I would be willing to let my parents to read my text messages, however I would not like it because it is private and mine. It seems like they wouldn't trust me if they took away my privacy.
I wouldn't necessarly mind having my parents or teachers read my text messages, but to me it seems like too much of an invasion of privacy because we have rights to text people things that we may not want others to see.
I don't like when my parents look at my phone, but I can totally see why parents do look at messages. Often teens in a way try to distance themselves from their parents and the parents worry about the children so they use their resources. So, I feel that I would be willing to give up my rights for safety if they have cause. I am sure that government doesn't always do that but i would rather think that they do than question it.
It really depends on the situation you are in. Some call for giving up more or major rights,(life or death situations), and other situations don't really require losing rights because they are minor and don't carry as much weight.
@Keslie: You bring up a good point. Off of what Kelsie said, I think its more of an issue of trust rather than privacy. If parents trust us, shouldn't they trust us enough to be able to trust our good judgement through texts or conversations?
I think that if there is a valid reason for my parents to look through my text messages, then its okay because I trust and know them. And there is no way to really stop my parents from doing what they want. But, if someone who I didn't trust and know well wanted to look through my personal stuff, I would not agree as easily.
Marcus did not understand exactly what he was captured for. If he knew who they were at first, or had been able to know where his friends were. If he had known more, it would have been different.
I think Marcus could have wanted to stop the car maybe as an escape mechanism? If he had done it, maybe he would have needed to get away by jacking a car.
I think that although people can get past airport security, homeland security and what they do makes us feel more safe even if in reality we aren't which makes us in a way safer.
The new security at the airport give me a false sense of security because you like to think that the detectors catch everything but you know they don't.
@Michaela... It's for the safety of the country. They were saying how the terrorist attack was one of the worst on the country and thousands were killed. If one life is lost, it doesn't matter, if they find the terrorist and safe lives in the future.
@michaela There are times when kids are the crimimals, like in Colombine, so there is no way the government could rule them out. Also, there is a possibility that the Homeland Security people could have helped him-we are still unaware of what really happened to him.
@Michaela- Good point. If you look at past governments, like the USSR, they held trials but they were biased, it showed how the government was trying to make itself look good and fair when instead it lies.
@Michaela They had to get off the scene and keep moving to keep their mission secret. They had no time to help, and that was also why they had to capture the rest of the team.
@Sydney: Sometimes situations could be for the good of the whole, and could honestly be a good thing. Such as in World War Two when people were asked to give up things that may make them happy such as butter and sugar to save such necessities for the soliders. It was for the good of the whole to protct the people. But when it comes to lives and loosing some for the greater good, it's still a debated subject such as times when terrorists take one person hostage for money; should we let them die to save money for our country, (for the good of the whole) or should we save them and loose greater goods for our countries?
@Michaela,it's kind of like the thing where in times of war, they can waive your rights, and they're just trying to stabalize the country to be able to get the whole safe, over the individual...
Things such as Airport Security is just to put a false sense of security in the civilians. There is always a way to get around them. This makes me think that putting up security, and getting paranoid, just beckons for people to come try and get around it.
Terrorism is something that I think can't be stopped. Any measure taken to create security can be avoided or you could choose a different target, so the attempts we make don't do anything and therefore we need to try something different or stop altogether.
@inner circle Any act of violence can inspire fear. Putting in security acknowledges that there is a threat. It encourages the response it is trying to prevent (as it did with Marcus). The only way such security can inspire confidence is when a genuine threat has been shwn publicly, as in 9/11, it demands a response.
@Sydney: Why should they be able to take away our rights, even for a short period of time? Isn't that a bit hyprocrytical considering things like the Bill of Rights?
I think that the small countries that have bad security are where more terrorists are from because they feel that they have been given the short end of the stick by the bigger more powerful countries
All this security that could potnentially be put in place would scare me to the point that trust would become a issue among neighbors, class mates, friends, if we are surrounded by such heavy duty survalience, that would get me thinking that there must be a high level of percentage of people that are a threat, which would have me question everyone I meet. Soon that would amount to a lonely place where only I could trust myslef. That doesn't sound like protection but overkill, and no way to live.
