Two Perspectives. One Topic.

My first source talks about some of the legal problems that mass data collection presents. Things like using data from wearable technology in court cases to help prove someone’s innocence or guilt. It talks about how this situation raises issues from personal privacy (Who owns your data and can a court demand to see that data?) t0 accuracy issues (If you’ve been tapping your foot in your room a tracker may think you’ve been walking all day which could cause your alibi to be refuted.). This article cites a very recent court case where data from wearable technology was used, and speculates about potential (usually legal) consequences of this new technology in the future.

My second source is an academic paper that deals with privacy in the digital age. It talks about what is referred to as ‘the internet of things’ and how it along with wearable technology could impact our security and privacy. This paper talks about very similar issues to my first source but with a more broad focus on security and privacy instead of just impacts in the judicial system. This source is also a scientific paper which gives it much more academic credibility than the first source.

I think both of these sources will complement each other giving opinions of both a regular person and a scientist on the same topic: impacts wearable technology will have on our security in the future.


 

References

Mearian, L. (2014, December 8). Data from wearable devices could soon land you in jail. Computerworld.

Thierer, A. D. (2015, February 18). The internet of things and wearable technology: Addressing privacy and security concerns without derailing innovation. Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, 21.

One thought on “Two Perspectives. One Topic.

  1. Great sources, Johnny. It sounds like these papers will give you both concrete examples and theoretical approaches. You’ll want to be careful with the term “scientific” though–the second paper looks to be paper about policy coming out of a university think tank, and written up in a law journal. “Academic” may be a better term here. It’s actually looks like this journal may not be peer-reviewed–that doesn’t mean it’s not valid, but it does mean you need to be careful how you frame the article.

    Half of this assignment was to compose works cited entries for the sources, so there’s a bit missing here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *