Skip to main content

The Big Brother Is Watching Us on Social Media: Is It Good or Bad?

Many people are aware of the fact that there is no such thing of “privacy” on the internet and that social media can significantly speed up the process of publicizing content. Indeed, somebody is watching us 24/7 on the internet, but is it a good thing or a bad thing?

@LinchiKwok
According to this CNN News video, the Department of Homeland Security wants to attain information such as “terrorist attack,” “tornado,” and “home land security” from social networking sites. The information is currently collected by a third party agent called Epic.org for a price of $11 million.

There are scientists making predictions by analyzing the keywords appeared in search engines and/or on social networking sites. For example, if people in a certain geographic location start searching “fluid syndromes” on Google, Yahoo, or Bing, that could be an indication of an outbreak of fluid or a fluid-related disease. There are also researchers trying to predict the “mood” of the world by analyzing people’s tweets (e.g. a happy vs. an unhappy day).

It seems that the big brother can benefit from the “big picture” or the emerging themes found on the internet. Personally, I don’t think this is necessarily a bad thing. The privacy issues, however, arise when people worry about whether their personal interactions online are also being watched.

In general, do you think the big brother is doing a good thing or a bad thing to the society? To what degree should people be watched? What are your suggestions for protecting internet users’ privacy while at the same time, making data available for scientific research?


References:
The picture was downloaded from Sangrea.Net

Comments

  1. One moment, I'll post mine soon. just wanted to say I love your new site!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. Look forward to reading your comments and feedback.

      Delete
  2. I think that "Big Brother" on social media is a good thing. I think that many people are extremely egotistical and think that Big Brother would be watching them and their personal activity. In reality, the government has much more important matters to deal with than a civilian's personal interactions. It is impossible to store information on every user of the internet and equally as hard to sort this information and therefore would be extremely hard to be used as a weapon against a civilian. Even if information is being stored on my browsing activity, I find that a small price to pay for the safety of the United States. The reality is that the internet can be an extremely powerful tool, but many people forget the vast network it reaches and therefore privacy is really a relative concept.

    ReplyDelete
  3. On a broad scale, I believe that having a "big brother" system mediating the internet as a whole is crucial to keeping our nation safe. However, nitpicking through civilians' social media sites is highly unnecessary and as the poster above me has stated, "the government has more important matters to deal with." I also believe that it is the web page owner's responsibility to make sure that their site complies with the US federal safety guidelines and holds the proper disclaimers to make sure legal action won't be taken against them. On an individual scale, I don't believe it's too difficult to regulate what one puts on their website. A website can be seen as one's own brand and if the material on the website can be perceived as offensive, then the action can be reflected negatively on the site owner. For instance, I personally know that potential employees will be looking through my Facebook profile and other social media sites, so I wouldn't purposely go posting something that is outwardly offensive to anyone because that would be instigating a problem that wouldn't have ever escalated to that degree. As long as the public regulates itself somewhat, there wouldn't be a need for the government to pry and civilian's could regain their privacy.
    -Katrina Wong, NSD 314

    ReplyDelete
  4. I think that "big brother" has brought tremendous benefits to society. New technology has allowed for the government to anticipate and stop potential threats to our country. On a smaller scale, people are worried, and with good reason, that their privacy is being invaded. However, I think it is important to acknowledge that with such a large population, surveillance services are not going to waste their time analyzing individual twitter and/ or facebook accounts. These surveillance systems are looking for extreme threats. My only suggestion to this conflict would be to minimize/ limit the amount of time/ amount of visits that can be spent analyzing an individuals social media account.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Luxury vs. Millennials and Their Technology: The Ritz-Carlton (By Julia Shorr)

Embodying the finest luxury experience, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC has been established since 1983. In 1998, Marriott International purchased the brand offering it more opportunity for growth while being independently owned and operated. They are known for their enhanced service level as the motto states, “Ladies and Gentlemen serving Ladies and Gentlemen”. The luxury brand now carries 97 hotels and resorts internationally and is attempting to keep the aspects of luxury while keeping up with the trends of the technologically improving generations. The Varying Demographics of the Target Market The Ritz-Carlton’s typical target market includes: business executives, corporate, leisure travelers, typically middle-aged persons and elders, and families from the upper and upper-middle class section of society .   This infers a large range of types of travelers in which all are similar in that they are not opposed to spending extra for the luxurious ambiance. However, with

The challenges of SB 93 (California Senate Bill No. 93) will impose on the employers and their human resource management team (by Brittany Schaffer)

The COVID-19 pandemic started in early 2020, and it has caused massive changes within a short period of time. One of the most rememberable effects of the COVID-19 pandemic was that businesses had to come to a complete halt, forcing them to lay off employees. California's unemployment rates went up.  Now that the stay-at-home orders have lifted, people start to come out. Businesses are now reopening, looking to rehire their laid-off employees. Before the pandemic, employers had the option of recalling only a certain number of laid-off employees they would want to rehire based on employees' job performance. That option had been changed after Governor Gavin Newsome signed into law - Senate Bill 93, which went into effect on April 16th, 2021. The California Senate Bill No. 93 (SB 93) According to SB 93, companies in specific industries, mainly the hospitality industry, have the obligation to provide job opportunities in written form to qualified employees being laid off due to COVI

The complicated situation of tattoos in the workplace (by Harry Law)

Tattoos are a form of expression that convey the individuality of their owners. They can represent a multitude of things, like a tie to a family member, a favorite quote with a special meaning, or even a favorite cartoon character. Tattoos also can carry great cultural and/or religious significance. Every tattoo is unique and says something about the individual person who wears it. The problem that many companies face is when a tattoo is considered appropriate and when it should be covered.  Employees are after all the faces of a company, so the tattoos on their bodies are connected to and represent that company as well. Some workplaces have instituted rules and regulations when it comes to their employees’ tattoos, but there can be negative consequences when a company goes too far in telling their employees what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. The Disney Company has recently changed its policy on tattoos. Disney’s goal is to create a magical, fantasy experience for their