Like what nicole said, it's merely an issue of trust. In 1984, you don't trust anyone. Is our soceity so untrustworthy nowadays? Who do we trust today? Who CAN we trust today?
What security does is convince people that danger exists. If they do not already believe that the danger exists then security is necesary. If people are not already afraid, then security should not be put in place. Security invites suspicion, getting rid of trust and inviting more violence.
I think that there are so many bad things that happened throughout our history, and we are getting to a point in time where everything is blown up to be a really big issue, whereas before media, only a limited amount of people knew what happened. I think that the media influences how people act, which creates more fear. This fear leads to things such as cameras and medal detectors being put up.
@Maria: You are right, we are not efficent. So why can, like Mrs. Moritz said, a team of people, carrying weapons that terrorists might have, be able to reach a plane without delay?
@Rebecca, so security makes people live in fear other than think that they're safe? Shouldn't security make people feel safe other than make them think that danger is coming?
What is so scary about them tracking you. I think we are way over paranoid. I think it is really weird if we know they are doing it. But what we don't know doesn't hurt us.
I think Marcus is a little ignorant to think that technology in general no matter if you have a private server, firewalls, or a password scrambler could be really kept only for a select group of peoples eyes to view. Technology seems like it has become to powerful for the good of its users and creators.
@Michaela: Probably because the security is more for show than effectiveness. Possibly to initially scare people so they dont even try to sneak things on planes... Another question is why would terroists target planes? Why not just drive around and cause terror?
@Michaela- Because the only REAL security is within our country. What happens to the possible terrorists coming from another country when the security is lacking? The other security checkpoints after that are useless.
@Kelsie Security can inspire fear if there is no obvious reason to have it, it makes people think there is a reason. If people have some other reason to fear their safety, then security can help.
He may not have anything to hide, but there are things that aren't bad, just personal. Like you're pictures, videos, the funny things you do with friends, sentimential times with family. You don't mind sharing it if you let them, but it's justunfair when they take it.
I don't think he's hiding anything, but I think that the author is trying to prove a point that we are very careful when it comes to security, privacy and trust.
So how do we ensure safety then if the systems we have in place now are not effective in their purpose? I can't off the top of my head think of another way to handle security especially for a whole nation. Is there another way?
@Sydney- good point. If we give them permission we wouldn't feel as violated but if they just look without permission it is unfair and a violation of our privacy.
@Emma - do you think that they can figure out he has this "invisible wifi connection", and they would come get him for this "out of the oridinary" behavior.
@Sydney You make a good point. When your privacy is taken from you you have a reason to feel violated, even if it was something you would have let them see anyway. When you give away your privacy, it is still yours, it's just something you have chosen to share.
There are people I would not mind telling everything about my life, but if they decided to find out on their own, I would be upset because then my privacy would no longer be mine.
@Mikaela I think there could always be a way for someone to figure out how to break a code. The government is already watching him and if they figure out he as an 'invisible wifi connection', that is suspisious behavior because they don't know what he's doing.
Privacy is something that we believe is very important because it's something, in my case at least, that we like to believe is special to us... Like setemential times with family like what Sydney said.
@Nicole, at the time, I think that there is not another way to handle security in this nation. But what we have now isn't perfect and it will develop over time and hopefully be better in the years to come.
I actually have a different perspective on 1984 v. Little Brother... I don't exactly like how dependent our society has become on technology, so reading a book on technology's flaws on how anyone can access what you do on a technological device frightens me, so this book seems so inevitable yet I am skeptic on how this situation could arise but skeptic still leaves room for it could happen. Plus reading a book on my generations possible fate is harder to stand rather than reading about 1984's fate because it was in the past.
Privacy is a right that most people value extremely. But if my parents look through my phone, I don't mind because I am their responsibility and because they own and paid for it.
Although airport security isn't always effective, I believe that it is used to give a false sense of security. After 9/11 the government feels like they need control of something to keep the nation feeling safe.
