The basis of privacy has been of utmost concern in our world today.

In Kirn’s assertion,
he discusses how the invasion of our privacy doesn’t solely come from large
companies, but rather the smaller groups. His assertion is relatively correct with the fact
that it doesn’t solely come from big groups, however, rather than smaller groups and
even ourselves. With the advancement of technology today with things such as
computers, internet, phones, and television, the amount of privacy we have has been
diminishing over time. Privacy invasion isn’t mainly caused by big corporations, it is
caused by us unknowingly. That being said, there is still quite a bit of privacy invasion
caused by major companies. It has become a social norm that we share our privacy
with the world nowadays. With the influence of social media, and the similarities of
1984, we know that our privacy has been lessening with the more we become
connected online.

The influence of social media has greatly diminished our amount of privacy throughout
the years. As we decide to become more “online” and decide to post more about our
lives, we are actively giving up our privacy. When something is posted online, it can
never be fully deleted. It will be there forever and ever. Many people will post on
Instagram or Facebook many personal things, such as their location, feelings, activities,
and more. This can cause issues with boundaries, privacy boundaries. It is imperative to
have a difference between what is acceptable to put online and what is overreaching.
As social media becomes more and more relevant in our society, culture, and
government, it becomes normalized that sharing online is correct. This goes back to
show how we influence our own privacy invasion and though it may not be our plan, it is
the reality. However, an example of interference by a major company would be the
targeted advertisements on social media. If someone was to talk about fluffy purple
sweaters, it would not be a shock if the next time they opened instagram there was an
advertisement for one. This type of privacy invasion is more noticeable because we are
more likely to put large corporations at fault than ourselves. This helps to prove how
though invasion is primarily caused by us, it is also created by companies as well.

In 1984, by George Orwell, there is a symbol of Big Brother, who was an omnipresent
figure, and would watch and observe the citizens of Oceania. This caused the civilians
to learn how to purify their thoughts and become emotionally numb as to protect their
thoughts from observation. There are many examples throughout 1984, showing privacy
invasions throughout their world. One example of the self-caused invasion is the
telescreens that they are required to have on at all times. Now these telescreens are a
bit different than our normal televisions because theirs actually listen and watch the
citizens rather than being a vehicle for entertainment. Now what would have happened
if the citizens of Oceania stood up and stopped Big Brother from going into power? For
they would no longer have their telescreens nor constant surveillance. In this instance,
their submission into the totalitarian regime, under Big Brother, ultimately led to them
having such invasion. This is an indirect example of how humans can assist in the
invasion of their own privacy. As a part of the regime in Oceania, they had a section
called the Thoughtpolice. The thought police would look for citizens committing
thoughtcrime, which was rebelling with one's thoughts. The group, since it is a part of
the larger organization, goes to show that the bigger companies can utilize smaller
groups with their materials in order to control the masses.

Overall, Kirn’s assertion about how the invasion of privacy doesn’t come from one big
overarching presence but from smaller groups, is partially correct because it doesn’t all
come from big a but does a little bit in our world. However, our privacy invasion is most
due to ourselves more than anyone nowadays.