Federal Trade Commission V. Twitter Scandal

In his text, “How we sold our souls – and more – to the internet giants,” Bruce Schneier offers compelling insight into the extensive articulation of internet surveillance in the powerful corporate world. Schneier’s analysis of power relations and his claim that personal “[d]ata is power,” reflect his concern that as internet surveillance increases, the imbalance of power between individuals and internet businesses will continue to grow and deepen as well. Therefore, to avoid furthering asymmetries of power in contemporary digital society, Schneier highlights the need for regulation of data processing and urges governments to act by implementing rules and regulations that will help balance power relationships between the surveillers and the

Twitter is the world’s number one go-to social media platform and, even though it is just words on a screen, it has the power to change lives for better or for worse. This social media platform is a powerful tool when someone knows how to use it correctly, but powerful tools can just as easily be misused. Mona Eltahawy’s primary theme in her essay “Twitterholics Anonymous” is that Twitter has both positive and negative effects on anyone who uses or follows the social media platform. “Twitter connects me to everything I care about and Twitter is ruining my life.” Just as this platform can connect people across the world, Eltahawy clearly demonstrates the toll it can take on one’s body and mind. The author of “Twitterholics Anonymous” brings up a unique conversation about Twitter’s effects on the world’s population that could inadvertently revolutionize how the world views and uses social media.

The Federal Communication Commission has a duty to promote internet security and a secure environment of communication networks, including the internet. Due to online transactions, people working from the internet and the digitalization of documents, sensitive personal information is frequently transmitted online. The order address this, “the Commission recently took enforcement action under section 222 (and section 201(b)) against two telecommunications companies that stored customers’ personal information, including social security numbers, on unprotected, unencrypted Internet servers publicly accessible using a basic Internet search” (FCC, 16). Also, the order encourages and demands broadband providers to maintain standard security protocols (FCC, 34). Furthermore, the order states that laws and regulations must be consistent, “to address the needs of emergency communications or law enforcement, public safety, or homeland or national security authorities” (FCC, 132). All of these points illustrate that security of networks, personal information and national security are top priorities of this order and that of the Federal Communication Commission. It is my belief that the commission does an effective job of address security

The quest for privacy and security has always been a long and arduous one, as America’s citizens “no longer care” about the lack of integrity which the American government is showing towards its citizens (Sullivan). “When you have it, you don’t notice it. Only when it’s gone do you wish you’d done more to protect it.” Sullivan explains in Privacy under attack, but does anybody care?. After the National Security Agency was accused of “systematically collecting information” on citizens’ phone calls, emails, and countless other sources, “the news media treated it as a complete revelation” (Whitehead). People throughout the country protested and condemned the government—all while they failed to realize that we have consciously permitted the government to collect and secure our private information by “giving our personal information” to companies who ask for it, and by “allowing our personal lives to be posted on media sources such as Facebook and Twitter” (Washington). Ironically enough, we ourselves have

And with 3 billion phone calls made and 150 billion emails sent to and from the United States every day, the collection of this personal data without specifying the limits to their searches is unclear and unjust. Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and Yahoo among many others have recently, under protection from the Obama administration, revealed details as to the statistics of government collection. Even our nation's biggest telecom companies, AT&T and Verizon, were obliged to work with the NSA, lately disclosing information on the filtering equipment they were necessitated to use. The storage of this data for prolonged periods of time also makes these companies and their users vulnerable to security breaches such as theft and attack by hackers; for example, the cyber-security firm Trustwave discovered a server on November 24, 2013 which contained the information of over 318,000 accounts on Facebook. This breach was evidently made possible by companies storing data for an unnecessary amount of time as well as a weakened encryption standard. Both were implemented and enforced by the NSA, and the forced retention this data for over five years not only renders this metadata vulnerable to theft or misuse, but has also not been proven to be notably valuable in thwarting terrorist attacks.

The purpose of this literary review is to enlighten my viewers of the importance of the ethical idea of companies crossing the lines of business with your personal life, when involving social media accounts. Most of my research has operated from the ATU library using the find it tool. Furthermost, the researched information use was from peer-reviewed research journal. I will discuss includes social media cons in the work environment, if it is ethical to get fired over a post, and laws that protect both parties. Social media includes an assortment of electronic communications—most commonly networking sites such as Facebook, LinkedIn, Myspace, Pinterest, Instagram, and the likes thereof. Social media also covers all forms of blogs, including Twitter (a micro-blog), wikis, online journals, diaries, personal newsletters, and World of Warfare and YouTube also are included under the umbrella term of social media (Lieber 2011).

Social media like Facebook and Twitter have become more and more popular in recent times. Their popularity is creating new opportunities for data collection performed by the state and private companies like Google and Facebook. The point of this exercise is to outline a theoretical framework for defining monitoring social media in the context of today's society and understand its broader societal implications.

