How Private is your Genetic Information?

    There are many companies, such as 23andMe and ancestry.com, that will allow you to send in your DNA in exchange for information about your lineage and certain traits about you. However, is this always a good idea?
    There have been occasions where these DNA databases have been hacked.  It was announced earlier this month that more than 92 million accounts from the genealogy and DNA testing service MyHeritage were found on a private server. DNA data, specifically, was not taken, but a hack in this space is still concerning.
    Surprisingly, a majority of people who submit . All of these companies make clear that they will not share your DNA with any third-party unless you explicitly consent to it, but as 23andMe data shows, the vast majority of consumers opt in — at 23andMe, more than 80 percent. Ancestry and Veritas do not provide data on the opt-in percentage.
    A spokeswoman from 23andMe said “if customers don’t consent, none of their data is shared."
    Here is a website with more information on the risks of participating in these tests.
 

On Cord Cutting

    The phenomenon of cord cutting is wide spread in our generation. The idea of paying hundreds of dollars a month for cable TV is a thing of the past. Cable is being replaced at a record rate with streaming services and, occasionally, the use of traditional antennas. 
     There are many advantages to cord cutting besides the price. The ability to have access to TV shows and movies at any time, any day is a very valuable thing. Also, there are many original series on these streaming services, such as Strangers Things on Netflix and the Mandalorian on Disney+.
    Unfortunately, in order to have access to all the content you would have to pay a  very large sum of money. With Disney+, Netflix, Hulu, ESPN and many others, we are almost returning to the systems that were in place before we started cord cutting.

The Overton Window and the Spiral of Silence

     Who determines public opinon? That is a great question, and it has a lot to do with two theories: the Overton Window and the Spiral of Silence.

     The Overton window is named after Joseph P. Overton, The theory states that an idea's political viability depends mainly on whether it falls within this range of acceptable opinions. It has historically been described as a spectrum from "more free" to "less free" with regard to government intervention to avoid comparison with the left-right political spectrum. Recently, however, it has been dragged into the polarized world we live in.

     The Spiral of Silence is based on the idea that a social group or society in general might isolate, neglect, or exclude members due to the member's opinions. 

Individuals have a fear of isolation, and this fear of isolation consequently leads to remaining silent instead of voicing opinions. Unfortunately, the assessment of one's social environment may not always correlate with reality. Public opinion is a process of formation, change, and reinforcement.
     Joe Lehman continued Overton’s work after his death in 2003, being the man who actually coined the term “Overton Window.” It has been told that he “weaponized” it, setting up training sessions on the concept for other right-leaning think tankers. Joe Trevino, on the Overton Window, said “Step by step, ideas that were once radical or unthinkable—homeschooling, tuition tax credits, and vouchers—have moved into normal public discourse. The conscious decision to shift the Overton Window is yielding its results.”

   Here's a link to a presentation I made relevant to this topic.

My Online Presence

   I had a question; when I google "Noah Sigsworth," what would come up, and what would it show about me? As I was about to find out, more than I thought.
   As an individual, I have a rather large online footprint. When you google my name, not only do my several social media accounts pop up (including specific posts,) but pictures of myself appear as well. There are 220 results for my name. There is a vimeo account (empty,) my YouTube channel with several videos, my twitter account, my Instagram, and my Facebook account. I do not have a personal website.
   Luckily, I have been careful over the years with my social media accounts and do not have any apparent regrettable posts or online associations. The old Facebook profiles of me do look slightly unfortunate, but that was really just how I looked back then (puberty and a haircut helped my appearance out quite a bit.)
   By viewing my online results, you could learn:

• I am a music and Strategic Communications major at High Point University, and I went to Revere High School.
• I have been a member of The Cadets drum and bugle corps, high school marching band, and several musicals.
• I have an active twitter and facebook account.
• I was a Millis Scholar my freshman year.

   Generally, none of this information is negative. I will continue to be careful with maintaining my online image.

  

Rodger's Diffusion of Innovation

   The diffusion of innovation theory is an observation on the adoption of certain technologies and ideas throughout a populous.

    Though the graph describing the phenomenon shows the "market share" for any technology to reach 100%, this is not always the case, even with technologies and ideas that we assume are universal today. Not every home in American has indoor plumbing, clean water, electricity, or the internet. Not every American believes in those who are not men or not white voting, or believes that the Earth is round. 
    An example of a recent technology on this chart could be email. In the beginning, email was only used by government agencies and large corporations where it was most useful, as it was still primitive and difficult to use. These were the innovators. Next were those who used it for more medium-sized inter-business communications, and the occasional person using the email for personal communication. These are the early adopters. The early majority are those who began using email in the early 2000s via aol.com or Hotmail, who used email rarely for specific circumstances, but happily used it for both personal and electronic communications. After that are the late majority, who likely  are younger people or those who got emails when Gmail came out- at this point, email is being used for thousands of purposes, and over a majority of the country uses it. Lastly are the laggards. These are people who will likely never use email for a variety of reasons. They may not be comfortable with computers, not have internet access, or be wary of people tracking what they send to people. It is these laggards who will prevent the market share from truly reaching 100%.

The Value of a Safety Valve in a Free Society

     In any society, one is bound to find factions of the population with different opinions on how governments, businesses, and people's personal lives should function. In a society without relatively unrestricted freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, and freedom of the press, it would be difficult to get those ideas out of your system without organizing a large scale coup or revolution if the government did not approve of your beliefs. This "safety valve," so to speak, of the First Amendment is on of the most valuable aspects of it.
     Society is likely to much much more stable when angry and alienated citizens are allowed to vent. It has been said that people will be less likely to resort to violence.  This freedom of unpopular or angry ideas also allows the government to monitor and follow those with radical ideas, as they do not need to explicitly hide from the government. This also allows for change that a majority of the people believe in to be heard, and prevents societies from stagnating and prevents the need for revolution. Thomas Emerson is quoted as saying, referring to a society that suppresses dissent, "by suppressing reform, censorship may transform problems into a revolution." 

Right to Record Police Officers Protected by First Amendment

        It is known that America's police have been under heavy scrutiny in recent years due to unfortunate incidents involving  many police officers and unarmed American citizens. This has caused many to begin the act of recording police officers during any type encounter, with or without their consent. Oftentimes, states have laws against recording people without their consent. But how does the First Circuit interpret this specific circumstance?

       Recently, it has been decided that this kind of behavior is protected by the first amendment. Not only has the first circut confirmed this, but also five other circuits in Massachusetts. Not only has the right to audio record police been upheld, but also the right to record video of police as well. This is essential in order to capture police misconduct. To read more, click here.