Development of web 2.0

The amount of time individuals spend online has significantly increased since the advent of web 2.0. The internet has become a primary means of receiving news and information from all around the globe. Contrary to conventional methods of communication, one must input information such as their names or search terms in order to access the internet via a phone, tablet, or laptop. As a result, in order to obtain knowledge, someone must exchange their own information. People, and millennials in particular, spend a lot of time online. Social media sites like Facebook and Instagram are among the most popular websites among users. As people have increased their use of the internet, discussions about privacy have increased. While people and corporations believe that there should be no limitation of the information that websites acquire from the people visiting them, another group thinks that information taken from internet users should be limited. Lori Andrews in her article, “Facebook is Using You” believes that the access to people’s information by websites should be regulated. Based on the argument offered by the author and other sources, it is true that people should be allowed to decide what kind of data websites access about them. People should be allowed to decide the type of information that websites and companies can access while they are browsing. The knowledge will help them know what companies know about them, and prevent use of information to stereotype people. Limiting what data companies access about people may also help people get involved in all types of information.

The first reason why there should be laws that restrict the access of data that people enter on the web without their permission is the fact that people should know what corporations know about them. Currently, Facebook and other online based companies like Google access the information of people without their knowledge (Andrews 450). The corporations use software called cookies as well as other software that mine data without regulations. The corporations extract even the data that they do not need. According to Jim Harper, websites like Google and Facebook send cookies to the devices of people when they access the internet using their browsers (Harper 444). Therefore, when the person visits another website, the cookies detect the visit and send information about the visit to the servers of the website that send the cookies. In such a case, the user is usually not aware of the data about them that the website has gathered (Harper 444). This makes it possible that parties may end up with information that a person intended to keep private. Allowing people to decide on their own the kind of data they share will be important in ensuring that people have control over what parties know about them.

Second, the unlimited access to the information of people may be used to stereotype people. According to Andrews, the websites use the cookies to detect the sites that people visit (Andrews 451). So if an internet user uses Google Chrome, Firefox or Microsoft internet explorer, the browsers collect data that may not necessarily represent the person who entered the data or searched the data. For example, using a search engine while in the inner city does not necessarily mean that the user is an African American. Therefore, people should not be subjected to content considered to be of interest to African Americans just because they used the internet while in the part of the city. The practice of denying people of a particular geographical location some services or treating them differently is also called redlining and it became popular during the times of racial discrimination. However, websites are applying a similar measure Use of Such generalizations of people because of the places where they searched from or the data they searched should not be encouraged. For example, not all people who search for some medications are sick. Hence it may be wrong to categorize them as such and therefore subject them to the treatment of sick people. Andrews offers another example of data mining. In the example, a person’s ability to acquire loans reduced because they went to a particular destination for honeymoon. According to the credit card company, people who visited the venue had poor performance in paying their credit. Therefore, the company concluded that because he visited the place, he may also have issues with loan payment (Andrews 451). The example shows just how data may be misused and end up injuring the users of the digital platforms rather than help them.

The unauthorized mining of people’s information may also lead to people missing out on valuable information. Accessing people information allows websites like Facebook and Google to categorize people and therefore send them only information that they think matters to them (Andrews 450). For instance, if a person browses for information concerning vehicles, they are likely to be subjected to advertisements of cars. If the person puts their information on their Facebook profile as being a woman, they may be exposed to what ads and news that corporations think are important to them only and fail to inform them about other news that is important to the nation. For instance, one may be exposed to ads showing clothes and jewelry when they may be interested in different kinds of information. Also, a person may be exposed to information that does not concern them just because they have been categorized based on their search (Taddicken 148). This causes a person to be locked out of important news or being exposed to unwanted communication which is one more reason to control data taken from internet users.

Despite the evidence and persuasive arguments against the free access to the information of the people, proponents of open access to people’s data still think that there is more good than bad in allowing corporations open access to information. Harper is an example of such proponents. According to Harper, the free access of information by corporate bodies is important in facilitating the free things that people get on the internet (Harper 444). Also, Harper claims that if the companies are not allowed to access the data of clients, the quality of online services may drastically reduce and some companies may not make as much money as they make now. Harper cites Google as an example of companies that offer people a lot of high-quality services for free because of their access to data that allows them to earn money from advertising. The truth is that the internet can still survive without the unauthorized access to people’s data. In Europe for instance, many countries have laws that give consumers the right to decide the data that companies can access (Sicari et al.). The disadvantages of the unlimited access are more apparent than the advantages of allowing unlimited access. The growth of corporations has its benefits to the owners more than it helps internet users.

In conclusion, since the introduction of the internet, the lives of many people have become infiltrated by companies that access their information via the internet. In most cases, people do not know the data that is taken and how it may affect them. The situation has given companies more power over the consumers than ever before. Online advertising has grown but, the privacy of the people has been adversely affected. People have lost control of what the companies know about them. Companies now can use and misuse the private information of people as they please. As a result, internet users, as well as users of other digital platforms like credit cards, have become affected by information that was taken without their approval. It is clear that laws should be made to protect the data of people from online companies and other digital scavengers.

Works Cited

Sicari, Sabrina, et al. "Security, Privacy and Trust in the Internet of Things: The Road Ahead." Computer Networks 2015, pp. 146-164.

Taddicken, Monika. "The ‘Privacy Paradox in the Social Web: The impact of privacy concerns, individual characteristics, and the perceived social relevance of different forms of self‐disclosure." Journal of Computer‐Mediated Communication 2014, pp. 248-273.

Harper, Jim. “Web Users Get as Much as They Give.” The Brief Bedford Reader, edited by XJ Kennedy, Dorthy E. Kennedy, Jane E. Aaron, and Ellen Kuhl Repetoo, 13th ed., Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2017, pp. 443-446.

Andrews, Lori. “Facebook Is Using You.” The Brief Bedford Reader, edited by XJ Kennedy, Dorthy E. Kennedy, Jane E. Aaron, and Ellen Kuhl Repetoo, 13th ed., Bedford / St. Martin’s, 2017, pp. 449-452.