This is the 21st century and many advancements have occurred since the past few centuries. There have been improvements in education, medication, and most importantly, technology. Unfortunately, with technology there comes the invasion of one's privacy. There is a debate on whether companies should be allowed to track consumers preferences without their permission. Tracking one's preferences or movements can be beneficial to not only the manufacturer, but also the consumer. The companies are then able to comfort the consumers needs, keep them healthy, and reduce the amount of wastes. There is no problem in invading one's privacy for their own good and the good of the environment. Therefore, companies should be allowed to track consumers preferences
…show more content…
The consumers can stay healthy and help the environment all because of their loss of a little bit of privacy. One can stay healthy and not become sick if an item is old or spoiled from RFID tags in products. For example, as it stated in the fourth article, "RFID Consumer Applications and Benefits", manufacturers can be identified "which items are bad and trace those through to stores" (lines 32-33). This can be very helpful for both the companies and consumers because the companies can be prevented from being sued for getting someone sick from an old product. It can be beneficial to the consumer that they can be stopped from becoming sick from eating an old product. Additionally, the environment can be benefited just because of invasion of one's privacy. For example, it stated "RFID could also have an [sic] positive impact on our environment by greatly reducing waste" (44-45). This shows that the environment can be benefited by having RFID tags on items. Earth is the place that everyone lives on and if everyone is willing to give just a little bit of their privacy to help the environment and the greater good, then there would be no environmental problems. Overall, companies should be allowed to invade one's privacy in order to track consumers preferences without their …show more content…
The opposing side may believe that it is invading one's privacy and may strongly disagree with companies being able to track consumers preferences. Invading one's privacy for their safety is good, but invading one's safety for market reasons is too much. They may feel that it is really creepy that they are being watched. Also, the mannequins are very expensive which can also be a problem. Invading one's privacy can be very costly and pricey. For the collection of data, products are tracked from the beginning to the end. For example, in the article, "Where Will Consumers Find Privacy Protection from RFIDs? A Case for Federal Legislation", it stated that "between the birth and death of a customer's Coke can, the RFID tags would tell the Coca-Cola Company where and when the Coke was purchased". One may believe that this is an invasion of one's privacy because they are being tracked with the Coke. The opposition, however, is weak because although this is an invasion of one's privacy, the companies are not doing it so that they can track down what the people are doing, but they do this so that they can receive data about their own product and there is no problem in that. The invasion of one's privacy is done for market reasons. If one is not
The consumers can stay healthy and help the environment all because of their loss of a little bit of privacy. One can stay healthy and not become sick if an item is old or spoiled from RFID tags in products. For example, as it stated in the fourth article, "RFID Consumer Applications and Benefits", manufacturers can be identified "which items are bad and trace those through to stores" (lines 32-33). This can be very helpful for both the companies and consumers because the companies can be prevented from being sued for getting someone sick from an old product. It can be beneficial to the consumer that they can be stopped from becoming sick from eating an old product. Additionally, the environment can be benefited just because of invasion of one's privacy. For example, it stated "RFID could also have an [sic] positive impact on our environment by greatly reducing waste" (44-45). This shows that the environment can be benefited by having RFID tags on items. Earth is the place that everyone lives on and if everyone is willing to give just a little bit of their privacy to help the environment and the greater good, then there would be no environmental problems. Overall, companies should be allowed to invade one's privacy in order to track consumers preferences without their …show more content…
The opposing side may believe that it is invading one's privacy and may strongly disagree with companies being able to track consumers preferences. Invading one's privacy for their safety is good, but invading one's safety for market reasons is too much. They may feel that it is really creepy that they are being watched. Also, the mannequins are very expensive which can also be a problem. Invading one's privacy can be very costly and pricey. For the collection of data, products are tracked from the beginning to the end. For example, in the article, "Where Will Consumers Find Privacy Protection from RFIDs? A Case for Federal Legislation", it stated that "between the birth and death of a customer's Coke can, the RFID tags would tell the Coca-Cola Company where and when the Coke was purchased". One may believe that this is an invasion of one's privacy because they are being tracked with the Coke. The opposition, however, is weak because although this is an invasion of one's privacy, the companies are not doing it so that they can track down what the people are doing, but they do this so that they can receive data about their own product and there is no problem in that. The invasion of one's privacy is done for market reasons. If one is not