EOTO Facial Recognition Reflection

 Facial recognition is a type of technology that has been rapidly become a powerful tool in various aspects of modern life, from security and law enforcement to the personal convenience of unlocking smartphones. When your think about its advancements you will see that it offers numerous benefits, but ethical and privacy concerns still remain significant.  

One of the key advantages of facial recognition is its ability to enhance security. Law enforcement agencies use it to identify criminals, prevent fraud, and improve public safety. In addition, businesses and airports have integrated facial recognition systems to streamline processes and improve their customers experience. In everyday life, this technology adds convenience, allowing users to access their devices, bank accounts, and online services with just a quick scan of their face.  

Despite its benefits, facial recognition raises critical concerns regarding privacy, surveillance, and potential misuse. Governments and corporations have unprecedented access to personal data, leading to very real fears of mass surveillance and the destruction of civil liberties. 

There is also another possibility of wrongful identification which is another major issues. Their have been  studies have show that facial recognition systems are occasionally biased, especially against people of color and women. Biases of this nature can result in wrongful arrests, potential discrimination, and violations of human rights.  

Facial recognition is an issue that raises many ethical questions when discussing consent and data security. Many individuals are unaware that their images are being collected and stored, many times without explicit permission. If our data is hacked or misused, it can have severe consequences like identity theft or even unauthorized tracking.  

In order to ensure that facial recognition is used responsibly, there must be strict regulations, transparency, and accountability in its deployment. All public discussions and legal frameworks regarding facial recognition should focused on balancing security with individual rights, preventing abuses, and limiting biases. While facial recognition has the potential to transform society positively, it has to be implemented ethically with proper caution to protect privacy and human dignity.

EOTO Central Bank Digital Currency

Imagine a world where physical cash is obsolete, and every transaction that you make is recorded on a digital ledger controlled by your government. This could be the reality with Central Bank Digital Currencies. Central Bank Digital Currencies are a concept that has rapidly gained traction across the globe. But what exactly are Central Bank Digital Currencies? And what do they mean for you?

What is Central Bank Digital Currency?

At its essence, Central Bank Digital Currencies are a country’s official currency but in digital form. This currency is issued and regulated by a country’s central bank. These digital currencies mimic Bitcoin but unlike Central Bank Digital Currencies, Bitcoin operates on a decentralized network. This new currency is backed by the federal government  and aim to a secure, efficient, and modern alternative to traditional cash and electronic payments.

What are the Implications?

Central Bank Digital Currency is an interesting concept that has many implications such as financial inclusion for many individuals. This concept will allow many people worldwide to have access to banking services. Think about how easily digital currency can be stored on a mobile device, this could help bring financial access to underserved populations.

Centralized Bank Digital Currencies are able to make digital transactions more fast and more secure than cash. They are able to reduce fraud and counterfeiting all while making transactions seamless. In addition, it can also make governments be able to respond more effectively when handling economic crises by directly issuing funds to citizens, bypassing slow banking systems.

Risks

Despite the many advantages that Central Bank Digital Currencies might have, they come with serious concerns like the lack of privacy and potential abuse of power. Central Bank Digital Currencies are fully digital and is controlled by the government, allowing authorities to monitor every transaction you make. Would you want the government in your finances? It would raise many concerns regarding your privacy and the potential government overreach.

Central Bank Digital Currencies opens the door for potential abuse of power. When allowing the government into your finances, you are opening the door up for potential abuse of power. Governments are able to impose government financial restrictions on individuals and companies.

The Impact 

Wealthy individuals might find it easier to adapt to a cashless world because they have the financial ability to adapt to this new concept.

On the other hand, think about those who have a lower income. How can this system affect them? Those who are economically disadvantaged are going to more than likely struggle because of the lack of access to reliable internet or smartphones. 

These individuals would be going through an ongoing cycle of financial struggle due to the fact that in order to use their money they need reliable internet and a smartphone but in order to get those things you need money.

Younger generations are already accustomed to digital transactions with their use of Apple Pay and Google Pay. Individuals who are already using a form of digital payment may embrace Central Bank Digital Currencies easier than older generations. 

Older individuals are the those who will be having more difficulty when using Central Bank Digital Currencies due to the fact that we are going against their normal. We are forcing those who rely on cash to use this type of payment, making their transition extremely challenging.

