Source Protection and Privacy

Welcome to my sandbox. Test.

Article Evaluation #1 - Privacy + Information Privacy

Most of the information in the article is relevant to the article topic. One thing that distracted me was the inclusion of the Safe Harbor program and passenger name record. While it is related to the topic it seemed to be an abrupt transition after the discussion on types of information. Though, it may be useful to demonstrate the international dynamics at play with regards to privacy. one thing that could be improved is contrasting information privacy across different nations as the article only mentions it briefly in its section section, "Legality."

The article seems to have a biased tone with a particular position. One claim that struck me as slanted is the section under "Improving privacy through individualization." In this section, they offer a statement on how computer privacy can be improved followed by a solution from researchers. Other claims on the page provide scholarly references at least once per paragraph.

The article is part of the WikiProject for Computing, Internet, and Mass surveillance and is given a rating of "C High." Some conversation in the talk page address some biased claims in the article such as "information should be free." Additionally, other discussions suggest to further contextualize the page with international examples. Other discussion includes how to best categorize the article between different names such as "Information security" versus "Information privacy."

Article Evaluation #2 - Privacy + Google Street View privacy concerns

Everything in the article is relevant to the topic. One thing that I found distracting was how the public concerns were discussed interchangeably with the legal concerns of Google Street view. The way it was written made it seem that the public concern was equal to legal concerns, when they may be very separate issues of different magnitudes. The information provided all falls within the past decade, which is relatively recent with the advent of the Google Street View capabilities. I think the public concern conversation could be better distinguished from the legal concerns. While the article spends a lot of text talking about legal implications, it mentions public concerns briefly which blurs the lines between the two for me.

The article appears to be critical of Google Street View -- though it is entitled "Google Street View Privacy Concerns." Naturally, these concerns are not in support of Google Street View. The article seems to provide a balanced amount of information about the U.S., Europe, and other countries that are impacted by Google Street View. I think a viewpoint that is underrepresented is the "every day citizen" point of view. There is heavy legal language and concerns of nations and countries, but little mention of ways in which families and citizens are affected.

A vast amount of the sources are news and popular media. However, there is inclusion of official government and ministry reports from countries who are debating the use of Google Street View. The links to support the claims in the article and also help provide more context for each country's privacy concerns. This article does have appropriate and reliable sources that backs up every statement in the page.

Conversations on the talk page range from clarification on technical terms to fixing links that did not work before. One person even asks for clarification on a foreign country's experience with Google technology. The article is rated as "B-class, Low importance" and is a part of the WikiProject for Internet, Maps, and Google. The conversation may be similar to one we may have in class. It relies on credible sources and also touches on the social implications of technology. It explicitly centers the "concerns" regarding the technology, and provides several global experiences.