Reading Response 4

In Is Privacy Overrated, by Katherine Mangu-Ward, the author is talking about the levels of privacy that we currently have in our daily lives. The central claim is that we already live lives of very little privacy and that we are comfortable with that. Mangu-Ward points out many different things that we do everyday that allow us to be tracked or videotaped, yet we still do them.
The research that Mangu-Ward provided in her essay was all very beneficial to her argument. Her first example of primary research comes in the first paragraph of her essay. She refers to a New York Civil Liberties Union report when she states that there are more than 4,200 security cameras below 14th Street. This is setting up some of the other points that she’s going to make. She is using this piece of research to prove her point that we already live out our lives in front of cameras.
From the research that she used, she brings out excellent evidence to support her argument. The example from the first paragraph is an excellent example, but there are others. In the top paragraph on page 12, she shows how easy it to track us during the day using common electronic devices such as our metro pass, credit card, EZ Pass lane, or the GPS on our cell phones. Another example of evidence she uses is the interview with an NYPD policeman, “A special NYPD unit was assigned to film the police officers as they demonstrated. ‘That’s Big Brother watching you’” (Mangu-Ward 13). This adds to her argument by tying in an interview with someone who has personal experience in her topic.
This article did not really influence me because I already agreed with what it was saying. I agree that our privacy is overrated and people can follow us around all day if they so choose, but I’m not worried about that because I’m not doing anything wrong. With increased surveillance on us comes increased surveillance on those who are watching us to make sure they don’t take advantage of their power. My values played a strong role in how I read this. Since I agreed with what the author was saying, I was more open and took in what they were saying more easily.
In Reclaiming “Abandoned” DNA: The Fourth Amendment and Genetic Privacy, Elizabeth E. Joh discusses how the law has not caught up with technology in the field of DNA collection. The central claim in this essay is that the police and the government now have the technology to collect anyone’s DNA without them knowing about it and the law currently doesn’t stop them. Joh is pointing out all the dangers of this to the readers.
Similar to the Mangu-Ward essay, Joh focuses primarily on using primary research, citing a lot of research studies, scientific analysis, and examples from the real world that help her case, such as the case of Adolph Laudenburg (Joh 31) where Los Angeles police took his DNA from a cup. The research that she provided was excellent in helping her essay and showed that she knew that she was talking about. The evidence that she tied in was very helpful as well. The examples of criminal cases solved by abandoned DNA were great evidence.
There were some aspects of this paper that influenced me, but the message of the essay as a whole didn’t influence me. I believe that the police should use whatever techniques necessary to catch criminals. I don’t care if they have my DNA because I’m not going to be perpetrating any crimes. The only way I was influenced was that now I agree that there should be at least some regulation on this practice. My values and beliefs disagree with a lot of what Joh was saying, so I found myself constantly picking apart what she was saying and disagreeing with it.
In The Cast for National DNA Identification Cards, Ben Quarmby is pointing out the reasons that a national identification card is needed now more than ever with the threat of terrorism looming over our nation. He talks about how we need to regulate who is our country and that a DNA ID card would make it much easier to do that. It would also be much easier to figure out who committed crimes.
Like the first two essays, Quarmby focuses on primary research in his essay. The research and evidence he provides are all very helpful to his argument. The only real research or evidence that he provides is the quote from Alan Dershowitz, “near foolproof system of identification using fingerprints, or for even greater accuracy, DNA information” (Quarmby 38). Quarmby does a good job pointing out that Dershowitz is known for his liberal stance, which makes it more surprising that he supports a national DNA card system.
I wasn’t influenced by this essay very much because I already agreed with what the author was saying. Some of the points he made gave me more reasons to agree with him. I’d say that my prior beliefs really effected how I read this essay because I was more open to accepting what the author was saying.
In Putting a Price on Nature, Drenner is discussing the dangers of drilling in the Alaskan Natural Wildlife Refuge. He takes a very liberal stance on all the issues, primarily focusing on saving the wildlife and making it sound like drilling for oil will be the end of the world. He does use good points to back up this argument though.
Similar to the other essays, Drenner uses primary research in his essay. He does a great job of incorporating his research and evidence to support his essay. He even includes some of the points that his opposition makes, but is quick to shoot those down with his own counterpoints. That is the best part of this essay. He includes the opposition arguments, so his paper isn’t completely bias, and then brings out his counterargument. In the end, he’s leaving a lot of the decision up to the reader by presenting both sides.
I was influenced a little by this essay because I do care about the earth, but I also care about our economy and oil. I agree that wildlife should be preserved as best as possible, but there are methods that we could use to get that oil that would effect a very small portion of the wildlife. My values, once again, greatly effected how I read this. As soon as I saw that he was against drilling in ANWR, my brain turned off and I stopped listening to what he was saying. I had to make myself keep reading and stay as open as possible so I could get what he was saying.