What It Means for Us

As students and young professionals, Central Bank Digital Currencies have the potential to make digital payments smoother and reduce banking fees. But there are many concerns about privacy and financial autonomy that still remain very valid.

Central Bank Digital Currencies are not inherently good or bad, but they represent a great shift in how money works. If it is implemented responsibly, they could make economies more efficient and inclusive. But if it’s mismanaged, they could threaten financial privacy and personal freedom. 

This concepts raises so many questions that are difficult to answer. As citizens, are we ready to give the government the authority to oversee and control our finance? And what system would we have to implement to hold Central Bank Digital Currencies accountable?

Innovations on the Horizon: The Rise of the Smartphone

It’s hard to imagine life without smartphones, but not too long ago, they were a luxury rather than a necessity. 

When the iPhone launched in 2007, it wasn’t the first smartphone, but it revolutionized the market by making the internet, apps, and communication seamless for it’s users. 

Adoption of Smartphones

Early adopters of the smartphone consisted of tech enthusiasts, business professionals, and those who valued convenience of being connected, they were quick to jump on board. These people are those that are typically willing to take risks with new technology and often influence others to follow.  

After the early adopters, the early majority followed. Who are the early majority? The early majority are those people who saw the benefits once the bugs were worked out. 

At the beginning of smartphone use they were not as efficient when it came to internet use and it wasn’t as affordable for users. The early majority are those who waited for smartphones to become more affordable, for the App Store have an expanded list of apps, making it suddenly for more than just businesspeople; they were for everyone. 

The late majority held out a little longer, but why would they do this? This occurs often due to skepticism or cost but they eventually gave in because society has made it almost impossible to function without a smartphone. Look at how businesses, schools, and even government services moved online, making smartphones a necessity rather than a choice.  

Are there people who don’t have smartphones? Why would you not want to be actively connected? There are some people that avoid smartphones as a whole for many reasons. People who avoid smartphones tend to do it for privacy reasons, cost concerns, or just because they don’t see the value. Others, especially those who are elderly they simply prefer different types of connectivity because of the learning curb that comes with smartphones.

Results of the Innovation of Smartphones

While smartphones offer access to instant communication, endless information, and convenience; it also brings distractions, privacy concerns, and reduces face-to-face interaction. We have seen many people struggle with screen addiction and social media pressures as a result of the daily implementation of smartphone use. Ultimately, adopting any type of new technology is a balancing act of pros and cons. The decision varies based on the individual, but once a type of technology reaches mass adoption, the influence it has is nearly impossible to ignore.

War at The Hands of American Media

Think about where you consume media —why do you have to dig through small websites just to hear strong antiwar voices? 

You’d think something as important as war and peace in the world would be a bigger part of the conversation in mainstream media. But instead, the big networks and major newspapers mostly stick to the same script: they push the concept of war being necessary, intervention is justified, and military action keeps us safe.  

War Sells?

I believe that the biggest reason for this is that mainstream media is deeply tied to corporate and government interests. A lot of these networks rely on advertising money from companies that profit off war like defense contractors, weapons manufacturers, even some oil companies.

In addition, you are able to see many media companies bringing former generals, defense officials and government officials in to act as “experts,” but during this time they use it to push pro-war narratives. When you think about the perspective many media companies have, their main objective is money and war sells. The fear that we feel, the idea of conflict, and those big dramatic headlines brings the money in by attracting viewers and clicks. 

Anti-War

The perk of free expression is the ability for people to express their belief without persecution, websites like Antiwar.com and The American Conservative exist to show the other perspective even if it is unpopular. They offer perspectives that challenge the mainstream story by asking uncomfortable questions about who really benefits from war and whether all this military intervention actually makes us safer. 

What are the implications of seeing the other side of waging war? These stories about war and promoting to the general public push anti-war sentiments out  because these views don’t fit the mainstream agenda, making it seem like they barely exist.  

It’s not a coincidence that we don’t hear about these sources often because it doesn’t benefit big media companies. Should we keep consuming these sources? Sources that are only out to get views or look for smaller news websites that don’t buy into the mainstream propaganda. Do you think that if more people had access to these perspectives, would public opinion on war start to change?