The Internet: A Window into Your Life

   Americans today spend about a whole day per week staring inter a screen. Depending on the circumstances (blogging for companies, web-based jobs etc.), you may actually spend the equivalent of more than a full day just, pretty much, killing your eyes. Which is always great, don't get me wrong. But with Americans relying more and more on computers, TV, internet and the like, it means you'll have a higher chance of being compelled to sign up for all these other sites.

   The importance of this statement is simple. Some sites that people use every day, i.e. Facebook and Google (depending on your search engine), have built their whole company around the data customers give away, free of charge. Such data brokers look at the information people put up online, like what movies you've watched and the ratings you give them, and offer you discounts. They harvest this personal data and sell it, making it a multibillion dollar industry. These brokers know your usernames, ethnicity, religion, political views, income and even family medical history. Data brokers have been doing this for years.
   As mentioned, it's a multibillion dollar industry. There's a possibility that these brokers only care about your data for money because of another common thought: they won't find me, or there are too many people in the world to find out who sold your data. Perhaps the person behind the whole thing is just plain poor, and is trying to get money for their family. Perhaps  they're not qualified for anything else.
   But what if these brokers are average enough? They either don't care or shrug it off, like some other little problem. There are thousands of possibilities. If they get found out, they might get fined and make a big deal about apologizing. After all, we've already make, what, a gazillion dollars already, so one a one million dollar fine doesn't matter...

   And it's not like people really care to much. When it came to a privacy poll, people said they'd rather keep their personal data, instead of swapping it for convenience. 

   But really, people are just saying they care. About half of smartphone owners allow the garnering of location-based messages, if it means getting personalized offers. That's stark contrast, compared to that privacy poll. Already, people protecting their own privacy is a clear no-go.
   So what about the government? Should they protect their own people, or could they care less? Some people, like Professor of Privacy and Information Law Christopher Millard (University of London), say the internet is "unregulable", since the technology today is moving along too rapidly. If the government passes some new bill, people will likely find a loophole around it, bypassing, say, four vital steps in protecting your Gmail or Yahoo account for convenience or procrastination, saying "I'll do it tomorrow." And tomorrow you'll say tomorrow. And then the day after, you'd just say someday. Someday will become never, and you'll lose your bank passwords or SIN numbers or this and that. People have the same, lazy mindset: it didn't happen to me, or I'll remember. Yeah, right.
   Maybe this time, the government has passed a bill, including an online step you can't skip. Because of human procrastination, the government has had its work tossed down the drain, by not actually signing up and using numerous tactics to avoid the page with the security question. Another possibility would be that they've increased the key words for terrorism, murder and the like greatly (which, at a smaller scale, has already taken place). It's am awful idea; the results can be out of context. A harmless little ten-year-old can be curious and wonder what happened on 9/11 after watching parts of a documentary. This not only scares the little kid out of his pants for the next few years, but also wastes time. The government is supposed to look for some thirty-year-old grizzly old man that help al-Qaeda, not some kid that enjoys making Lego Batman fight the Joker.
   The big root of the problem can be blamed on the people for not caring enough about their own privacy. Then these people will tattle on the government for not putting the required effort into protecting the people, when really, the people did it to the people. You don't put everything to private, and brokers come and snatch up the data.
   Should everybody actually be aware of their non-existent privacy (or go some length to get it back), cyber theft would be a much harder feat to pull off. Or, if the companies that actually snatch everything up like it's Christmas everyday actually backed off a little and warned you about the dangerous consequences of having everything public, humanity will finally realize how dangerous the world is. It's like watching/reading a sad movie/book that reveals how terrible the world really is. Rather than reading about someone die, you get to see them actually die in HD. That is eye-opening.
   I believe the general public is being either super ignorant or compliant (in terms of giving up). The government is trying, but the people are swatting away their efforts like those annoying little gnats that buzz everywhere and you can't get rid of them and eventually they nearly run into your eye. The people are oblivious to the fact that their privacy is in danger. Perchance, if we catch the public's attention, however pea-sized it is, they'll be slapped into focus. It'll be better than living with the next generation of equally ignorant, if not more, kids.
   

