http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2006/12/can_you_hear_me/
This is an article explaining how the FBI can use cell phone microphones as bugs.
1) Do you believe the author is biased against the FBI's use of cell phones as roving bugs?
2) Why do you think the author chose to interview the people he did? How did their input affect the author's argument.
3) How does this relate to private vs. public?
This article shows extreme bias. Firstly, it can be seen right off via the opening sentence "Cell phone users, beware." This article use an ongoing scare tactic throughout the article to show users what could happen when using a cell phone.
ReplyDeleteThe author chose to interview the people he did in order to support his scare tactic. The quote "Big Brother is upon us..." is also trying to appeal to people who have read the book "1984" and use this to scare people into thinking before they talk to someone on a cell phone.
This relates to our course theme of private vs public because FBI is using "roving bugs" to be able to invade the privacy of those who live in the United States. The author seems to think that the FBI uses "roving bugs" an intense amount, as alluded to by the quote about "1984."
I agree with Dennis about the scare tactic at first. But later in the article it refers to the "roving bugs" being productive and less costly than surveillance cameras. With a previous article we decided that most people are aware that there are more cameras and security in use that ten years ago. Why does it matter if the surveillance is hidden in a corner of a store or at the palm of your hand?
DeleteI agree with what you are saying, however when the video is in the corner of a store it is in a public place and it is also someone else's property. So it is their choice and right to put cameras in their store to protect themselves. But when it is in the hand of someone, not only is it getting information from a public place it can also get information from a private place. When people go out they know that they are being watched, so they will put on a public persona, but I don't think that they will want to be watched when they are at home or any other private situations.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIts one thing to survey people in public places with a camera, but when you invade something like a cell phone, which travels nearly everywhere with a person, the invasiveness reaches a whole new level. In public, most people aren't going to be disclosing very private information, but in private they would be. This destroys the boundary between what can even be considered public or private.
DeleteI agree with what Dennis and Austin said. And I also find that the title is interesting. After reading this article, we might become worried about our own talking with friends and family— we may ask spontaneously: am I being monitored right now? Can FBI hear what I am saying? The author uses this interesting psychological reaction to get audiences involved and makes readers to feel the un-private scenario, which makes the author’s opinion more persuasive.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Yi in the sense that although the title was somewhat deceiving, it is quite clever after you read the article. It brings up the notion that the government may be able to hear you right at this moment, without consent or even having the phone turned on. The title makes the audience truly consider what can be going on with their own phone
DeleteI definitely agree with what youre saying Yi. The title first made me think about the old verizon wireless commercial when the guy is going to strange places and the person can always here them and by the end of the article, as a reader, you are thinking is there every a time when they cant hear me. It definitely seems like this article was used as the opportunity to make people aware of what was going on behind the scenes all around them.
ReplyDeleteThis article is bias because author use the interview quotes made by a counterintelligence security consultant "Any recently manufactured cell phone has a built-in tracking device, which can allow eavesdroppers to pinpoint someone’s location to within just a few feet," to persuade us we are invaded by FBI every day. Rethink the article title “can you hear me now”, I feel annoying that author succeed in grabbing the audience. Author use “relevant” method to gain audience attention because cell phone seems more and more important for us in the modern information society. If there is something wrong with the cell phone, it will stimulate our fear and the public’s fear will magnify the seriousness of the problem, and then people will fellow author to be biased against the FBI’s surveillance behavior.
ReplyDeleteThis article is related to our theme that FBI uses the technology to invade people’s privacy in USA. However, on the flip side of the thing, FBI’s surveillance seems to be a special method of protecting us.
I think the author is bias about the use of cell phones as bugs because he is clearly using, like Dennis said, scare tactics. He tells us to “beware”. The language he uses does not signify that he agrees with what is happening at all. The use of the name of the technology, “roving bugs” is a perfect way to describe this because it is not just a bug in the same, select area are you at one point, but it follows you, catching everything you say no matter when or where.