According to the literal definition, a terrorist is someone who causes terror. By that definition alone, terrorists can be found on our soil. Murderers, Rapists, and even people who expose the truth can be considered a terrorist.
America has continually forfeited their rights and the rights of others in order to provide security. During WWII te Japenese-American were forced into internment camps. During the red-scare, immigrants were tortured and questioned unconstitutionaly in order to protect the citizens from communism and anarchism. After a terrifying experience as human-beings we do anything in our power to prevent it from happening again.
As technology improves and advances it is harder for us to trust anyone when our relationships aren't as personal as they once were. When more security is installed to make us feel safer, trust is overided by a sense of security. In a way, security just causes more panic because if there is security there must be a reason to why it's neccesary.So, the question is would you rather be safe and paranoid or vunurable and trust-worthy?
After a terrorizing event like the attak in Little Brother, the government must act in some way. Besides capturing bystanders for questionong, what else could they really do? Is there really any other effective way?
Modern-day technology is very real and very scary. Your entire life can be tracked online. The book not only illustrates the importance of privacy over security, it also illustrates the importance of technology and its uses. When Marcus refuses to hand over his phone, he also refuses to hand over his rights and his idenity.
it's interestin how the DHS was willing to arrest practically anyone- even four 17 year olds, for flagging down a car. I understand how they would be panicking with what just happened, but the kids weren't even able to explain why they needed help, they were just abducted by the DHS.
I wonder why Marcus wouldn't unlock his phone for the DHS. I understand how he would want to keep his privacy, but he had nothing of their interest to hide, so why wouldn't he just cooperate just so he could get out? Maybe it was his pride, but it seemed strange to me. If i was in that situation, i think i would most likely do anything to get out!
A comment above stated how there is ALWAYS a way around technology... I don't think that this is true at all. Marcus puting stones in his shoes to effect his 'gait', is a way around the cameras FOR NOW. But it will get out at some point, that people are using this method. When this happens, more effective and hard to crack technology will come around, and the cycle will continue. There isn't always a way around all technology.
The way the DHS treats innocent civilians reminds me of the events in World War Two. In the book America experiences a change in ideology. What used to be a democracy now becomes a more totalitarianistic environment where the government or DHS is completely in charge. During World War Two, the military leaders like Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and Roosevelt had different ideas of what was right. The different ideologies were facism, communism, and democracy. I think the society of Little Brother experience this type of conflict because while many people prefer the change, others despise it.
I also think the author is trying to warn us of what could happen in the future with technology advancements. Technology could very well hurt us more than help us.
Since the DHS is taking innocent teenagers into custody because of terrorism doesn't that make the DHS terrorists because they are terrorizing civilians?
I am also excited to see how Little Brother relates to 1984. I can already see that Marcus is like the Winston of Little Brother and I will be interested to see how the other charcters relate to 1984.
I would be willing to let my parents to read my text messages, however I would not like it because it is private and mine. It seems like they wouldn't trust me if they took away my privacy.
ReplyDeletei understand why parents can look at our stuff but i dont agree with it. They are trying to protect us but i dont like it
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't necessarly mind having my parents or teachers read my text messages, but to me it seems like too much of an invasion of privacy because we have rights to text people things that we may not want others to see.
ReplyDeleteI don't like when my parents look at my phone, but I can totally see why parents do look at messages. Often teens in a way try to distance themselves from their parents and the parents worry about the children so they use their resources. So, I feel that I would be willing to give up my rights for safety if they have cause. I am sure that government doesn't always do that but i would rather think that they do than question it.
ReplyDeleteI would be willing to let my parents read my text messages but I don't see why they would need to if they trusted me.
ReplyDelete@Emily, Because when you don't want them to read it, they think you're hiding something when you're just wanting your privacy
ReplyDeleteNot that we have anything to hide, but it still may make us uncomfortable.
ReplyDeleteIt really depends on the situation you are in. Some call for giving up more or major rights,(life or death situations), and other situations don't really require losing rights because they are minor and don't carry as much weight.
