Tuesday, November 18, 2014
The FBI is Reading over Your Shoulder
Read the article, "The FBI is Reading over Your Shoulder" by Zara Gelsey. First, respond to the article itself - How does Gelsey organize her essay and in what point of view is it written? Does she support her points with evidence and is it effective? Second, discuss in your own opinion, the thesis of Gelsey's essay.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Zara Gresley makes some great points about the FBI and American freedom. This writing is done in first person as she uses the words "I" and "we." At times, the writing seems to change to third person because the FBI is being spoken about. This is organized by using shorter paragraphs to get her point across, and also by Gresley using the library and American policies for explanations. Each paragraph had a different topic that all came together to support the main purpose in the claim. This essay was effective because Gresley was able to argue with examples. Also, she did not automatically disagree with the FBI protection policies. Gresley made sure that the audience understood the importance of protection, and that the people looking over everyone's shoulders are the same people protecting the country. This is important in an argument.
ReplyDeleteI have many thoughts about this article, but many of my thoughts have no conclusions at this point. My main thought that came to mind while reading this article was about the good and bad reasons to read an article. Research can be done for both good and bad, but how can someone understand what the person is reading the paper for if they do not know who that individual is? It is sad, but trust issues have gone to the extreme. It seems as if everything has to be looked at in the worst way possible in order to assure safety. This is why the FBI has to prepare for the worst.
This same thing happens within many families. A child has freedom until they disregard the rules of the family. After they lose the trust and respect of their parents, they can no longer take the car, go out to see friends, or be trusted alone for a weekend without being questioned. It is not as if they have completely lost their freedom, they just must be questioned a lot more before they do much of anything.
It is not easy to read with someone looking over your shoulder, but it is necessary at times. It is hard to assure safety of Americans without taking-what some people may call- extreme measures. It does make a person think without their own thoughts, but with the thoughts of the observer. This is not literal in this sense, however. Like it is said, "what you do not know cannot hurt you." When individuals are reading on the computer, they do not even know that they are being watched half of the time.
There are always alternative options while doing research. Books can help researchers find their information without being watched. Just because one source is being closely monitored does not mean all ways of learning are.
Most importantly, it is never too late to gain back the trust that Americans lost. They do not have to monitor libraries and Internet sources if they are not problems. If we want total freedom and total protection, hard work is going to be necessary. However, it can be done.
Grace, I agree with your assessment of the paper. I also really like your metaphor relating family life to the topic at hand. I thought that was neat. I also agree with your statement that Americans can gain back the trust of the government. Believe me, I really hope we do gain their trust back so we can search whatever we want without having the fear of being arrested. I just don't think its very realistic to think that we will ever be able to search without the FBI seeing exactly what you are seeing. I don't think it will ever become like China where half the websites on the internet are blocked. I think of it like a sporting event, where there are players who play the game, but there are officials there to make sure no rules are broken. A lot players will go the whole game without breaking the rules, but when a player does, a referee is on the spot to call a penalty. That's what I envision in the future for internet searching. There are a set of "rules" and if somebody breaks those "rules" the FBI will swoop in and punish the person. But, that's just my personal opinion. So I don't think we will ever be completely free of "Big Brother," but I think something like that is much more reasonable.
DeleteYou made the statement that Americans are capable of gaining back the trust of the government. Unfortunately, I do not think that this is true. Especially these days, many individuals are being controlled by elements such as drugs, alcohol, mental illness, and feelings of hatred. I do not believe that there will ever come a time that one can assure that every American has truly rejected violence. There are countless acts of hatred and violence occurring every day, fueled by these horrific controllers. The sad part is, the various types and effects of drugs are only increasing, causing Americans everywhere to lose more than just their minds - they are losing themselves. Hatred for certain groups of people is only growing stronger, as America is far from giving up on its discriminatory ways. Mental illnesses are sky-rocketing as more and more mentally disturbed people turn to violence to quell their unsettled thoughts. Given the vast population of America, I believe that it is nearly impossible to assure at any point that each and every citizen has turned against their violent ways. I believe that this is why the FBI feels the need to invade every aspect of the American life - nothing is truly certain anymore.
