GET OUT YOU THING!!!!!!!

       In Jeroen van den Hoven's essay "Nanotechnology and Privacy: The Instructive case of RFID," Hoven argues that the violation of privacy can lead to harm in many different ways. The violation of privacy in this sense can lead to cases of  identity theft, rape, and even in some cases the invasion of privacy may even lead to death. Hoven explains that if we were to put these little chip devices (formally known as RFID chips or "Contactless Technology") into every single thing that is owned, these chips will violate our privacy rights in many different way eventually leading to the harm of many people. Although it sounds like a very bright idea to some of us, like for example if a burglar walks into your home and attempts to steal from your home, those items can be tracked down and in some cases when the items are moved out of its place an alarm will sound hopefully causing the burglar to run in fear. As for the other side who feels like the chips are a bad idea, the thought of it makes them cringe in fear of their privacy. One example that Hoven gave us in his essay was the concept of Information-based harm. In this example we see that having these chips would be very dangerous as to who we are as a person. Meaning not only will our privacy be invaded, but also our protection will be doomed as well. These chips are indeed a form of technology that can be hacked by possibly anyone at any give time.For example, if a killer was after you, having these chips would put you in harms of the killer simply because the killer now has the ability to hack into the data bases of this flawed chip and find out exactly where we are.  Another example that Hoven uses is Informational Injustice. Say that someone has a very serious and contagious disease and they walk into a public library and they proceed to check out several books detailing their serious disease. Because the book buyer has this chip implanted in them, this simple research book is now on that persons file. They know this and so does the librarian. Although it is wrong, the librarian now has the right to treat that person different because they now know their business. In most cases even refusing service to the book buyer. This in any case is morally wrong.

       In my honest view, in some ways I do feel like our privacy rights are somewhat violated. If we are chipped with the RFID chips, everything about us is accessibly on file to possibly anyone at any given time. If these things also have cameras in them, how do we know that person who is monitoring these chips are some sort of a pervert. Now even we go to the shower we are being watched by some strange Peeping Tom. Our rights will be violated greatly to some extent. Another example, a murderer breaks into the chip system and comes after their victim which would be way easier seeming how this chip knows every single detail about us. In both cases our privacy is violated and we are put into harms way. I feel that there should be some sort of restrictions on both private and public privacy. We should only be monitored in public, but in our private lives... of course not! Private and public differ greatly. Private is our lives, and public is basically the world seeing every single thing that we do. Although there is a line, I strongly feel like that line is very thin.