Annotated Bibliographies

Academic Summary

 Henley, Nicole. “Mannequin Eyes Are Watching You.” Techcrunch.com. 14 August 2013. HubPages. 28 August 2013.
      In the article, “Mannequins Eyes Are Watching You” Nicole Henly is a researcher on public disturbances such as, mannequins with facial scanners in them. She asserts that the EyeSee mannequin makes shoppers feel that adding in facial recognition technology to stores without consent of the customers is going to be too much for the shoppers. Henly describes how the mannequins have the capability to distinguish your age, gender, and race just from scanning your face one time; even if your face is covered with a scarf. The author reports that the EyeSee mannequin is an Italian made product that scans your face to help businesses’ prosper compared to others. She then describes the mannequins pricing, and how they are an invasion of privacy to most or some shoppers. Henly describes that the mannequins actually look like mannequins, serve the purpose of mannequins, and have cameras located behind one eye that uses facial recognition to scan any bystander that walks past the mannequin. This article is credible and written at a non-bias point of view. The author writes strictly from the facts, and notices each side. The author’s purpose is to educate consumers about the possible risks and benefits of Almax’s EyeSee mannequin’s. Some customers might feel that it is an invasion of privacy, while others might be hung up that is helps the business in the long run is how some customers feel. Nicole Henly’s work is important because Henly’s work clarifies what exactly these mannequins can and cannot do such as, configure your age, race, and gender just from one scan, but they cannot hold memory inside of the camera. Readers should care because these mannequins are slowly but surely being incorporated into the United States stores, and in the future that will be what we will have to deal with when shopping in a public mall. While Henly doesn’t describe everything we need know, she describes what these mannequins are, and what they are used for.
 Evaluations On Sources 

Lee, Nicole. “EyeSee mannequins used to spy on shoppers, confirm paranoid fears.” Engadget.com. 20 Nov 2012. Engad. 28 August 2013. . 
       In the article, “EyeSee mannequins used to spy on shoppers, confirm paranoid fears” the author Nicole Lee reports that EyeSee mannequins have cameras placed behind one eye, and that the camera scans your face to find out basic information about any person including the following: Hair color, eye color, race, age, or gender. The authors purpose is too inform shoppers that mannequins are being used in stores, and are using facial recognition for the company’s person business. Nicole Lee’s work is important because Lee’s work extends and clarifies what the EyeSee mannequins can actually do. Readers should care because the mannequins are not used for any actual meaning besides to help the stores, and they are doing it without customer’s permission. The mannequins are slowly being incorporated into the United Sates, and soon enough shoppers’ are going to be faced with them everywhere. 

 Arroyo, Gus. "Public Video Surveillance Is Not Intrusive." Ic.galegroup.com. 2006. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. 21 Sept. 2013. . 
       In the article, “Public Video Surveillance is not Intrusive” the author’s purpose is to try and persuade readers that public video surveillance is not invading anyone’s personal privacy. He does this by giving examples of the following: criminals that have been caught from the cameras, giving statistics about how public cameras help prevent crimes, legal matters, and some implications about public video surveillance. The author, Gus Arroyo’s work is important because Arroyo’s work challenges that video surveillance is not intrusive. Readers should care because it gives good points against the topic of, cameras are an invasion of privacy, but it also gives the benefits of having this type of public video surveillance. The article gives readers a valid reason as to why some people are for video surveillance, and why others might be against it. Not only did Gus explain how public video surveillance is not invading privacy, but he also gave key information about how it possibly can be an invasion of someone’s privacy. 

 Miller, Greg. "New Technologies Are Not a Threat to Privacy." Ic.galegroup.com. 2004. Opposing Viewpoints In Context. 21 Sept. 2013. .
       In the article, “New Technologies Are Not a Threat to Privacy” the authors purpose is too investigate on how new technologies do not invade privacy. Author Seth Godin does just this by explaining that privacy crimes happen without technology and with the increase of data it is a lot harder to hack online information. He also explains that for some hackers the internet makes it easier because the user is the one who gives out the information. He basically explains how it is not always the internet or technology that causes problems, but the user. Seth Godin’s work is important because Godin’s work clarifies that technology actually makes it harder to hack, and get into your privacy. His work is also important because is gives good reasoning, and statistics about how technologies help and hurt the privacy of the common man. Readers should care because knowing that technology makes hacking harder most people are going to want to be involved with our new technology which will help better the United States, and possibly help solve the issue of identity theft. 

       Turner, Michael. "Technology Should Not Be Blamed for All Privacy Threats." Ic.galegroup.com 2009. Opposing Viewpoints in Context. 21 September 2013. .
       In the article, “Technology Should Not Be Blamed for All Privacy Threats” author Michael Turner examines technology versus reality. Turner does this by explaining the common mans security and privacy, and then explaining the reality about technology actually doing something that “hurts” someone. He basically explains that technology does not do anything it is the people that get a hold of it that do bad things with it. While technology can help enhance the situation, it does not cause anything. Turners work is important because Turners work illustrates clearly that technology rarely does anything to threaten anyone’s privacy. Readers should care because this clarifies that people cannot always directly blame technology for things that happen, but t they defiantly need to be wary about the people who get a hold of information that is someone’s privacy. Before this article was written, technology was mostly blamed for everything. This article helped to clarify that not only should technology not be blamed for all privacy threats, but if you think it is there a key points to look into about technology actually being a threat to privacy.