DeleteGrace, I also do not think that the American people have the opportunity to gain the government's trust back. There are too many ways for people to do stupid things over the Internet that people could not simply be left alone on it. I also agree with Mary about the sad truth about mental illness and discrimination being on the rise. There are so many shootings and crimes that take place each years that I would be scared if protective measures were not being taken over the Internet. I know that I have heard about gunman announcing their crime before it happens on social media. Hopefully, the authority officials are able to catch these people before their plan plays out. So back to my original point, there are just too many doorways for people to use the Internet in the wrong way for the government to just let us go without any observation. I hope that they are also able to use this to catch many of the criminals through the use of the Internet.
DeleteBefore I get started, I just want to say that the “1984” reference was brilliant. “1984” is one of my favorite books of all time. Lots of great lessons can be learned from that book. Orwell somehow managed to write a great story while also having lessons interwoven into the novel. I thought it was interesting though how I was reading this article and I instantly thought of “1984.” Just…such a great book (I know its nonfiction, but Doctor Pam, if you’re reading this, this would be a great book for the class to read). I also thought this article was a lot like “The Giver.” I did not like the Giver when I read it the first time, but I have now read it probably three times now and I really do appreciate the lessons it teaches its readers. Whatever…I’m rambling about something that doesn’t even apply to the topic. Sorry about that.
ReplyDeleteSo…anyway, this article was written primarily in first and second person. Zara Gelsey used “I” to refer to her experiences in the past. She uses “We” to refer to everyone who agrees with her. She uses “you” and “your” when she is talking specifically to the reader. She does use a little bit of third person when she speaks of the FBI and librarians. I also noticed a little bit of third person when she refers to a person as “one” but this is rarely used.
I also like how all the paragraphs are organized. Gelsey presents a new point in each paragraph. This new point is usually presented in the first or second sentence. This allows her to build up evidence/examples to support her point over the rest of the paragraph. I must say the evidence/examples presented are very convincing, to me at least.
My personal thought on everything presented is that there is nothing wrong with FBI doing this. America really screwed up by having people detonate homemade bombs, communicate with terrorists, and shooting up government buildings. So if people are going to do this stuff, the FBI has to take measures to prevent these actions. Since I don’t do things like, “how to make a bomb,” “what’s the best time of day to shoot people?” or follow ISIS on Twitter, I am not exactly concerned the FBI will be coming after me. If I were the people who do this stuff, I would probably be worried about the FBI raiding my house. So…I don’t think the FBI will come after me, because I do not spend my free time doing that stuff. I hope you all don’t do that stuff, or else I would be a bit concerned.
So I have nothing to hide. As far as I am concerned, the FBI can release my search history to the public, because I do not really care. That doesn’t mean I am going to publish my search history in the Daily Press, but if it did happen, I doubt life would really change at all. I wouldn’t be too embarrassed, because again, I have nothing to hide. I hope you all can say that. If you cannot say that, maybe you need to make a change. Because just remember, “Big Brother is watching you.” (George Orwell, 1984)
You claimed that you have nothing to hide and therefore the FBI's inspections should not matter - but that is exactly the point. Most people do not have anything to hide in terms of library records. However, many individuals are being unfairly accused of being involved in such activities, when there is no pure evidence to support it. It is true also that most people do not walk into a library and Google, "how to make a bomb," as that is a bit exaggerated. But perhaps someone were to look up simply, "bombings." This could suggest that the individual simply wanted information regarding the history of bombs, or that they were planning to gain strategies for a terroristic attack. The point is, the FBI has no way of knowing based simply off of an individual's Internet history, and they do not possess the right to accuse people merely under those circumstances. You stated that if one cannot claim to "have nothing to hide" then they must "make a change." Once again, regardless of whether or not the individual is guilty or innocent, the FBI is still making false accusations with very little support. So, whether or not the individual has something to hide is not the point.
DeleteIf everyone did what they were supposed to do, nothing would have to be hidden. This is true. Even though the FBI will still question and accuse a suspect, they will not be in trouble if they do not harm anyone. If a person has something that they feel needs to be hidden, or if they are afraid of the FBI in these cases, they are doing something wrong. They are keeping secrets that are not supposed to be shared because the reason behind these secrets are mischievous actions. Some people do not understand that making bombs and everything else is as bad as it is. They might have a mental disorder and believe that what they are doing is good. These are the type of people that the FBI is looking after, and they will be found guilty. No one in the right frame of mind should be worried.
DeleteThe main justification of allowing the FBI to search anyone and everyone seems to be that those with nothing to hide will be presumed innocent. However, the random searches that hope to procure evidence of guilt may incriminate anyone. A simple, harmless search query can be twisted out of context and used as evidence of guilt. This faulty search basis may allow real criminals to slip away while innocent civilians are falsely accused.