ReplyDeleteI think everyone is perceived as a suspect, anyone could cause harm, even if they look innocent.
ReplyDelete@ Garrett - Why should anyone have to give up any rights at all?
ReplyDelete@Keslie: You bring up a good point. Off of what Kelsie said, I think its more of an issue of trust rather than privacy. If parents trust us, shouldn't they trust us enough to be able to trust our good judgement through texts or conversations?
ReplyDeleteI think that if there is a valid reason for my parents to look through my text messages, then its okay because I trust and know them. And there is no way to really stop my parents from doing what they want. But, if someone who I didn't trust and know well wanted to look through my personal stuff, I would not agree as easily.
ReplyDeletethis makes me think of a question I've heard alot, Are you willing to lose the lives of a few to save the many?
ReplyDeleteMarcus did not understand exactly what he was captured for. If he knew who they were at first, or had been able to know where his friends were.
ReplyDeleteIf he had known more, it would have been different.
I think Marcus could have wanted to stop the car maybe as an escape mechanism? If he had done it, maybe he would have needed to get away by jacking a car.
ReplyDeleteI think that even if parents trust us, they still wonder what we text about and things like that.
ReplyDelete@Sydney: Oddly that reminds me of communism or facism, if that makes sense at all. Kind of like giving up certain rights for the good of the whole.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Rebecca, if he had known who they were at first, what would he have done differently?
ReplyDelete@Michaela, I deffenitly agree, it's a question they use in police psych evaluations
ReplyDeleteThey could have thought that Marcus was tryng to continue the terrorism by threatening cars that were driving by.
ReplyDeleteI think that although people can get past airport security, homeland security and what they do makes us feel more safe even if in reality we aren't which makes us in a way safer.
ReplyDeleteMy question is how they could take time to capture kids as suspects for terrorism while ignoring a kid who has been stabbed and severly wounded.
ReplyDelete@Sydney
ReplyDeleteThe life of any person is important, but when you are in a situation where you have to choose the lives of the many are more important.
The DHS does make me feel safer when we go to an airport even though i dont think it does as much as it seems.
ReplyDeleteWait isn't the point of security the Bill of Rights, so how does giving away your rights give you security?
ReplyDeleteIt makes me wonder how secure the "securities" in airports are. Are they just exaggered for show rather than the want to protect the people?
ReplyDeleteThe new security at the airport give me a false sense of security because you like to think that the detectors catch everything but you know they don't.
ReplyDelete@Michaela... It's for the safety of the country. They were saying how the terrorist attack was one of the worst on the country and thousands were killed. If one life is lost, it doesn't matter, if they find the terrorist and safe lives in the future.
ReplyDeleteWhen I went to Ghana, I think like 25% of the workers were asleep on desks or the floor. It was funny but didn't make me feel safe.
ReplyDelete@michaela There are times when kids are the crimimals, like in Colombine, so there is no way the government could rule them out. Also, there is a possibility that the Homeland Security people could have helped him-we are still unaware of what really happened to him.
ReplyDelete@Michaela-
ReplyDeleteGood point. If you look at past governments, like the USSR, they held trials but they were biased, it showed how the government was trying to make itself look good and fair when instead it lies.
@Michaela
ReplyDeleteThey had to get off the scene and keep moving to keep their mission secret. They had no time to help, and that was also why they had to capture the rest of the team.
What is the definition of a terrorist? Somebody who creates terror? I think that he is a terrorist.
ReplyDelete@Sydney: Sometimes situations could be for the good of the whole, and could honestly be a good thing. Such as in World War Two when people were asked to give up things that may make them happy such as butter and sugar to save such necessities for the soliders. It was for the good of the whole to protct the people. But when it comes to lives and loosing some for the greater good, it's still a debated subject such as times when terrorists take one person hostage for money; should we let them die to save money for our country, (for the good of the whole) or should we save them and loose greater goods for our countries?
