As is described in the problem statement, instragram, a mobile photo and video capturing and sharing service, has quickly emerged as a new medium in the spotlight in the recent years. It gave an opportunity for users to instantaneously capture and then through the filter, to transform the image. This filter manipulated pictures and videos eventually be shared with friends. The problem now is that people had a different perception when started using the services of Instragram. People joined and agreed to the terms expecting their privacy promises will uphold and was kept private for a limited time. According to the IEEE code of ethics, it is unreasonable for Instagram to share and use user data with third parties such as Facebook and advertiser
…show more content…
NSPE code of ethics mentions, “Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts”. It is inappropriate for Instagram to manipulate the legal wording of its policy terms. Statista shows that Instagram users who age between 18 and 29 to be the highest reaching about 55% of users. Which most of the time read without paying attention to the details and agree to the terms. Expecting that their data is secure they start uploading. A study conducted by Arizona State University shows that about 46.6% photos taken were selfies and 24.2% friends with slightly self-portrait. Eventually these photos become in the public domain in which users didn’t anticipate. The repercussions of this outcry might be serious for those who care about their …show more content…
As is in GitHub, they could have given people to choose public and free or private that they get charged a certain amount of fees of service. For those who chose to use public, Instagram could share it with third parties and therefore could generate some money with the consent of users. The IEEE code of ethics acknowledges its members “to improve the understanding of technology: its appropriate application”. It is a noble idea that Instagram opens a free service that people get business benefits and other social satisfaction.
Instagram’s action to share users ' data to third parties such as Facebook and advertisers without prior consent of users is an action that contradicts the IEEE code of ethics. At the beginning, it was private and people understanding of it was also private that’s why people herded to be members. All of sudden the game of privacy amended, which is sort of decoying. It clearly shows that it followed a selfish attitude to be sold to Facebook when it found financial benefits by jeopardizing public’s privacy. They can still make money by sharing users data but users should agree on it
NSPE code of ethics mentions, “Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts”. It is inappropriate for Instagram to manipulate the legal wording of its policy terms. Statista shows that Instagram users who age between 18 and 29 to be the highest reaching about 55% of users. Which most of the time read without paying attention to the details and agree to the terms. Expecting that their data is secure they start uploading. A study conducted by Arizona State University shows that about 46.6% photos taken were selfies and 24.2% friends with slightly self-portrait. Eventually these photos become in the public domain in which users didn’t anticipate. The repercussions of this outcry might be serious for those who care about their …show more content…
As is in GitHub, they could have given people to choose public and free or private that they get charged a certain amount of fees of service. For those who chose to use public, Instagram could share it with third parties and therefore could generate some money with the consent of users. The IEEE code of ethics acknowledges its members “to improve the understanding of technology: its appropriate application”. It is a noble idea that Instagram opens a free service that people get business benefits and other social satisfaction.
Instagram’s action to share users ' data to third parties such as Facebook and advertisers without prior consent of users is an action that contradicts the IEEE code of ethics. At the beginning, it was private and people understanding of it was also private that’s why people herded to be members. All of sudden the game of privacy amended, which is sort of decoying. It clearly shows that it followed a selfish attitude to be sold to Facebook when it found financial benefits by jeopardizing public’s privacy. They can still make money by sharing users data but users should agree on it