DeleteOne must also consider how effective the method of search is when looking at the crime. Criminals probably do not walk into libraries in order to plan their crimes. If a criminal does not want to be caught, they will probably search for the information they need from their own computer or phone. Forcing libraries to divulge search histories seems like an ineffective way to combat the spread of information in the face of the diverse means of acquiring it.
Beyond these facts is another simple point: just because someone has nothing to hide does not mean they can be searched. An innocent man should not have to allow anyone to search him. If the FBI started searching everyone's houses, there would be a national uproar. Why then is it alright for them to search someone's Internet usage? The same violation of privacy is taking place in both of these searches.
Exactly what I was thinking, what do I have to hide? People could be looking up history of events happen with bombing, it then could lead to people finding how to make an old bomb. The FBI then might accuse them as a terrorist because of that searching. The thing that gets me about the FBI and the government watching me is the fact that we (hopefully) aren't the type of people to be looking up those things, and yet we still are being watched. something about those situations just don't sit easily with me. I might just be very paranoid with the government in general.
DeleteThe Giver! I remember reading that book in 5th grade. I could read all the words, but I think that the concepts are much more mature. I really did not understand it until a year ago. I agree that there was wonderful allusion to 1984. That just gave her writing so much more credibility and was a different way to support it. I like when people enlist outside sources to supplement their writing. Its different, and it works. I disagree about not being concerned about the FBI. Many people have searched these topics online, intentionally, and unintentionally. I would feel bad if the FBI came after someone who searched this stuff unintentionally. I do agree with the fact that your should not follow ISIS on twitter...that is a surefire way to get on the FBI's radar.
DeleteNick, I am also a big fan of the novel 1984 and I thought the allusion to it was very fitting. I agree with you on all of your points. A common complaint is that the FBI should only go through the search history or data from a suspect but would it not be more effective for them to monitor everyone and stop a crime before it happens? I think so. I don't think that this is an alienation of our rights as it is not affecting what we can and cannot do. So for the time being, I am very happy with what the FBI is doing and hope that they can use their power to deter crimes that are in the process of happening and fairly prosecute individuals involved with crimes.
DeleteIn the article "The FBI is Reading over Your Shoulder," Gelsey presents her views on the FBI's capability to inspect the reading lists and Internet records of public library patrons. She begins the article in the first person by introducing a common experience - someone reading over her shoulder. She explains how this often causes one's thoughts to be inhibited, as they are then directed towards the approval of the other individual. She proceeds to explain that the FBI is doing the same when they inspect the records of patrons. Gelsey then goes on to expound upon her thoughts regarding the topic. The overall organization is a bit scattered, as the entire article revolves around one sole topic, but it still seems to flow nicely.
ReplyDeleteGelsey makes a variety of attempts at supporting her ideas and, therefore, achieving the persuasion of others. Firstly, Gelsey explains the misunderstanding that can result from the FBI inspecting the activities of patients. She proclaims that one could be doing research on suicide bombings, and suddenly be accused of being a terrorist. Thus, an individual attempting prevent such a catastrophe would all of a sudden be accused of potentially initiating it. Gelsey also uses the example of Winston Smith to emphasize the damaging effects of the FBI on the human thought process. She uses his account to explain that the constant surveillance is indeed stifling the creative thought processes. These are only two of the vast number of examples used by Gelsey in her article. I believe that Gelsey's examples and evidence is very effective in the persuasion of the audience to view this topic similarly, because it brings about feelings of discomfort and unease.
There were many points in Gelsey's article that were very thought-provoking. For one, the quotation, "I view reading as access to information; the FBI views it as indictment" was a very profound statement, and really put into perspective the severity of the issue. It makes it seem as though our very rights are being robbed from us, as the once simple, innocent act of reading is now considered suspicious. In addition, Gelsey expands on the fact that thought and speech go hand-in-hand. She makes yet another profound statement by claiming, "The mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not sufficient reason for banning it." She relates this to the inhibition of thought that occurs when one is "reading over your shoulder." Gelsey claims that while it is absurd to ban speech due to its potential to cause unlawful acts, the same goes for one's thoughts. She claims that it is unacceptable for the mind to be hindered simply because it possesses the potential to think maliciously. Finally, I enjoyed the relation that Gelsey made to a "classic sitcom plot line." In these portrayals that she is referring to, the truth is covered by various misinterpretations and misunderstandings that alter one's perception of another. This causes them to think a person not as they really are, but rather as the "evidence" suggests they are. The same type of thing can occur with the FBI according to Gelsey. They look at a person's records and concoct the inaccurate intentions of that person, and unfairly so. Gelsey concludes that so long as these actions of the FBI is permitted to be carried out, we cannot truly be free.
