Spiral of Silence

In 1974, the Spiral of Silence Theory was developed by Germal political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Nuemenn, in efforts to explain why groups or individuals appear silent, while others express opinions. It was concluded that this is a result of feeling oppressed in a scenario where ones' opinions in the minority opinion. However, when a group or individual is aware that their opinions are most popular, they are more likely to feel comfortable vocalizing them. Thus, I see this "spiral" as more of a cycle of developed oppression.  

This could be considered a good thing, on a large scale. Since primary school, we have all learned that there are strength in numbers. But, maybe that isn't always a good thing. Perhaps an unpopular opinion could be one that would incite violence and by not vocalizing that standpoint, people with extreme opinions are unlikely to congregate or generate power behind potential harmful ideas. However, the concept that this theory entails could be harmful to groups or individuals. Constructive change is made when people come together and take a stance. However, especially in this era, people are critical of others opinions, making some fearful to communicate a perceived change they’d like to see. Here is an easy example to understand this play out in a non-political way: I believe that using hand sanitizer during this time will have long term effects, that outweigh the benefit of using it. I believe that it is safer to wash you hands than to use hand sanitizer so often that it weakens our bodies' natural immune defense. Each time I have expressed this thought, I am inundated with dispute in every form. So, now I keep my mouth shut. However, what I have to say could be true and of value, but it is unpopular and thus shoved under the rug. 

Now, lets relate this theory to the minority populations around the world. Lack in numbers of those impacted by any given scenario, means minority opinions and lack of representation result in grand decisions being made in favor of the majority. Our of fear of opposition and learned oppression, minorities are less likely than the masses to vocalize opinions. 

Privacy: Uses and Abuses

For this weeks study, I was assigned to "freak out" about what I gathered about modern privacy based on a few TedTalks. I did, in fact, freak out. The first TedTalk I  viewed, was given by Juan Enriquez. I found it a bit difficult to follow, but what I took away was that the communication channels we use are essentially our "tattoos." By this, Enriquez meant that the information we post on the internet is permanent and attached to us, like a tattoo.

The second TedTalk, and to me the most shocking, was given by Catherine Crump in 2014. Crump provided detailed insight on ways the government uses surveillance technology to invade our personal lives. Local governments have the ability to gather patterns of information using technology like cell towers and license plate readers. Often, this file of information that is gathered on each person can later be used to make decisions about who officials think you are. Crump reminds us that, "Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it is not there," referring to surveillance technology. I was drawn to this statement in particular, as I personally had no idea that my local police department likely has a file of images of me and locations that I frequent. In any case, this information can be used for political advantage or blackmail. Thus, Crump offers a solution: push city councils to help eliminate local police departments' data gathering of individuals, while still using surveillance technology for legitimate purposes.

I next watched a talk given by Christopher Soghoian, in 2015. I found that he was communicating a similar warning to Crump, that we are being watched. However, this talk focuses on how our privacy can be invaded without leaving home. Telephone companies use surveillance fe atures, that mean at any time we could be listened to. However, many communication platforms use heavily encrypted technology to prevent wire tapping from not only the government, but hackers. This creates growing difficulty for the government and their capability to gather information on potential threats. However, as Soghoian states, it is best to use encrypted networks and protect private information, than to live in a world where governments and hackers have the potential to invade one's privacy.


In 2017, headlines were flooded with reports on how recordings from an Amazon Alexa played a role in proving the innocence of a murder suspect, and ultimately solving the case. I thought of this when Soghoian brought up how we are all being listened to, and compares the benefits with cost. While in this case the device, which was off, recording proved to be beneficial. However, Amazon handing over the recordings proved that they literally have a database of every sounds picked up from an Amazon Alexa, even when off. Sounds very Big Brother, to me.