ReplyDelete@Michaela,it's kind of like the thing where in times of war, they can waive your rights, and they're just trying to stabalize the country to be able to get the whole safe, over the individual...
ReplyDelete@Daniel, were the workers like airport security workers or just at a random company?
ReplyDeleteI think that what happened in Arizona was a terrorist attack because it made terror spread throughout our country.
ReplyDelete@Kelsie, they were airport workers. They didn't really have shops there.
ReplyDeleteThings such as Airport Security is just to put a false sense of security in the civilians. There is always a way to get around them. This makes me think that putting up security, and getting paranoid, just beckons for people to come try and get around it.
ReplyDeleteTerrorism is something that I think can't be stopped. Any measure taken to create security can be avoided or you could choose a different target, so the attempts we make don't do anything and therefore we need to try something different or stop altogether.
ReplyDelete@Maria: I agree that when we catch a terrorist we can prevent future attacks, but how efficent are we in stopping them in the first place?
ReplyDelete@Emma, you really can't rule kids out, because it has happened before. Terrorists aren't just middle east men, it could be an teenage American girl
ReplyDelete@inner circle
ReplyDeleteAny act of violence can inspire fear.
Putting in security acknowledges that there is a threat. It encourages the response it is trying to prevent (as it did with Marcus).
The only way such security can inspire confidence is when a genuine threat has been shwn publicly, as in 9/11, it demands a response.
@Mikaela, so you think that the intense airport security is just challenging terrorists to beat the system?
ReplyDelete@Sydney: Why should they be able to take away our rights, even for a short period of time? Isn't that a bit hyprocrytical considering things like the Bill of Rights?
ReplyDeleteI think that any action that causes terror could be considered a terror attack...whether on a large or tiny scale.
ReplyDeleteWhen you come to America though, there is another security check. They do protect us from people coming in.
ReplyDeleteThere really isn't a good way to protect our soil to the standards that we would like to have.
ReplyDeleteI think that the small countries that have bad security are where more terrorists are from because they feel that they have been given the short end of the stick by the bigger more powerful countries
ReplyDelete@Kelsie - not neccessarily, but people know there is almost always a way around them?
ReplyDeleteWe most definitley don't want to attrack terrorists
@Sydney I agree with you. That is why Marcus was taken as a suspect.
ReplyDeleteAll this security that could potnentially be put in place would scare me to the point that trust would become a issue among neighbors, class mates, friends, if we are surrounded by such heavy duty survalience, that would get me thinking that there must be a high level of percentage of people that are a threat, which would have me question everyone I meet. Soon that would amount to a lonely place where only I could trust myslef. That doesn't sound like protection but overkill, and no way to live.
ReplyDelete@Rebecca: Could it be for publicity?
ReplyDeleteIs there someone watching the screens?
ReplyDelete@Daniels- What happens if a dangerous person is on the flight? The after-flight seecurities don't do anything then.
ReplyDeleteLike what nicole said, it's merely an issue of trust. In 1984, you don't trust anyone. Is our soceity so untrustworthy nowadays? Who do we trust today? Who CAN we trust today?
ReplyDelete@Michaela: I'd say not very efficient at all... But when you relate to the book, they seemed to have a better system than we do.
ReplyDeleteDo you think that that the people in the book caught the real terrorist(s)??
Marcus putting rocks in his shoes is proof that there is always a way around security. Not matter how complicated or simple it may be.
ReplyDeleteThose school cameras don't really affect me in any way...bad or good.
People can put cameras in a lot of places for anti-theft reasons.
ReplyDelete@Mikaela, do you think that they would affect you in a way if you went to Columbine?
ReplyDelete@Garrett: But even in dressing rooms? When you're totally in the open?
ReplyDeleteWhat security does is convince people that danger exists. If they do not already believe that the danger exists then security is necesary. If people are not already afraid, then security should not be put in place. Security invites suspicion, getting rid of trust and inviting more violence.
