With the advancement of technology, the American people 's privacy has shrunk, we are monitored at all times. Cameras at every street corner, cell phones being tracked to the exact foot, every website and Google search seen stored and collected. All of this is done in the name of our safety, but how much of this data is about our safety and more about controlling us? In Adam Penenberg’s essay The Surveillance Society, readers are informed of these measures and are lead to believe the invasion of our privacy is necessary. Some form of surveillance is a necessity in the world we live in today, crimes and terror attacks have been prevented because of it. But is it really necessary for the government to know that Jenny two blocks down buy a large
…show more content…
One of these experts is Jim Atkinson, a counter-surveillance expert who is the president of Granite Island Group. Adam Penenberg wrote his article in December of 2001 mere months after the tragedy that was 9/11. I am sure when he interviewed Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Atkinson seemed like a wonderful addition to, Penenberg’s article The Surveillance Society. In 2016 that assumption looks to be very wrong. In December of 2009 almost exactly eight years to the date that Penenberg wrote his essay, Mr. Atkinson was arrested on a plethora of charges. The Gloucester Times reports on what Mr. Atkinson was charged with writing, “Three counts possession of firearms without a license (firearm identification card), Possession of a rifle without a license, Possession of an internal machine (rocket launcher), Possession of mace without a license, two counts of possession of large-capacity ammunition.” In addition, the address that Grant Island Group is listed at is in a shopping mall with no physical …show more content…
He creates a persona that society isn’t bothered by it so the reader shouldn’t be either. He attempts to persuade readers that these tools are needed to keep society safe and wholesome. If society were real “okay” with this surveillance one would think that no legislation or laws would be passed to peel back and limit the reach of the surveillance. That would not be the case, though; on June 2, 2015, the USA Freedom Act was signed into law. This act is aimed at protected the rights of citizens and limiting the government ‘s ability to track, store, and monitor us. This law was only signed into effect because the people believed that their rights were being infringed
One of these experts is Jim Atkinson, a counter-surveillance expert who is the president of Granite Island Group. Adam Penenberg wrote his article in December of 2001 mere months after the tragedy that was 9/11. I am sure when he interviewed Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Atkinson seemed like a wonderful addition to, Penenberg’s article The Surveillance Society. In 2016 that assumption looks to be very wrong. In December of 2009 almost exactly eight years to the date that Penenberg wrote his essay, Mr. Atkinson was arrested on a plethora of charges. The Gloucester Times reports on what Mr. Atkinson was charged with writing, “Three counts possession of firearms without a license (firearm identification card), Possession of a rifle without a license, Possession of an internal machine (rocket launcher), Possession of mace without a license, two counts of possession of large-capacity ammunition.” In addition, the address that Grant Island Group is listed at is in a shopping mall with no physical …show more content…
He creates a persona that society isn’t bothered by it so the reader shouldn’t be either. He attempts to persuade readers that these tools are needed to keep society safe and wholesome. If society were real “okay” with this surveillance one would think that no legislation or laws would be passed to peel back and limit the reach of the surveillance. That would not be the case, though; on June 2, 2015, the USA Freedom Act was signed into law. This act is aimed at protected the rights of citizens and limiting the government ‘s ability to track, store, and monitor us. This law was only signed into effect because the people believed that their rights were being infringed