Ally Cummings

Martin

Essay 4

5/8/2017

Technology Isnt Worth It

It is no surprise to anyone, especially young people, that technology is always changing.

As a society, we tend to accept the fact that technology will always be around. It does not phase

us to see someone on his/her phone or laptop whether it is for social media use or

communicating with others. While today technology is a completely normalized tool, this does

not mean every new piece of technology to be introduced should be welcomed with open arms,

especially technology that could take invade privacy. Drones, or devices that are not directly

operated by a human, should be regulated so privacy is not taken away from home owners or any

individual. Professur A. Michael Froomkin is highly against the use of drones as he writes in a

portion of Should You Be Allowed to Prevent Drones From Flying Over Your Property?. He

believes that if drones are not highly regulated, they can very easily invade the privacy of any

human. Professor Froomkin is not alone in his thinking, Nicholas Carr, Daniel Solove and Adam

Gopnik, all agree that new technology is not always the best. Sometimes other factors become

more important than advancements in technology. Professor A. Michael Froomkin, in Should

You Be Allowed to Prevent Drones From Flying Over Your Property?, believes that an

invasion of privacy is not worth any of the helpful features that drones provide. Nicholas Carr,

Daniel Solove and Adam Gopnik agree with his statement because other forms of technology

create risks that they are not okay with either.

 Professor A. Michael Froomkin is a distinguished Law Professor at the University of

Miami School of Law. He attended Cambridge University and Yale Law School. His questions

the use of drones and is not particularly fond of the idea of the non-regulated use of them. He

believes they will invade privacy of individuals.

Nicholas Carr, a technology, business and culture author, is not a huge fan of potential

advancements in technology. His essay, Is Google Making Us Stupid? he is concerned with

Googles implantation in human brains, something Google has made clear that the company

wishes to achieve. It is clear he is concerned when he quotes Socrates fears about how the

written word would change the world and relates to them back to his ideas of Googles

technology, when he writes [Socrates] feared that, as people came to rely on the written work as

a substitute for the knowledge they used to carry inside their heads they would cease to

exercise their memory and become forgetful (Carr). Carr writes how Socrates was concerned

with the new developments in technology leading to forgetfulness. Carr related how Googles

potential implantation in brains would lead to similar actions and that would not be worth the

technological advances. He admits his fear when he writes Maybe Im just a worrywart (Carr

12). Though he jokes he knows he has reason to worry. With the new technology Google

presents, people will slowly have a decrease in memory, as he relates to Socrates. Carr does not

appreciate the new works in technology, because he values the human mind, and especially

memory, more than a possible helpful piece of technology. This can easily be related to Prof.

Froomkins fear of drones. Froomkin believes that drones, or new technology, are not worth the

lack of privacy, just as Carr believed that new technology was not worth the human brain. One
can understand Froomkins beliefs when he writes We should ignore the claims that the needs

to progress require that we allow drone overflights so that Americans can enjoy home delivery

They dont need to fly over private property (Froomkin 4). While Froomkin acknowledges that

it may be favorable to Americans for drones to home deliver, it is not nearly worth the price they

will be paying. Peace and privacy in ones own home, is much more important, Froomkin thinks,

than home delivery by drones. Both Carr and Froomkin do not believe the sacrifices for new

technology, including drones, is worth the advancements.

Daniel Solove, author of The End of Privacy? and Law Professor at the George

Washington University Law School, agrees with Professor Froomkins worries about how

technology, including, drones will affect privacy. In his article, Solove focuses mainly on social

media and the privacy and potential reputation of the youthful generation. Solove is very

concerned about how upcoming social media is just another way for the generations privacy to

be compromised. He knows that the progressive technology can potentially ruin a reputation

when he writes This openness means that the opportunities for members of Generation Google

might be limited because of something they did years ago as wild teenagers (Solove 3). The

openness Solove refers to is the large amount of information on the internet and social media, for

what he calls Generation Google, or the youthful generation. The amount of social media sites

and potential new personal information is only growing. The expansion of this technology

worries Solove as he considers the reputations that will be compromised. Ones reputation is a

very important thing and with advancements in technology, it can quickly be ruined. New

technology is not worth the possibility of the loss of ones reputation. Professor Froomkin also
understands how important reputation is and he thinks that non-regulated drones have a

possibility to diminish an individuals reputation. One can relate his belief of this when he admits

... drones can carry surveillance gear, and can be operated from long distances can film,

record sounds or listen in on Wi-Fi and other signals (Froomkin 2). Obviously drones can

manage a lot of possible ways to explore and with that comes all the eavesdropping drones can

do, anyones privacy will be invaded. If one privately says or acts in an embarrassing and a

drone records the act, the individuals reputation could be deeply hurt by what he/she did in

his/her own private time. A reputation lasts forever, and it is definitely not worth the features

drones provide. Solove and Froomkin both believe that new technology, inclusive of drones, is

not as important as keeping ones reputation and privacy intact.

Some disagree. Some find that drones will just be the new form of technology that will

one day be common. These people believe that with the right regulation, drones can be very

useful. Prof. Froomkin disagrees, at least until security laws are made. He writes If we give

drones overflight rights, every time you see one in the air you will have reason to fear it may be

spying on you (Froomkin). While these drones may be helpful and make advancements in

technology, these features do not outway the cost of potential limited privacy. Adam Gopnik,

author of How the Internet gets inside us and staff writer for the New Yorker, agrees that just

because technology, including drones, are helpful, their flaws should not go unnoticed, when he

writes If youre going to give the printed book, or any other machine-made thing, credit for all

the good things that have happened, you have to hold it accountable for the bad stuff, too

(Gopnik). Proponents of drones need to be looking at the invasion of privacy that is too great
right now. All the helpful features of drones do not override the fearfulness that a lack of privacy

would involve, according to Prof. Froomkin and Gopnik.

Professor A. Michael Froomkin, the author of part of the article Should You Be

Allowed to Prevent Drones From Flying Over Your Property? is a big proponent against the

non-regulated use of drones. He believes that drones compromise privacy and while some say

that drones have many helpful features, he believes that none of those features are as important

as privacy is. Professor Froomkin is not alone in this worriedness about technology, Nicholas

Carr, Daniel Solove and Adam Gopnik agrees that something are not worth being sacrificed for

technology.