Mary your point about now how reading is suspicious is something that I also thought about right away. When reading about all the things the FBI can do to your phone while your on it makes me not want to use it. Now learning about how they are watching what I read makes me nervous too. I can honestly say I don't read what the FBI would consider suspicious. Its just sad the nation turned into what it is today.
DeleteI also was entertained by how she referred to the plot line. I thought that it improved her point and it made the reader put the subject into something that they could relate to or even visualize. For me, when I had read this part in the article, I made a connection about how the government was actually only getting half of what was really happening. I had then started to think about more examples that would also relate the situation to the reader.
DeleteIt is understandable the approach of the FBI when it comes to the Patriot Act. Their approach was to keep the American people safe and to protect them from other unexpected terroristic attacks that were similar to 9/11. The act however got to a certain point were it became a violation of the privacy and freedom of speech that we were given with the first amendment.
DeleteWhen people look at the computers of others to see what has been looking up, it can be seen as victimizing to the person it is effecting.
Zara Gelsey presents her points in the first person using "I". Obviously she cannot talk about the FBI in the first person so she uses the third person. Gelsey organizes her document well and is able to get her points across effectively in many different ways. The use of shorter paragraphs is effective in establishing her points and presenting her ideas. In writing, lengthy paragraphs sometimes render the reader bored. Sentences are often repeated and points are often presented more than once. Short paragraphs are effective because they get right to the point. Readers do not have to decipher between sentences because the evidence is presented before them. The different ideas in each short paragraph give say to well developed and organized ideas that coincide well. Gelsey uses the common experience of a person reading over their shoulder. This is an experience that many people find incredibly annoying and one that makes reading nearly impossible. Gelsey was able to relate to her audience and present evidence that made all of her claims very well supportive. The entire essay had incredible structure and organization.
ReplyDeleteI found the article very informative, yet disturbing. It scares me that we truly do not have any privacy. I have heard numerous times about being careful because colleges and workplaces can see anything you put on social media. In reality, anything that is put on or looked for through the Internet is tracked. The FBI can see absolutely everything we are doing. This can also be seen as a solace because this makes tracking criminal activity so much easier. Being able to see Internet searches and purchases have helped our law enforcers make solving crimes much easier. I think that this monitoring is a good thing for the most part. If you don't do anything wrong, why should you be worried? This monitoring really should not be cause for alarm because it will not affect 99% of people because most people do not do anything wrong. The FBI is just working to ensure safety for the general population. So many things have happened int he recent years of our country that I feel much more comfortable with Internet monitoring than if there was none. How can an individual expect that the government would not take measures regarding the Internet when it gives so many opportunities for anonymity and so many harmful things can be done through it. I would be a little alarmed if the government did anything less than monitoring. Once again, there should be nothing for most of us to be worried about if we don't do anything wrong. I disagree with Gelsey when she says that we are not truly free. We are free to search whatever we want whenever we want, so technically that is not being limited. It would be great for us not to be monitored, but is that truly realistic? I think not. I am going to have to disagree with Gelsey on my view that the FBI is not limiting what we can do on the Internet at all.
Abbey, I agree with you on the fact that just because the FBI can see whatever you search, doesn't mean our freedoms are being violated. We can still do whatever we want on the internet. There are some things you obviously cannot do on the internet. But as long as you do not do these taboo things, you are going to be fine. These people that complain about their freedoms being compromised probably do not know the facts of the situation (They may, but I think if they are complaining, they probably do not know). Someone can go on google right now and look up "how to kill the most people at once." (I am not going to do this, just saying) But Google would give this person an answer. I don't know about all these people who complain, but I would want the FBI to know everything about this person. If necessary, the FBI should then arrest this person. But if there is no surveillance, people like this would never be caught, and a public tragedy could ensue.