The internet is just an easier way to peek into your life.

(Note: the indents seem a little off, though everything has been spaced evenly...It bothers me.)

Internet Privacy: Who's Responsible?

Today, internet users are told that their information is private and that only certain people they allow can see it. That is not true; the fact that the government and businesses can buy the information from social media sites violates it. The government has to look through many people’s private information in order to track down illegal activity, although most of the people they search are innocent. Even worst is that those people don’t even know what happened.  The government can do this because of the Patriot Act. They are able to obtain this information by paying social media websites, because this is the only way websites can make money. Businesses can use the information to send ads and coupons based on certain things people like. Also, employers can look at the background information of certain people. One website that sells all this information is Facebook. All these loopholes are stated in the constantly changing terms and conditions, which almost no one reads.

People are expected to understand the risks of putting information online where some of it is accessible by the public. However, they don’t know that all their information could have been sold to companies or the government. By the groceries you buy, the photos you like, and almost anything else, people can tell your personality and any personal information that you refuse to share. Websites should behave better, as if people knew what the websites did, they would lose users, leading to the loss of information to sell and money. The user should know not to post certain private information, so if they do the obtainment of information is partly their fault. However, when people can search the internet the way they do, there is nothing you can post that won’t reveal information that most people wouldn’t want revealed.

The government should not completely stop searching the internet for illegal acts, but they should limit the way they search. Another thing they should do is to stop companies from looking through personal information to know what to sell because that will not benefit the community in anyway. If companies continue to use information like this, people will eventually find out and both the website and company will lose business. The government has a valid reason to search through information, but companies only want to earn money for themselves. Maybe they can catch some illegal activities based on what people buy at stores but that is what the government is for. It is not totally the user’s job to manage their privacy, the government and companies also need to act better.

http://www.prepaidphonepro.com/privacy-policy/

 

The killers are not just guns

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states 
http://americangunfacts.com/
  As we know, the United States has the most percentage of guns owners in this world. Gun violence in the United States has began to a problem to the government.And it's a common subject in the American society. Should we keep the guns in our hands? Nobody knows the answer. So what can we get or can't get anything at all, we must find out by ourselves.
  Can you believe that there are 2 people attacked by guns every single minute in the U.S.? Not all of these people die but some of them. Over 30 people died by shooting in this country. That's a unbelievable number. Many people ask how could that happen. In fact, that's not unbelievable if you know more than 89% of families own more than 1 gun. Even the children and old men, they can own a gun. Guns became a kind of toys for the children.
  However, the truth is, the "toys" hurt the children, or someone hurt by these "toys". Some video games make children think that lives are nothing at all. In Louisiana, an eight-year-old boy intentionally shot and killed his grandmother minutes after playing the violent video game Grand Theft Auto IV. We can't let the situation get worse.
 
     Although the congress is trying to use different ways to solve the problem, it doesn't work. For my opinion, we all know it's not guns' fault but people. Guns never hurt somebody, people hurts. For all the countries which don't allow their citizens to have guns, there are still shootings. We must find the problem deeply, then we can find the solutions.

Week 2 Prompt

Hey guys!

For this week, I want you to write more deeply about internet users. Does the government have a responsiblity to protect the privacy of individuals? Is the onus all upon the users to protect their own privacy? Should companies just behave better? What may some of the effects be?

Do you think there is a problem with what companies know about you and can do? Or not? And why?

Don't forget your post should be over a paragraph...

Ms. Krissy

The Cost of Gun Violence

http://heedinggodscall.org/content/pfctoolkit-10
http://www.businessinsider.com/americas-gun-problem-explained-2013-4?op=1

     Guns in America is an extremely common subject now, that it is almost too common. Sure, they can give civilians protection, but they contribute to many horrible incidents. The average number of guns per holder has increased from 4.1 to 6.9 from 1994 to 2004. There are nearly 283 million civilian guns, with 2 million sold each year. With the increase of gun sales, there has also been a increase in homicides. The link above has more information on the matter. Japan, Germany, Italy, and France all have less than 150 homicides annually. America, however, reached up to 10,000 homicides every year. The US has surpassed all other countries in the homicide number, which due to our leniency on gun sales. 30,000 people are killed every year and 30 people are shot everyday! In fact, the leading death cause of people aged 15-24 is homicide.

