Simson discusses positive points that make perfect sense in his article, but he also assumes false points, does not back them up with strong evidence, and makes logical fallacies throughout the article.
The author makes a good point in his article by explaining that the violation of privacy due to technology is not something new. He backs that point up by evidence of two Boston lawyers at the Harvard Law Review who argued that privacy was under attack by inventions and also business methods in 1890.
He makes another good point when he says that by being careful and informed consumers, people can keep technology from killing their privacy. The reason this is a good point is because if people are well informed and pay good attention on what they agree on, then they can save their privacy and their identities from being stolen.
Among the many weak evidence that the author relies on is a story of a friend whose preapproved credit cards that he threw in the trash got stolen and used by the robber. He blames technology for this incident while technology is not the actual reason that this happened.
Garfinkel also says that a “recent study” found that routine washing can cut down on disease transmission among workers but does not mention who conducted that study or how, or when he writes that “lots of studies” have proved that 24 percent of Americans have experienced a privacy invasion without mentioning any details of any of the studies.
Another weak evidence he uses is when he writes that “many researchers” say that people must relinquish some degree of privacy in order to enjoy the benefits or modern society, and that “according to some
Cited: Page Ferrara, Lucas. “Surveillance Equipment in Your Building.” 28 Oct. 2011. <http://cooperator.com/articles/1165/1/Surveillance-Equipment-in-Your Building/Page1.html> Young, Elizabeth. “The advantages and disadvantages of workplace monitoring.” 15 Dec. 2009. 28 Oct. 2011. <http://www.helium.com/items/1683022-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-of workplace-monitoring>