DeleteI agree with you, Abigail. Americans should not be mad about this at all. We are being protected from a lot of crimes that may have occurred if it were not for the FBI. Americans need to be thankful for this, and they would be if they understood more behind this monitoring. It is ridiculous to believe that we are being restricted of our freedoms. Just because they can see what we are doing does not mean anything. If you do not want the FBI to see what you use the Internet for, you should not be doing what ever it is you are doing in the first place. The world is full of crazy people. Everyone is different and we do not know every person and how they act. People have their own problems and we all solve our problems with different approaches. This must be watched and the world cannot be trusted unless a big change occurs in mankind.
DeleteThe ability to track Internet usage should be reserved solely for criminal investigations. When a crime is committed, it makes sense to go through a suspect's history in order to find evidence, especially if they are involved in a crime with multiple people. Suspects of gangs, terrorist organizations, and even hostage situations may have evidence of their guilt hidden in their Internet usage. Their internet usage may also lead to the capture of other members of the operation. By looking at their search history or messages, the FBI could prevent a disaster. Without the ability to access this information, innocent people can be hurt or killed.
DeleteHowever when innocent people become the object of a search, the FBI has gone too far. Without a cause for a search, people should be left alone; people are innocent until proven guilty. They are searched when there is cause to believe they are guilty, not in order to find their guilt. An objective search for incriminating evidence is logical if the person is guilty. If the FBI simply looks at Internet usage to find a reason for guilt, their search is not objective. By subjecting innocent people to a search without warrant, their rights are being violated.
Abbey, with the understanding that the patriot act was designed to protect us from potential threat and it has done just that, but at the same time what would happen if the FBI were to decide to use their technology to go further past criminal investigations? They have a great deal of resources that they can used to violate our privacy fully without our knowledge at all. It's just scary to think about the potential.
DeleteI agree with you, Abbey. These measures keep society safer. Many criminals can be caught and proven guilty through the Internet searches. I do not believe it should be an issue for anyone unless they have something to hide. Yea, no one likes feeling watched or feel like their shoulder is being looked over, but isn't if much better to feel you are being watched than feeling like someone has a bomb in the car behind you?
DeleteThe organization of Gelsey's essay creates a feeling of closeness, almost as if Gelsey is talking directly to the reader. She writes in a variety of persons in order to elicit different feelings, and supports her claims with historical evidence as well as her own opinions. Her thoughts make readers reevaluate what they do, and present a compelling case against the new USA Patriot Act. All in all, Gelsey's essay creates a very persuasive argument.
ReplyDeleteGelsey writes in first, second, and third person, and uses each person to create a different emotional atmosphere for her piece. Her use of first person creates a feeling of trust. She is speaking of her own feelings and thoughts in order to build this bond. By beginning her piece in this way, she appears more relatable to her audience than if she had blatantly discredited the new Patriot Act. Gelsey continues her essay with the third person, presenting facts and arguments against the act. This part of her text is informative, but still inspires emotion. Gelsey also uses second person. This person serves a way to warn her readers, and make her points more personal. By making the reader an active part of the consequences, they will be moved to take action and defend themselves.
Gelsey's evidence comes from her own thoughts and historical information. She makes a connection between the new act and a similar one that was instituted during the Cold War. The library systems fought this act, and are trying to do the same with the new one. Gelsey also points out that this new act will backfire. People who are searching for evil in people are bound to find it, if only because they misinterpret their actions. Many innocent people will be affected if the act is allowed to continue. Gelsey also reviews how the act is an impingement on privacy, and how this loss affects how people think. When people know the are watched, they act differently than if they are alone. This cumulation of evidence provides strong support for her argument.
The USA Patriot Act is a terrible invasion of privacy. When people are watched, they are not themselves; they act in a way that they believe will please the people around them. I know that when I am around others, I do not feel comfortable expressing myself. I act the most naturally when I am alone in my room or with a few close friends. When I am with other people, I constantly feel the need to justify or explain my actions. If the FBI saw my library history, I would feel the need to explain a few titles on that list.
Knowing that the FBI can access library information is an uncomfortable topic. Many people pretend that it is not real, or simply do not think about it. However, Gelsey presents a compelling case against these actions. Through her use of various persons, accurate evidence, and emotional links, she compels readers to take a stand and defend their freedom.
Reading this article could have not been any better timing. Just last weekend, my group of friends and I were talking about just how much control the government has over us. Obviously, we didn't have many facts into this discussion, most points were from conspiracy theories. When we were given this article I actually told my friends about it and read it over multiple times.