     There are many different incidents involving guns, but school shootings are one incident that has increased dramatically. Since the 31st shooting in Oregon, there has been 62 documented school shootings, and 41 deaths. One-third of the homicide deaths are citizens under 20. Out of all the school children in the United States, more than one-fifth have experienced a shooting. A few years ago, deaths have been mostly because of automobile accidents, but now the leading cause is homicide. Now, families are able to seek warrant on people and have them searched for guns. Most of the time, it is a mentally unstable person firing the gun on civilians. When these people purchase guns, they can get away with it because forty percent of people do not go through background checks.

     Not only does gun violence cause many injuries and fatalities, they also cost a lot of money. A lifetime medical cost for all gun violence victims is about 2.3 billion! Also, the cost for everything, including medical, criminal justice proceddings, and new security precautions, is 100 billion annually. Overall, letting guns into civilian hands is expensive and dangerous. In my opinion, guns should not be completly prohibited to citizens, but like in other countries, the laws are very strict and only very qualified people can get their hands on one. The government should make many background checks and analyze people very carefully before allowing them to get their hands on any firearms. Some people should be able to have guns, but not all people.

 

Are We Holding Onto the Destruction of the U.S.??

      Okay, so we've all seen at least one horror movie that has left us pleasantly freaked out of our skins for a week or so, but what if that wasn't a mere illusion? Thousands of people die each year from gun shots, and even more are affected by their loss. And what exactly is the government doing? Definitely panicking and stuffing mounds of chips into their mouths-

 

OM NOM NOM.

      Oh, wait, wrong people. That's right. They're not doing much. Key words being not much. People are dying by the hour and politicians are still fighting amongst themselves over whether guns should be banned. However, this brings up a very common question among politicians, government officials, and even Obama himself: what exactly should we do about gun violence and its devastating effects?

      First off, when young children or even teenagers are exposed to gun violence, they may end up scarred for life, both physically and psychologically. Children tend to become mentally unstable and become easily terrified or quick to become aggressive. In some cases, sleeping disorders and eating disorders could develop and cause even more damage to the child's psychological matter of mind. In older children, they are most likely to be paranoid and deeply traumatized. Sleeping disorders and eating disorders are also common. In a recent study, it has been shown that sixty percent of the teens said that they feared death and another nineteen percent wished that they had been shot already. They may also solve their problems by using violence. There is a clearer desciption of all the awful effects they have on kids if you're curious enough to click on this link here...

     The most disturbing fact about  all these murderers is the fact that they are allowed to purchase guns legally. Hear that? LEGALLY!!! If they pass the background check, they're free to go on a shooting rampage. And the government isn't even interested in buying guns that could cause the destruction of the entire U.S. It's not until after a mass shooting, or school shooting that the government actually goes, "OHMYGOD!!!" and some kind of action is actually taken. And when the incident blows over in the news, it's back to Obamacare.


 

Thou hath seen the wrath of the Internet. And gun violence. And Obamacare.