ReplyDeleteI think that there are so many bad things that happened throughout our history, and we are getting to a point in time where everything is blown up to be a really big issue, whereas before media, only a limited amount of people knew what happened. I think that the media influences how people act, which creates more fear. This fear leads to things such as cameras and medal detectors being put up.
ReplyDelete@Kelsie - I don't think that I understand your question.
ReplyDeleteI'd probably be paranoid after a bad experience like that too.
ReplyDelete@Maria: You are right, we are not efficent. So why can, like Mrs. Moritz said, a team of people, carrying weapons that terrorists might have, be able to reach a plane without delay?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Rebecca, so security makes people live in fear other than think that they're safe? Shouldn't security make people feel safe other than make them think that danger is coming?
ReplyDeleteLike Eric said in the inner circle, we would feel completely violated. We are stripped of rights.
ReplyDeleteWhat is so scary about them tracking you. I think we are way over paranoid. I think it is really weird if we know they are doing it. But what we don't know doesn't hurt us.
ReplyDeleteI think Marcus is a little ignorant to think that technology in general no matter if you have a private server, firewalls, or a password scrambler could be really kept only for a select group of peoples eyes to view. Technology seems like it has become to powerful for the good of its users and creators.
ReplyDelete@Michaela: Probably because the security is more for show than effectiveness. Possibly to initially scare people so they dont even try to sneak things on planes... Another question is why would terroists target planes? Why not just drive around and cause terror?
ReplyDelete@Michaela- Because the only REAL security is within our country. What happens to the possible terrorists coming from another country when the security is lacking? The other security checkpoints after that are useless.
ReplyDeleteIt would be really easy to make a bomb. If someone wanted to they could make a bomb out of the stuff you could buy after you get through security.
ReplyDelete@Kelsie
ReplyDeleteSecurity can inspire fear if there is no obvious reason to have it, it makes people think there is a reason.
If people have some other reason to fear their safety, then security can help.
@Rebecca, ok, I get it now, thanks!
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of "mistake" are they looking for?
ReplyDeleteHe may not have anything to hide, but there are things that aren't bad, just personal. Like you're pictures, videos, the funny things you do with friends, sentimential times with family. You don't mind sharing it if you let them, but it's justunfair when they take it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think he's hiding anything, but I think that the author is trying to prove a point that we are very careful when it comes to security, privacy and trust.
ReplyDelete@Mikaela I think just anything out of the ordinary. In Marcus's case, he just wouldn't open his phone and that put him on a list for high suspision.
ReplyDeleteSo how do we ensure safety then if the systems we have in place now are not effective in their purpose? I can't off the top of my head think of another way to handle security especially for a whole nation. Is there another way?
ReplyDelete@Mikaela- anything that could make them suspicious
ReplyDelete@Maria: I agree. They scare us into believing that we will be severly punished if we get "caught" so most of thing we don't even try.
ReplyDelete@Sydney- good point. If we give them permission we wouldn't feel as violated but if they just look without permission it is unfair and a violation of our privacy.
ReplyDelete@Emma - do you think that they can figure out he has this "invisible wifi connection", and they would come get him for this "out of the oridinary" behavior.
ReplyDelete*Most of the time we dont even try
ReplyDelete@ Emily B - what would make them suspicious?
ReplyDelete@Sydney
ReplyDeleteYou make a good point. When your privacy is taken from you you have a reason to feel violated, even if it was something you would have let them see anyway. When you give away your privacy, it is still yours, it's just something you have chosen to share.
There are people I would not mind telling everything about my life, but if they decided to find out on their own, I would be upset because then my privacy would no longer be mine.
@Mikaela- I have no idea. Maybe an email or text message which is why they bugged his laptop and they are tracking him at every moment.
ReplyDeleteGarret brings up an interesting point. He might not be white, it could be racial profiling.
ReplyDelete@Mikaela I think there could always be a way for someone to figure out how to break a code. The government is already watching him and if they figure out he as an 'invisible wifi connection', that is suspisious behavior because they don't know what he's doing.
ReplyDeletePrivacy is something that we believe is very important because it's something, in my case at least, that we like to believe is special to us... Like setemential times with family like what Sydney said.