ReplyDeleteThis article is written from her point of view, but I can say that I agree with it and so does my friend group. So was Gelsey trying to put some of the nations thoughts into it also? I would have to say yes. It obviously made you thing just how much are they watching us? Thoughts and theories ran thought my mind again just as they did the other night. It gives you the rush of thinking so deeply into a concept.
Her statements might not be backed up by that many facts, but do they really need to be? I find that her using theories on the topic itself and not having facts to back them up make me think more. I think this is very effective because she is informing us just how much the FBI is watching over our shoulders. It's a creep thought because its the government watching you. Watching you so closely that you are being stalked by your own government. I guess that taking it into huge standards, but isn't that something to make you think too?
Her thesis could not be more on point to me. I mean it is creepy that the FBI can be watching me read my favorite novel at my little library. I have heard many other accounts of the government watching us in general. Some of them consist of seeing what app we are on our phones, or actually watching us from the camera when we have no idea it is working. These things creep me out to a point where I don't want to pick up my phone. I would rather sit down and read a book. Now, knowing that they can see me at my local library makes me uneasy also. No matter where ever we go I think we are being watched.
For the most part, I agree with you, Maddie, but we must also take into account what she has said in the article about not having the whole part of what is happening. We have this information, but do we know that perhaps she has left out some crucial information about the government that she does not want us to see because it would actually favor the government? The fact that we do not really know what the government is doing is a crucial fact in this debate.
DeleteI agree that the first person is good to use. I think that it makes her writing more relatable. It scares me to think that the FBI is watching our every move, all the time. The thesis really catches my eye too. Unlike RaeAnn, I think that she does give us all the information about the government. In my opinion, Gelsey is trying to make us all alert of this situation.
DeleteMaddie, I agree with you that this article is first person. I believe she is uses first person to have a better connection with her reader. She wants us to understand the power of the government. I have to agree with you the government does have access to all sources. It is very scary to think that just sitting on your phone they could be watching what you are doing or even access the camera. Now how often this happens, I am sure, but I feel as if you will only be checked if you are an unusual suspect or under some sort of watch.
DeleteThis first person article that explains the unneeded security actions of the government has opened my eyes to the truth about the matter. Like most people, no one really thinks about how the government is keeping an eye on us. No one really likes to think that they are being watched, but in the back of their minds, they know that it is happening. The government is taking away the people's right to do things. Eventually, the people might not have any rights left at all. The government could even be watching all of us post this blog, and we would have no way of knowing it. Of course we want the government to be taking the most precautions that they can in order to prevent any further terrorist attacks, but going to this extent might be a little bit inappropriate.
ReplyDeleteLike this article states, how could the government really know whats going on with the research that one might be doing? For instance, when someone enters a room with a group of people who are all talking about the same thing and one hears them say something, the person who is just getting into the conversation cannot really know the whole part of what is really going on. The person who is cutting in on the conversation would start to make assumptions even if those assumptions do not really make sense. Until the person has asked what has really been going on, the person will never now the true fact of what the conversation is about. The government is doing this in the same way by looking at all of the things that someone might be looking up on the internet, and to ask help from the librarian is almost wrong, especially if that librarian is younger. How would you feel if, at the age of 15/16, someone had asked you to be a part of a FBI investigation that required you to watch what people were doing on the internet. I know that I would personally feel wrong for invading their privacy.
I definitely think that what the government is doing by watching what people are doing on the internet is a bit excessive. It invades the privacy of the user of the internet. The situation would be different if the government were using this ability towards only those who they have a very strong belief of who could be a terrorist.
RaeAnn, I agree that the government may be taking their research a little to far. I like the points you made about the government not actually knowing why someone is researching a certain topic. Yes, I believe they have good intentions, but I believe their intentions may be a little to extreme
DeleteI disagree, RaeAnn. I do not think these measures are frivolous, because honestly, many humans are evil by nature. The government is not implementing these measures just to laugh at what citizens are doing. They are using necessary means to keep their people safe. Just because they find one thing does not mean they will just jump to it and try and charge a person. They will keep a closer eye until they catch the person doing thr unlawful acts.
