree that privacy is not completely extinct. Is simply is the number of hackers and scammers increasing causing there to be potential breaches in privacy. If someone is really doing something that they truly wish to keep private, they will not do it online. The potential threat of having that information taken and shared is too high. There should be the expectation that at any time your information and though sands others can be taken and used for whatever purpose the taker chooses. Do not use the internet if you are too afraid of possible hacks. Other then that, accept the fact and carry on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Savannah Smith on Sept 13, 2015 20:40:32 GMT -8
My opinion is similar to Deven's and disagrees with those who "believe that this privacy breach was beneficial to society,"(Jordan). Ryan, you thought that this privacy breach could even "help [to create] longer marriages because of this (forced) newfound honesty [between couples],'' but you forgot that everyone on the cheater's contact list discovered this as well. Professional colleagues, bosses, clients, sons, daughters, neighbors, parents, all saw the cheater in a new light. While of course I do not condone any form of cheating, I know that organic confessions are much healthier than forced confessions. Everyone does things that they are not proud of, but we all at least deserve the option to walk away from our past without hesitation.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jordan T on Sept 13, 2015 20:41:17 GMT -8
In regards to Savannah's most recent post and her claim that she "personally define 'privacy' as mutual respect between two or more parties not to snoop or pry into each other's business." and that she believes people should simply be descent enough to not watch others, I would argue that that is quite an impossible task. While her definition is quite a valid and understandable one, it is quite an impossible feat. As much as we'd like to believe that everyone is a great and descent person who has the dignity to not invade another person's privacy, it is unreasonable to expect everyone to be kind enough not to breach your security. It is far more realistic to understand that there are always going to be horrible people with bad motives and that the only reasonable way to be sure you are safe from privacy monitors is to speak in pubic. To reiterate, I believe her definition of privacy is reasonable but her request that everyone respect each other's privacy asks of too much from a society where not everyone is kind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jordan T on Sept 13, 2015 20:42:19 GMT -8
I'm not sure why the last time I posted this the whole thing was crossed out....
In regards to Savannah's most recent post and her claim that she "personally define 'privacy' as mutual respect between two or more parties not to snoop or pry into each other's business." and that she believes people should simply be descent enough to not watch others, I would argue that that is quite an impossible task. While her definition is quite a valid and understandable one, it is quite an impossible feat. As much as we'd like to believe that everyone is a great and descent person who has the dignity to not invade another person's privacy, it is unreasonable to expect everyone to be kind enough not to breach your security. It is far more realistic to understand that there are always going to be horrible people with bad motives and that the only reasonable way to be sure you are safe from privacy monitors is to speak in pubic. To reiterate, I believe her definition of privacy is reasonable but her request that everyone respect each other's privacy asks of too much from a society where not everyone is kind.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jordan T on Sept 13, 2015 20:43:02 GMT -8
I give up. Try to read it like that. It doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ben MacDnald on Sept 13, 2015 21:10:43 GMT -8
I don't believe privacy is extinct in the world today, but its close to becoming that way. There are evident loopholes and hackers everywhere online plus the government, it seems as if there is no where to hide yourself or your personal information. The fact that the Ashley Madison hack is a rare occurrence, I can't say this is a bad thing. People are aware that privacy is getting harder and harder to maintain in their lives, but there is no way to fight it. Accepting the fact that our information is vulnerable means people will be more careful about what they do online and in the outside world. We shouldn't care, life goes on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Luke Hamlyn on Sept 13, 2015 22:18:15 GMT -8
While the Ashley Madison hack is concerning it would take an even bigger privacy breach to convince me that privacy itself is completely dead. As far as whether or not the Ashley Madison hack is in principal a bad thing I would have to say absolutely. Even though cheating on one's spouse is considered morally wrong, it is unfair to give out information about the people who use the website that they undoubtedly do not want to be public. Just because these people cheated does not mean they are bad people, everyone has something to hide. It is scary when a large website with personal information gets hacked like Ashley Madison did because it leads one to believe that websites with even more damaging information to its users could be hacked and have that information be made public.
|
|