      So if guns really do pose such a huge threat to our society now, what should be done about this?
 This question is at a temporary hitch in the road, because politicians cannot seem to decide whether to keep guns or to ban them. Well, the answer is simple. Looking back at all the school shootings, wars, and flat-out massacres in the history of the world, it is only logical that we ban guns. Every single one of them.
      Think about it. The Virginia Tech, the Bath School disasters, and the Red Lake massacre. Sure, they occurred years ago when laws against guns were not as strict, but what did those killers use to brutally murder innocent children and adults? That's right. Guns. If guns were banned, then at least these assaults would decrease dramatically. It should be a rule that only police, legal hunters, and people in the army should handle guns. Police can be a lot more threatening if the criminal had no firearms to protect himself, hunters could be supervised when they borrow rifles to bring down the animals, and soldiers practically have to have a gun to protect them on the battlefield. (#Iraq)
      If guns were banned, it would give the government a lot less grief after people got used to the idea. Officers could quit worrying at every corner of a street that they're going to be shot, and there would be less death in the world. Airport security checks wouldn't be as bad. And most importantly, us kids could go to school without wearing Hazmat suits and carrying a stainless steel shield wherever we go. Less innocent young lives would perish, by both bullets and extremely boring therapy sessions- oops. (Pretend I never said anything plz)


 

I'm sorry! I'm sorry therapy guy! *sniffles* I have serious problems... THERAPIST!!!

       All in all, the world would be a safer place without guns altogether. Children could be spared the terror of gun violence and long therapy sessions recounting the horrid events. Teens could be saved from the loss of loved ones, disorders, and unnecessary fights. And most importantly, police can capture criminals without the worry of being shot every two seconds. And with something to think about, you can be assured that the government is doing its part on banning guns.........oh wait.

Gun Violence: The Rolling Snowball

   Americans have grown up with firearms; whether it's cowboys from the Wild West or Hollywood magic, we've all seen some sort of gun. This very fact is what makes America more dangerous than other countries. Procuring a gun has one step. Period. And since American culture will be torn without firearms, people don't want to give them up. Compare America to any other place in the world, and you'll find we live in a very dangerous place.

   For one, the first step in acquiring a gun isn't very secure. All it includes is going through a background check. Nobody knows if you'll go on a crazy massacre the next day just because of having a clean criminal record. Adam Peter Lanza, the person behind the Newton shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary, had never committed any misconducts that would restrict him from legally buying a firearm. Many guns used in murders and the like were purchased legally.

   Also, since Americans can be sentimental to their guns (already, gun-related baby names are rising in popularity; see graph below), they don't want to see them go. After all, Americans supposedly have the right to bear arms. American citizens have the right to own firearms, as long as they aren't mentally impaired or have convicted a felony, etc.; many people don't want to give up their guns. They've followed the rules. Why should they give their precious back? This is stopping the government from moving forward; it may even lead to a national uprising. The fact is, the more guns there are in the States, the more criminals there will be. 
   Meanwhile, in Japan, the gun threat is practically zero. Compare that to America, who has more guns (and gun deaths) than any other place in the world.  Japan has 0.6 guns per 100 people and 0.6 gun deaths per 100,000, making it the most secure country, in terms of firearm-related deaths. Why shouldn't we? Japan has made it impossibly hard to obtain a firearm, whereas America may as well just plop it right into your lap. It's that easy. Giving their babies away will be much harder. As soon as the States get rid of the right to bear arms, or at least make them harder to procure, the world will suddenly be a much safer place. A huge blanket of a burden will be lifted, and all those crazy mass murders in the news will be erased from the future. The effect may even be immediate. My personal opinion is to urge the government to make it unbelievably hard for people that own guns to take care of them, just like maintaining a care. It may urge people to finally give them up; if you don't have the responsibility to take care of your firearm, you shouldn't have one.
   Enough people have been hurt by gun violence. The government doesn't give gun violence enough attention; they only take action after the school shooting or the terrorist attack or this and that massacre has occurred. By then it's too late, and after a few days or so, we're tired of it and move back to debating about Obamacare.
   In the end, America will fare much better without the constant threat of guns. Since the beginning of American history, people have painted on a very violent canvas. As time rolled on, people have added bullets and blood and warfare. Now, that canvas is shredded, tainted and completely messed up. The US government should just throw that part of history away and start fresh by starting a whole new painting, a painting of more of the happier times. Gun violence should reach an all-time low, and with that, an all-time high in tranquility.

                                       People really love their guns, as shown above...


                                       As shown in 2008, firearms take up more than half of the homicide pie  chart; it almost reached seventy percent.