The words, “Arguing that you don’t care about privacy because you have nothing to hide is no different than saying you don’t care about free speech because you have nothing to say” were said by Edward Snowden who is a computer professional in America. Similarly, the essays “Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty,” “Web Users Get as Much as They Give,” and “Facebook Is Using You” from Nicholas Carr, Jim Harper, and Lori Andrews respectively points out that the internet privacy is good and bad. However, the articles by Carr and Andrews are based on the negative side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is not good. On the other hand, Harper’s article is based on the positive side of the internet privacy, which means that the internet privacy is good and scary, but people need to be careful of their own information and browsing histories, and websites. Jim Harper’s essay is more relevant and reasonable than the Nicholas Carr and Lori Andrews’s essays. However, Harper seems more persuasive to readers because he believes that the internet is good if people use it in a right way, whereas Carr and Andrews believe that the internet is not good at all.

Compares to the Privacy Badger, the bill is more credible and effective because it is created by the government and is passed by the Congress. Hence, there is no question to the credibility of the process. Every company must obey the bill because it is the law of the country. In a response to the advertising companies’ argument, the Digital Advertising Alliance (DAA) has created self-regulatory rules for online behavioral tracking. The companies are required to let the customers know how their informations is collected and give customer choice whether they want to be tracked. Also, the FTC recommends a trade off situation where both advertising companies and customers can be benefited. The FTC recommends that the website should allow the user to determine the level of personal information that can be tracked. The websites hold also add an opt-out function to their websites. Even though the advertising companies lost some of their control over the customers’ information and the ability to track their customer’s behavioral, it is better than losing all the control and economic benefits. As a result, the economy as a whole won’t decline as much as it would if the company loss all the

In our society, social networking has become very popular over the last 5 years. Twitter is a social networking site that allows users to become “followers” of other people and stay informed about current events and social trends. Many argue whether or not these social websites such as Twitter, are good for society. In two articles about Twitter, the authors present different arguments about why Twitter is good or bad for society. The author of “Heading off disaster, one Tweet at a time” by Jim Spellman, states that Twitter is a good way of communicating current events happening around the world. The other article, “Is Twitter Bad for National Security?” by Tony Bradley, argues that Twitter could have dangerous effects on our nation’s

These days the internet has become an essential part to living for almost everyone but one of the controversial topics that people bring up is that whether or not the government should regulate information on the internet. Both sides have valid points which form a reasonable argument. Some people would say that they need to because of the dangers lurking around in the cyber world but the reasons for why the government shouldn’t regulate the Internet outnumber the reasons for why they should. The federal government should not regulate or censor information on the internet because doing so violates the first amendment and citizen’s right to privacy, degrades the educational value of the web, prevents the promotion and facilitation of

This paper will cover the pros and cons of government surveillance. It will cover different views on the issue such as ethical, social, and global impact. This paper will try to answer the question of how government surveillance on social media can impact local citizens in the United States

Walk into a library, you have a computer, you are most likely carrying a phone, at home, you most likely have a computer, laptop, tablet, or even all three. This shows that we have social media access at the tip of our fingers, making it so easy to open up the site or app and just type out a phrase or paragraph, letting hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions, of people know what you think. Back then, it was harder to let the nation know what you were thinking, and it took even take months before everyone knew, versus today, where the nation might know by the end of the day, and it’s because of this that companies regulate what their users are posting, attempting at keeping the online world free from threats, hate, harmful words, and more. Rutenberg quotes Jeffrey Goldberg as he says, “At a certain point I’d rather take myself off the platform where speech has become so become so offensive than advocate for the suppression of that speech” (2). Twitter also said that “everyone on Twitter should feel safe expressing diverse opinions and beliefs, but behavior that harasses, intimidates or uses fear to silence another person’s voice should have no place on our platform” (Rutenberg 2).

Social networking sites such as Twitter or Facebook have created a new ethical dilemma for many businesses. Corporations, small businesses, and even universities are struggling create policies to manage their employees social networking behaviors. Social networking access, particularly for recruiters, can provide personal information about potential employees, which would otherwise not be available. A business must follow statutes and guidelines when disclosing information to the public. Individuals on social networking sites have no such constraints. Employees can and do make comments about their employers online. Employers can and do watch what employees post online. Any individual can send or post potentially damaging information

Social media. We have all heard of it. We have all raved about it at some point in our lives. There is no doubt; it plays an imperative part of people’s lives today – users are reliant on social media. It is great that Mark Zuckerberg reminds us to say, “Happy Birthday” to our friends. Yet, we have all seen the dangers it can cause. From identity fraud to cyberbullying - we become exposed to the dangers of the internet. Not only is it hackers and frauds that cause destruction, but social networking posts. Every day, you scroll through Facebook, or Instagram - liking, sharing and commenting on posts. What people don’t see is how words on a ‘status’ or ‘tweet’ can hurt someone. They can’t see that a person’s feelings behind the screens on a computer have been destroyed, because they can’t see what they don’t want to see.