DeleteZara Gelsey starts off the essay using the first person pronoun "I." This signifies that she is going to give her opinion on the USA Patriot Act, otherwise known as the tools that obstruct terrorism. Basically, its just a fancy way of saying that the FBI is watching your every move. She says that the constant feeling of someone watching her affects how she moves, responds, and acts. Gelsey says that,"It makes me suddenly self-consious wondering if the observers making faulty suppositions about me bases on the material I'm reading." Like many Americans, Gelsey is on edge, and has a right to be. Her essay is very relatable, and structured as such. She begins the essay by giving her personal feelings on the law, and how it puts her on edge. Next, she talks about how it is possible for the FBI to abuse this power, and it is possible because it happened during the cold war. The cold war version was called the LAP, and it monitored what people were reading or doing while in the library. Now, the American Library Association is trying to fight the Patriot Act because they believe it will be like the LAP. By comparing the past and present, Gelsey gains the support of her readers. Not only does she provide evidence from the past, but this appeals to logos as well. What person would want the FBI watching their every move? And if they did it once, who is to say that they will not do it again? I think that what Gelsey says is very effective. She is right, a person may be reading a book on bombings for a research paper. But, what if the FBI thinks they are a terrorist and starts watching their every move and worries that they are a potential threat? These things to happen in real life, and I think people forget about them. By using personal opinions and experiences it makes her essay more effective. Like most Americans, she does not want their to be terror attacks on the US, and we do want the government to police certain threats. But, do not go overboard on every single little thing we do!
ReplyDeleteI think that the final sentence in the first paragraph is the thesis. It says, "The bored businessperson next to me on the train isn't a big deal, but the thought of the FBI peering over my shouldering the public library definitely puts me on edge." Here, Gelsey establishes the tone of her essay as well as what she is going to talk about now. After this thesis, we know that she does not like the Patriot act, and she is going to tell us more about it throughout the rest of the essay. The thesis is broad; it does not give us exact reasons on why she does not like the act, but we know that she will discuss them in more detail throughout the essay. I like the broad thesis, as it gives her a lot to go off of. It tells us what she is going to talk about, but lets us figure out the exact reasons for herself. She goes on to give us evidence from the past, as well as to connect that experience with an allusion from Orwell's book. I think that the thesis she uses is great, and definitely suits her purpose.
This essay is very opinion based and lacks real evidence to support the claim that the writer, Zara Gelsey, makes. Other than citing the specific act that is in effect, she just states how it worries her and how it is a violation to her and the rest of America's privacy. To make her claim more supported she should have gotten statistics of how many people have been effected by the USA Patriot Act and other information along those line. Even though I do not believe she has enough information to back up her claim, I do believe she is right about the Patriot Act being a deliberate attack on our right of free speech.
ReplyDeleteIt is understandable to be paranoid. Ever since the September 11th attacks Americans have shown an increase amount of paranoia, but why shouldn't we? It was an attack on our country's soil, something that had not happened in nearly sixty years, and it was carried out by a man who was trained by the CIA. It was heartbreaking and confusing at the same time, so I understand the FBI feeling that it is necessary to monitor the activity of people on computers so an incident like this never happens again. Seriously, it is easier than one would think to purchase bomb making materials off the internet/black market and learn how to make a bomb with Google (just an FYI I have watched television shows about this, not actually purchased anything). I believe, however, that the FBI is taking their monitoring to an extreme in a respect that they are beginning to violate the First Amendment, freedom of speech. To think that nothing is private scares me to death. I do not like the idea of someone basically living within my computer, looking through my phone, and reading the articles I read. It makes me uncomfortable when my parents do it, let alone when the FBI does it.
I understand how tricky this topic can be, though. When you are not within national security and dealing with all the political drama that comes with the situation it is very easy to speak about it. It is always different from an outside prospective. When asking my mom, who works at the Patee-Paterno library at Penn State, about the patriot act she said that the libraries are not actually allowed to give out information about what their patrons were researching because not only is it discrimination if they only profile Middle Eastern people who were looking up bomb materials, but it really does violate policies that protect the first amendment. The FBI has good intentions when creating this program, but somehow it became a discriminating device used to violate the first amendment. The overall goal is to keep people safe, but the amount of paranoia that surrounds the Patriot act is absurd and disturbing. It is not morally right for someone to have their privacy violated due to their ethnicity. Even if it is just computer files now, imagine what else the FBI could get a hold of if they really wanted to. It is extreme profiling not just on those who are suspected of terroristic actions, but those who just have said the wrong thing, or clicked on the wrong link. People can easily make a mistake on the Internet and it can be taken out of context and the FBI can end up at their door. The moral of this is that good intentions can lead to bad outcomes, even if it is for safety.
