zettabvtes of digital information

Read each article and answer the questions in the “lets discuss” section at the end of each one.  Each essay should be 1-1.5 pages long. Combine all essays into 1

document but start each essay by titling each one, Example:

In 3010, humans added 1.2 zettabvtes of digital information to information they accumulate includes everything from our buy-
ihe mirld s already huge data library. A zettabyte equals 1 trillion ing habits to our web-surfing patterns.
gigabytes-a quantity which, if placed on DVDs, would require As these technologies increase the power to monitor our
a stack of disks stretching to the moon and back. By 2020, the behavior, they raise fears of their misuse for criminal or even
size of this imaginary DVD tower will triple, quadruple, or even undemocratic purposes. In short, they threaten not just our pn}
quintuple ‘’ :CUhido 2010). vacy, but our freedom from crime and censorship as well. Some
Within this mound of data lies personal information about obvious violations of privacy, such as identity theft-the mis-
peopleis finances, health, and individual tastes. In the post- use of credit card and Social Security numbers to masquerade
modern digital age, do people have a right to keep that kind as another person-have been well documented. Other n’ola-
of information private? If so, can they expect others to respect tions involve online surveillance of dissident political groups by
that right? authoritarian regimes and the unauthorized release of classified
government documents. In 2010, VVikiLeaks released thousands
L2 7» – ‘ ‘ E’-‘7. l$5U€ of classified U.S. foreign policy documents on its website, caus-
ougir. rr;’a.:«:l1 of the sweeping change that accompanied the ing some people to condemn the action as treasonous and others
tra: d§g?ta’s media has benefited society, scholars have to praise it as a blow against government censorship (O’Harros~’
effects. In particular, recent advances in Ir. 2005).
made it increasingly easy for business Other privacy violations are subtler, and not strictly ille-
private individuals. In public places, at tracking technology to monitor visitors’ websurfing. Using that
3;’;-vsrriet, surveillance devices track our every information, marketers can estimate a visitor’s age, gender, and
1 is a keystroke or an ATM withdrawal. The zip code, and from that data, the person’s income. The)” can then
since global conglomerates manage many different plrp) uclt names.
I 7
Consider Time Warner(HBO,ClN,AOL»77″“ an f-VP” “lag? A I . S _ I
zines); Rupert Murdochs News Corporation, founded in Australia pp Ymg. oclo Ogy ‘ I
(Fox Network T313‘-i5iog,se’eralbook pUbllSh€rS,’llun1.€I‘oUS news- Concentration of ownership is not unique to the media (think
papers and magazines, MySpace.com, Second Lite nrtual world, about aircralt and automobile manufacturers). However. the
and 2oth Century pox); gonyofjapan (Columbia Pictures,IMAX, media deserve special attention given the Vmy they tilter oiir
CBS Records, and Columbia Records); and Vlacovm/CBS (Par’ct- View ot reality. New media technologies also form the lnisis tor
mount,DreamWorks SKG.MTV, and Black EntertziinmentTelevi- groiip membership and networking, making thcni a powertiil
sion), and the extent oftheir power becomes clear. I . ‘ influence on today s society.
Similar concerns have been raised about the situation in p Functionalists seemedia concentration-ortlie coiisolidaition
countries such as China. Cuba» Iraq-3“d_ N°‘”h }‘_€’re“‘where ‘he of “W b“_S‘“°S5″‘15 *1 SWP toward greater ecoiioinic el‘l‘iciciit‘.”-
ruling party owns and controls the media. T he ditference, which ln their view, consolidation reduces the cost of operatioiis. free
is considerable, is that in the Unitedhsltates the gatekeeping pro- ing capital for the development of new creative outlets. l3iirtlii’I‘-
cess lies in the hands of private indi’tdualS._~’l1oS€ 11111111 deflre more, they believe that global trade in the nicdiai tacilitiites Elk‘
is to maximize profits. ln totalitarian countries, the gatekeepiiig tree exchange of intellectual property, whi.;li is nth-it h;iiiipL’11’*l
process belongs to political leaders, whose desire is to niaintain by arbitrary local restrictioiis ((Irote-iiii and Hoyiies 2006)-
controlof the government. ‘ I (.onllict theorists believe that media coiiceiitratioii stillu‘-*
~’g should noteoiie significant exception tothe centralization opporttiiiities for niinoriiy i,“,,k.rShip_ According to mi. iiiost
and concentration ot the media: the lnternet. “loday, more and recent l-CL data. less than 4 percent oi‘ i¢in.isii,,i gtiititiiis in thv
more people receive their media content through theplnternet. United Staitesatreiiiviied by rm_.mi and mum. n‘im,rim.,~;1t-ss tlin”
The World Wide Web is now accessible to millions ot produc~ S percent are owned hv woincn. l. ~ .- , , , . . . u.i.icri’ci1
I _ , linoiity owiicrs art I
ers of media content, through indepeiiclentotitlets. Obviously, reseiitetl even in iiiarkets whcrc lninnmics nmki- up the iiiiijoI‘11,”
3 the producer must be technologically prolicient and must have ol the audieiice (S. Tiiriier and Coohcr 2()()6).

PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT 🙂