WEEK 5 - Big Brother, C'est Moi by Navneet Alang

BAR 

1. Alang uses the telephone as a precedent because it relates to the major technology change of the Internet that he feels needs stricter control. The telephone was a rather new discovery that sometimes was hard to manage and make sense of. So, as a result, there were rules made around it in order to put it into regulation. Similarly, Alang thinks that internet surveillance and usage should be limited to the same rules, especially when it comes to criminal convictions. In essence, if everyone were to be recorded and posted onto the internet, it would be a breach of privacy, much like telephone calls being recorded and used in trial. Alang wants to use the Telephone situation as a precedence and example for what should happen to the internet. 

2. In my perspective, Alang’s argument was strong in some ways. He highlighted the important factors of security and information being unjustly spread and used in court, but I don’t think the example of the Stanley Cup Riots was a good example. Those Riots were ridiculously irrational, and people’s properties were damaged for the sake of a sports game. Putting those perpetrators up on the Internet was not unjust, as it put the bad guys into the light. It was not a breach of security, as they were damaging property in public, unashamedly. His comparison to the telephone, however, was different. When the telephone was popularized, calls were made on private property and ran the risk of being recorded. The ‘Internet surveillance’ he refers to, however, was on public property and had to do with individual property and integrity. I personally do not feel like the logic of his argument is 100% correct, as the Internet is a a lot more complex and free than what he wants to be specifically controlled. Recording people being a nuisance in the street is not a breach of security, because they are in fact, in the public eye anyways.

TS/IS 

1. I read, “Don’t Blame the Reader” by David Z., which discusses fast food in relation to Childhood obesity, advertising, and safety. Although he agrees that fast-food restaurants are unhealthy and present an obvious health risk, he also contemplates the fact that there are so many fast food restaurants in comparison to healthy food outlets. He identifies the problems on both sides of the spectrum revolving around access to healthy food and the limited information regarding the food. On one side, it may seem silly to sue McDonalds for making you fat, but on the other, they might have done a lousy job at letting you know of the calorie intake or the unhealthy side effects. David Z. successfully covered both sides of the topic, while clearly supporting the side of fast food outlets being responsible for obesity among Americans.