ReplyDeleteThe author of this article is clearly trying to tell us that our privacy is being invaded. There is no way to know when we are being monitored. Judge Kaplan said in his ruling, “it does not invade zones of privacy that the government could not reach by more conventional means”. The author uses this to show how the government is taking privacy to a different level. It may be easier than having to install devices in certain public locations, but cell phones is personal property, that can now monitor home conversations and invade personal space like the privacy of a home.
I agree with Lauren's statement. It seems as though the author is definitely biased against the use of cell phones bugs. His bias is evident in the very first sentence when he sais, "Cell phone users, beware." He is obviously trying to make people nervous about the surveillance taking place when he talks about how they can listen to you anywhere, even when the phone is off. He does make one statement Judge Kaplan's statement about how the government could be watching us in the same way with surveillance cameras. This statement may cause on to think that the author is not so biased but he immediately follows the quote with a contradictory quote about how big brother is upon us. This other is very obviously biased agaisnt "roving bugs."
DeleteThe author ties to make us "beaware". It is also important to ask "Who is his targetd audience and who is it written for?"
ReplyDeleteIt appears the article was written for an audience of the typical, technologically-advanced-cell phone owner. The article provokes thoughts of whether or not the FBI has these capabilities with our own cell phones. The fact that the defendant was involved in a mob family is found interesting by many of us, making it able to relate the story to popular films like The Godfather or Goodfellas.
DeleteI think the author is definitely biased since the author introduces the way how FBI listen to our phones. The author also reminds us to be aware of using the cell phone. So I think the author is pretty sure that FBI is invading our privacies.
ReplyDeleteI think the reason that the author choose to interview Richard Rehbock since what he says may be credible and can make the author's argument more persuasive. Richard Rehbock's opinion is the same as author's. He said that FBI listen to people's cell phone in this way would be less costly, which can be strengthen the author's argument. Audience would be more likely to agree with the author's opinion.
The targeted audience is definitely all the cell phone users, especially cell phone users in America.
The topic relates to our theme very well because it talks about FBI is probably what we are saying through cell phone. What we said in the phone is regarded as people's privacy and now it is being invaded.
Bias is definitely identifiable in this article. The author speaks in an almost frightful tone throughout the entire thing and makes these "roving bugs" seem like something that is very prevalent. I would say that this bias is a product of the fear, on the part of the author, that the FBI is using this invasive technique to spy on normal people like you or me.
ReplyDeleteThe sources that the author uses adds a certain credibility to the article. With a counterintelligence security consultant and attorney, specific laws and techniques can be discussed and claims can be made that need a reliable source behind it.
This topic on the government "spying" through cell phones without people's consent is ver relevant to our course theme. It is a public, yet private, institution that is using invasive techniques to overhear conversations that are usually meant to be private. It is scary to think that now, in an age of smart phones, there is literally no line drawn in terms of privacy. Everything is out in the open.
This is very bias article. The title of the article is the first give away "Cell Phone Users, Beware." The author then goes into using scare tactics to show the reader what the FBI has the power to do to listen in our conversations that you arent even having on your cell phone but they are using the cell phone so, what you think is a normal conversation could be listened in on by the government. The author then uses the book "1984" to scare the readers of this article and the book by using the big brother idea that the government is watching over us all the time. This is relivant to our theme because peoples private onversations can be invaded by the government.
ReplyDeleteI feel the authors had a bias against the FBI's use of cell phone microphones. The first sentence, "Cell phone users, beware" points the bias out, as well as the mentioning of Rehbock's comment about Big Brother and Orwell's 1984. It's evident that the authors chose to interview who they did because they presented both sides of the argument. Also, the comments of the interviewees promote the bias that I believe the authors are trying to portray. This article was a great selection in regards to the course theme of public vs. private because it clearly portrays a way in which "the man" can invade our privacy at any given time, granted most of us have the newest cell phones which assuredly have these capabilities.
ReplyDelete