The Flight from Conversation

The Flight from Conversation was written by Sherry Turkle, who is the professor of the social studies of science and technology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The theme in the essay is about the ways people used in conversation. Some people spend communication with friends and family via texting and e-mail and posting while others prefer to talk with friends and family over the phone or face-to-face. She appeals to have more face-to-face communication.

Sherry gives a credibility topic. She starts this point from our daily life since people have conservation with others every day. But few people are well aware of the fact that we have less face-to-face conversation. In order to represent the problem and her position, she gives some examples in families and businessman who stay together, but texting and reading emails. Besides, They doesn't want to be interrupted.  In this case, we can say that people become accustomed to a new way of being "alone together ". In other words, mobile phone locks people into an isolated world. Also, since people are not willing to talk with someone face to face, the human relationships are losing. Therefore, the crisis of conversation is a serious problem should be concerned.

Sherry employs a lot of research about technologies of mobile connection as evidences in her arguments. She also gives her feelings and emotions to analysis her research. Specifically,   before the author states that technology can create illusion of companionship, she gives the fact that a robot can console a woman who lost child and asks the audiences some questions about this example. I can feel the excitement in these questions: Sherry is trying to describe and explain why people rely on machines so much!

The essay is generally logical. First, Sherry starts the problem from our daily and states the negative effects of texting connection. Second, she describes the values and advantages of face-to-face conversation. Third, she employs some research and study to explain the primary cause why so many people rely on technology. Finally, she fundamentally rejects the texting connection and appeal to her position again. 

Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have 'Nothing to Hide'

Why Privacy Matters Even If You have "Nothing to Hide" was written by Daniel J. Solove, who is  currently John Marshall Harlan research professor of law at the George Washington University Law School. In the beginning of the essay, the author state the topic that if people should care about their privacy when the government gathers or analyzes personal information. Many people are not worried because they think they have got nothing to hide, and believe once they should worry only if they did something wrong. However, Daniel holds opposite opinion that people should pay attention to their privacy even if they have nothing to hide, the government can cause you lot of harm....

I generally agree with the author before I read the essay. Everyone is a distinctive individual because everyone has his or her own stories. And everyone has personal secrets which are significant in some cases. We should give ourselves and others private space. Although the fact that "if you have nothing to hide, then that quite literally means you are willing to let me photograph you  naked? And I get full rights to that photograph－so I can show it to your neighbors?" is pretty extreme, we have to admit nearly no one could have nothing to hide.

In order to prove that privacy is still should be concerned, Daniel declares the government in formation gathering programs are problematic though no information that people want to hide is uncovered, he gives four harms caused by this type of data collection the government used. They are aggregation, exclusion, guilt by association, and distortion. Take the aggregation as an example, since the program collects our living activities, it can also connect these information and then come out some results. These results may cover our personal secrets that we refuse to share. The author give assumption the support the point: if you bought a book about cancer, that won't raise any flags, but if you bought a wig as well, that suggest your are undergoing chemotherapy which may not want to be known. Moreover, he also gives a lot of assumptions in the end of essay to persuade the audiences such as "What if government considers you are engage in a criminal act due to your activities by mistake. 

In conclusion, Daniel did good job in this essay. Mostly he introduces and explains his points based on our social life. Also, not only does he argue directly for his position with reasonable evidence, but anticipates the opposing argument. For instance, Daniel uses the Orwell metaphor, which focus on the harms of surveillance, to stated the importance of government gathering system. Besides, he explained the shortages of the system, which indirectly and credibly convinced the readers. Therefore, anticipating the opposing arguments may also help us prove our points in some case.