ReplyDelete@ Emma - Good point.
ReplyDeleteComputers are our modern day thought police, they are everywhere and they are a part of everyone's lives
ReplyDelete@Nicole, at the time, I think that there is not another way to handle security in this nation. But what we have now isn't perfect and it will develop over time and hopefully be better in the years to come.
ReplyDeleteI actually have a different perspective on 1984 v. Little Brother... I don't exactly like how dependent our society has become on technology, so reading a book on technology's flaws on how anyone can access what you do on a technological device frightens me, so this book seems so inevitable yet I am skeptic on how this situation could arise but skeptic still leaves room for it could happen. Plus reading a book on my generations possible fate is harder to stand rather than reading about 1984's fate because it was in the past.
ReplyDeletePrivacy is a right that most people value extremely. But if my parents look through my phone, I don't mind because I am their responsibility and because they own and paid for it.
ReplyDeleteAlthough airport security isn't always effective, I believe that it is used to give a false sense of security. After 9/11 the government feels like they need control of something to keep the nation feeling safe.
According to the literal definition, a terrorist is someone who causes terror. By that definition alone, terrorists can be found on our soil. Murderers, Rapists, and even people who expose the truth can be considered a terrorist.
America has continually forfeited their rights and the rights of others in order to provide security. During WWII te Japenese-American were forced into internment camps. During the red-scare, immigrants were tortured and questioned unconstitutionaly in order to protect the citizens from communism and anarchism. After a terrifying experience as human-beings we do anything in our power to prevent it from happening again.
As technology improves and advances it is harder for us to trust anyone when our relationships aren't as personal as they once were. When more security is installed to make us feel safer, trust is overided by a sense of security. In a way, security just causes more panic because if there is security there must be a reason to why it's neccesary.So, the question is would you rather be safe and paranoid or vunurable and trust-worthy?
After a terrorizing event like the attak in Little Brother, the government must act in some way. Besides capturing bystanders for questionong, what else could they really do? Is there really any other effective way?
Modern-day technology is very real and very scary. Your entire life can be tracked online. The book not only illustrates the importance of privacy over security, it also illustrates the importance of technology and its uses. When Marcus refuses to hand over his phone, he also refuses to hand over his rights and his idenity.
it's interestin how the DHS was willing to arrest practically anyone- even four 17 year olds, for flagging down a car. I understand how they would be panicking with what just happened, but the kids weren't even able to explain why they needed help, they were just abducted by the DHS.
ReplyDeleteI wonder why Marcus wouldn't unlock his phone for the DHS. I understand how he would want to keep his privacy, but he had nothing of their interest to hide, so why wouldn't he just cooperate just so he could get out? Maybe it was his pride, but it seemed strange to me. If i was in that situation, i think i would most likely do anything to get out!
ReplyDeleteA comment above stated how there is ALWAYS a way around technology... I don't think that this is true at all. Marcus puting stones in his shoes to effect his 'gait', is a way around the cameras FOR NOW. But it will get out at some point, that people are using this method. When this happens, more effective and hard to crack technology will come around, and the cycle will continue. There isn't always a way around all technology.
ReplyDeleteThe way the DHS treats innocent civilians reminds me of the events in World War Two. In the book America experiences a change in ideology. What used to be a democracy now becomes a more totalitarianistic environment where the government or DHS is completely in charge. During World War Two, the military leaders like Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, and Roosevelt had different ideas of what was right. The different ideologies were facism, communism, and democracy. I think the society of Little Brother experience this type of conflict because while many people prefer the change, others despise it.
ReplyDeleteI also think the author is trying to warn us of what could happen in the future with technology advancements. Technology could very well hurt us more than help us.
Since the DHS is taking innocent teenagers into custody because of terrorism doesn't that make the DHS terrorists because they are terrorizing civilians?
I am also excited to see how Little Brother relates to 1984. I can already see that Marcus is like the Winston of Little Brother and I will be interested to see how the other charcters relate to 1984.
ReplyDelete