Choose one of the topics below and compose an essay that answers the set of questions asked
1. Robert Scheer suggests that the rise of information technologies (IT) and the ways that these can be used have created the framework for a surveillant state where any semblance of democracy will soon be impossible. Critically analyze how Scheer comes to this conclusion. Summarize what has been happening in computing and IT that allows data to be collected and stored by private firms, the government, or both. Use specific examples from the text and from lectures. How does compilation and control of this data threaten the American system according to the author? Can there be any democracy without privacy, and is privacy at risk in the United States, or is it already gone? What does Scheer think, and what do you say?
2. Theorist Giorgio Agamben states: “The camp is the space that opens up when the state of exception starts to become the rule” (Means without End, 2000: 39). While Agamben’s analysis focuses on real, territorial spaces that define the boundaries of this camp, it was suggested in lectures that the camp might also be looked at as a virtual space where society (or individuals within society) has engaged in a form of self-incarceration. Using They Know Everything About You as a guide, analyze the ways that we might indeed find ourselves part of the camp, and critically evaluate what the boundaries of that camp might be. In lectures, for instance, the concept of schizophrenia (borrowed from Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari) was used to suggest that we are trapped psychologically and that we find escape difficult, if not impossible; Gerald Raunig’s concept of the dividual was used to suggest that we are split into a “rear and digitized version of ourselves. Is this what traps us? Can we ever get out? If so, how? If not, what does this entail for society and for the idea of freedom? In answering, consider the title of Robert Scheer’s fourth chapter: “Privacy is Freedom.”
A quarter century back, Michel J. Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, and Joji Watanuki recognized an "emergency of majority rules system" which painted the "depressing future for… government" A quarter century back, Michel J. Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, and Joji Watanuki distinguished an "emergency of majority rule government" which painted the "hopeless future for … government" as a picture of "the crumbling of common request, the breakdown of social order, the debility of pioneers, and the estrangement of residents" (Crozier 2). While this vision of the downfall of popular government seems outrageous, there has been a sensational drop in people in general's trust in lawmakers and political gatherings as of late which has brought about an open upsetting with the administration. A developing distrust among the British open has switched the conventional regard to political elites, and voters rush to voice their feelings on strategy and government officials alike. The developing discontent with the pessimism of political talk, and an absence of trust in the viability of the legislature recommends that voter withdrawal and disappointment is a danger to the security of the administration, and government officials must observe and reconnect with their open. Albeit many rush to accuse the lack of concern of voters or the sentimentalist media on voter incredulity, inquire about financed by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) has discovered that charges of wrongdoing against individual legislators are in charge of the decrease in trust in the administration and lawmakers (Denholm). Voter lack of concern is an aftereffect of the developing impression of embarrassment among the tip top individuals from all the primary political gatherings, bringing about a lack of engagement in governmental issues when all is said in done and a negative estimation of legislators themselves. Because of this developing question, a progression of Parliamentary boards of trustees in the 1990s inspected issues of political defilement, morals, and maltreatment of crusade back controls. The boards found that impression of government officials as conniving and self-intrigued get to a limited extent from chatter in regards to singular individuals from the tip top, which raises open uneasiness about the principles of conduct of the political world class. The Committee on Standards in Public Life, built up by the Prime Minister in 1994, is proof itself of the mounting worries of people in general. The prologue to the Committee's first report states: We can state that lead out in the open life is more thoroughly investigated than it was previously, that the models which the general population requests stays high, and that the considerable lion's share of individuals in broad daylight life meet those elevated requirements. Be that as it may, there are shortcomings in the strategies for keeping up and upholding those norms. Accordingly individuals out in the open life are not generally as clear as they ought to be about where the limits of adequate direct lie. This we sees as the standard explanation behind open disturb (Whetnall). The decrease in trust and the relating drop in voter action isn't because of long haul social powers, yet to later political issues, for example, charges of scum in the mid Nineties. Be that as it may, it is difficult to pinpoint later political outrages as the sole reason for the drop in people in general's trust of legislators. There is the apparent absence of contrast in the major political gatherings after the general decision of 1997, which added to bring down voter turnout and general disregard. Giddens (1998) has contended that contemporary Britain requires a legislative issues free from sharp ideological division and antagonistic clash as a reaction to worldwide patterns, for example, globalization, detraditionalisation, expanded reflexivity, and another independence (368). This 'governmental issues without enemy' is an endeavor to interest a more extensive scope of casting a ballot open, yet as a general rule has estranged a great part of people in general and raises questions in regards to the validity of the gathering and lawmaker belief system. In a meeting led by Weltman and Billig (2001), a Conservative councilor recommends that the left/right qualification isn't longer fit for mapping the social and political world in light of the fact that the shapes of current society have adjusted. Solicited whether he by and large thinks from different individuals from the board as far as 'left' or 'right', he says that he 'could have utilized those words with more sense ten years prior, both as far as distinctive individuals, councilors, and as far as states of mind's (Weltman and Billig 373). One can construe from this meeting contemporary governmental issues are separating into a non-ill-disposed type of legislative issues, one with which general society can't distinguish and can't trust to order critical change. Through an examination of the social and political occasions which have formed the present open doubt of lawmakers and political gatherings, one can conclude that a significant part of the present disillusionment in legislative issues and government officials is established without accessible political spaces for the general population. There are few practices or organizations which can react to issues of open intrigue and political contradiction, and to divert the popular conclusion in a powerful and significant way. At present, Britain is confronting open trouble over the possibility of joining the European Union and the harmonizing single market economy, alongside the challenges against the association of Britain in the war in Iraaq. Whatever the explanations for the drop out in the open trust in the legislature, what is clear is that the British government needs to reconsider its association with people in general in the light of an obtrusive media, new innovation, a superior instructed open, and an unavoidable culture of negativity. New innovation, for example, the web, offers lawmakers the chance to make an association without-of-touch voters and offers better approaches for preparing and recording well known conclusion, an open door which couple of government officials have taken. We are entering another period of governmental issues, in which the old belief systems of 'left' and 'right', open and private, moral and unethical, are separating. People in general, distanced from this new 'legislative issues without enemies' and frustrated at the untrustworthy conduct of individual legislators, has communicated their loss of trust in the administration. It stays up to the legislators themselves to win back the certainty of people in general. Book index Crozier, M., A. Huntington, and J. Watanuki (1975) The emergency of majority rule government, New York: New York University Press Denholm, A. (2004) Public trust in government officials hit by scum asserts, The Scotsman, Tuesday 25 May. Giddens, A. (1998) The third way: The recharging of social majority rules system. Cambridge: Polity. Pharr, S. (2000) 25 years of declining certainty, Journal of Democracy vol. 11, no. 2, April: pp. 5-25. Weltman, D. furthermore, M. Billig (2001) The political brain science of contemporary enemy of legislative issues: A desultory way to deal with the finish of-belief system time, Political Psychology vol. 22, no. 2: 367-382. Whetnall, A. (1995) The administration of morals and direct in the general population benefit [online]. Contextual investigation discharged by the Cabinet Officer, Office of Public Service, United Kingdom. Accessible from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/21/2731894.htm [Accessed 15 March 2005] Refer to This Work To send out a reference to this article please select a referencing eye blister beneath:>GET ANSWER