Gelsey writes her essay in first person with her use of "I" and "we." She does this to show her personal views. She also uses second person with the use of "you" to show readers the point that this pertains to them. She also uses some third person to refer to the FBI.
ReplyDeleteFreedom is what every American citizen is promised under the Constitution, but what happens when these freedoms are taken advantage of? In order for freedom to be available, there must be a responsibility. Time has shown that many people are not capable of living with their freedom without murdering each other or acting maliciously. The freedoms can be outweighed by safety. Safety of citizens and their lives is the utmost goal of the FBI reading over its citizens shoulders.
Time and time again, the human race has proven it cannot function properly without a governing authority. When left to their own devices without guidance, havoc overruns order. In many cases justice could have been brought if authorities would have correctly looked over computer records. An example of why computers need investigated thoroughly in crime investigations can be found in the infamous case of Casey Anthony killing her daughter Caylee. Althougg I am technically incorrect in calling Anthony a murderer due to her acquittal from a lack of evidence, more evidence surfaced after she was proclaimed "not guilty." The evidence came back so strong that even her team defending her stated they felt she was guilty and regretted defending her. When analyzing her records, one key piece of evidence was over-looked. This was the search for a "fool-proof" suffocation. Now, anyone reading my argument may be thinking it is only okay because she was under investigation, BUT imagine if Anthony would have been correctly monitored before. Perhaps Caylee would have her life today, or perhaps Anthony would be in jail.
Sadly, although the Internet can be beneficial, the Internet can also be the deadliest weapon. The plethora of information available from a click is astounding. Sadly, the information available is not always a good thing. There is information found all over for cooking meth, making bombs, and ways to effectively kill people. This is why the Internet needs monitored. Not only for the information it contains, but the way groups like ISIS can recruit members over the Internet. Although it may seem to be a "violation" of freedom, what is more important, freedom or your life? I have used my internet responsibility, therefore it does not affect me that the FBI a is watching. I text and post on social media as if my grandma was watching over my shoulder. Everyone always says "drink responsibility," because drinking is deadly, but it is also important to post responsibly because even if it is not physically killing someone, posts can kill one's reputation. This is important for the FBI to watch for to be able to charge people who cause people to commit suicide. There are so many reasons the FBI is justified to watch the citizens.
The article by Zara Gelsey is written in the first person. Gelsey may be writing in the first person to relate to her readers. She begins her article by introducing us to a government research that has been started in 2001. This introduction gives us an understanding of what we are going to be focused on. What first got me engaged to the reading is the personal connection she makes about the feeling of someone reading over her shoulder. It is connections such as these which she makes throughout the article that makes a personal connection to her readers. Her style of writing is very effective because as she points out facts, she points out her view and evidence. I believe she made very good and valid arguments throughout her essay.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was reading this article, almost instantly felt a connection to what she was writing. Gelsey writes in her second paragraph that she hates the feeling of someone reading over her shoulder. As I was reading that I was like, so do I. I personally dislike the fact of someone reading or looking over my should when I am working on something. It does not matter what it is I just cannot stand the feeling of knowing someone is watching me. She then relates this to the facts of the library and how the government is always what we are researching and reading at libraries. Though the government is watching and observing people for our own countries benefit, I feel as if this research may be a bit exaggerated. The government tries to protect us by watching and regulating what we research to help point out possible terrorist. However, as Gelsey states, how can the government be so sure why someone is researching about terrorist or some dangerous weapons. This unknown is similar to walking in on a conversation and her a phrase. The person who walked in has no idea what the people were talking about, but from that phrase, they create ideas of want they were talking about. This is what the FBI may be experiencing from their studies, the unknown/ the phrase.
I caught myself reading even further into this topic by thinking, what if we are not just being watched at a local library, but all over. It is quite aware that security cameras are found at almost every store in America, but could it be possible the government has cameras set up around streets, cities, and even phones? With all of the events and terroristic attacks which have occurred in the last ten years, I cannot help but think after reading this article that we are constantly being watched and observed. This thought can be quite frightening, but also quite possible.
I believe what the government is doing could be very beneficial in preventing future terroristic attacks. However, I also believe that this may not need to be as extended in research as it needs to be. I personally would not enjoy someone watching my every move, but if by watching people's moves helps prevent terrorist attacks I am not quite sure if I agree or disagree with the government's research.