Cell Phones and Privacy

Question:

In the old days pay phone booths were a common sight and you could use one and retain your anonymity if desired. Today they are a rare sight and most people use cell phones.

Prepaid cell phone service can protect privacy. One can buy a phone for cash and pay cash in advance for service. There are no billing records, and records of calls made on the phone are not linked to the owner. Cell phone carriers and governments in a few countries have considered ending prepaid phone service because criminals use it to avoid law enforcement agencies who can not trace them. What are some legitimate uses for prepaid cell phones? Should prepaid cell phones be banned or otherwise controlled by law (i.e. require cell phone users to register their prepaid cell phones so they can be tracked)? Give your reasons.

Answer:

Some legitimate uses for cell phones could be if someone cannot afford a regular phone and cannot afford the monthly bills. Prepaid phones are very inexpensive and can be paid for whenever you have the money for it because you pay for your minutes before hand. If you don't use your phone often and only need to contact a few people here and there, then prepaid phones could be very economical. I don't think that prepaid cell phones should be banned by law because of the people who can't or don't need to pay for their phones monthly. I feel like requiring prepaid cellphones  to have a registration by the owner could work and I would not have a problem with that. I feel like doing that would help the problems with prepaid cell phones because you would be able to track them just like any other cellphone to prevent criminals from staying anonymous. 

Location Tracking

Question:
Veterinarians implant computer chips into pets and farm animals to identify and track them if they get lost. Some people suggest doing so for children. Discuss the privacy implications of such proposals. What are the risks? Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Do parents have the right to have the chips implanted in their young children? How about in their teenage children? If there was a bill in Congress to require ID chips in children under the age of 5, would you support it? Why or why not? What about tracking seniors who are forgetful or who have alzheimer's? Although they are not implanted in the body, GPS Shoes are being marketed right now for this purpose. 

Answer:

I think implanting computer chips into small children is ridiculous. I feel that it is unnecessary and and big problem with privacy. I feel like some of the risks are having the chip be stuck in you and have to get it surgically removed or something of that sort. I feel like once you get older you wouldn't want to be tracked wherever you are, you would want some privacy. I wouldn't  feel the need to track my children and I feel like you shouldn't have to either. I don't think the benefits outweigh the risks because I think the benefits are unnecessary. I also don't think that parents don't have the right to implant chips into there children's bodies, it should be there own decision especially with teenagers, because I think that their old enough to know where they are and to have their own privacy. I would not support the bill to require ID chips in children under five because there is no need for it. We have lived fine without them for ll these years so why try and do it now. It'a a big invasion of privacy. I feel like the best way to track anyone is with cellphones and anyone who has one can be tracked anyways. The shoes idea is good too because it works for the people who don't have phones and the senior citizens who have Alzheimer's.

Description

CS-408 Section 1
Living in a Networked World
Proffessor Ellen Hepp
Assignment 3
Part A
2/13/13