This world today seems to have no privacy on the Internet, despite the Governments effort to help the consumer regain their privacy.
In 1997 the government passed the Consumer Internet Privacy Protection Act. Through this bill, the consumer has the right to all information that an Internet company has on them. The Internet Company cannot sell the information of that consumer without that consumer’s written consent. The bill sounds really good doesn’t it? If the bill is so great, how is it that our private information is still getting out there? Well, let’s take a closer look.
According to an article that I found through Yahoo!, companies are using the consumer’s information as a company asset just in case the company was to go bankrupt. In the article it talks of how Amazon.com has reviewed it privacy policies and has decided to just get ready to sell anything they have on a consumer, such as; “names, shipping and billing addresses, credit card numbers, e-mail addresses, employers, gift wish lists, Social Secur i ty Numbers…” and so on and so forth. Isn’t that scary, one day, a company is doing fine, getting all the information that they can on a person and saying that all information is secured, then the next day, they are going bankrupt and selling the informa t ion to whoever has the largest bid. Who would’ve thought that when you went to buy that thing you really wanted off the Internet, your information was being stored so it could be sold? How thoughtless of them. For me, I don’t give out any information besi des my name, and who knows who has that.
You may ask yourself, where does the Internet Privacy Act of 1997 play in this? I am wondering the same thing. Well, it obviously doesn’t play a large role; Amozon.com has stopped letting their customers decline the option of letting their information be sold. Where is the government? Why aren’t they stepping up? I thought that the reasoning behind this entire act was to protect consumers, I don’t see any protection at all. There was a statement in the article that was previously mentioned that just took me by surprise. Patty Smith made it in regard to customer information, she said:
“We treat customer data with great care and consideration,” she said, “and we will continue to do so going forward.
There are many questions concerning the atmosphere in William Shakespeare’s Macbeth that this essay will answer: Is it realistic or unrealistic? Are there two atmospheres – one of purity and one of black magic? And many other questions.
Roger Warren comments in Shakespeare Survey 30 , regarding Trervor Nunn’s direction of Macbeth at Stratford-upon-Avon in 1974-75, on opposing imagery used to support the opposing atmospheres of purity and black magic:
Much of the approach and detail was carried over, particularly the clash between religious purity and black magic. Purity was embodied by Duncan, very infirm (in 1974 he was blind), dressed in white and accompanied by church organ music, set against the black magic of the witches, who even chanted ‘Double, double to the Dies Irae. (283)
L.C. Knights in the essay “Macbeth” mentions equivocation, unreality and unnaturalness in the play – contributors to an atmosphere that may not be very realistic:
The equivocal nature of temptation, the commerce with phantoms consequent upon false choice, the resulting sense of unreality (“nothing is, but what is not”), which has yet such power to “smother” vital function, the unnaturalness of evil (“against the use of nature”), and the relation between disintegration in the individual (“my single state of man”) and disorder in the larger social organism – all these are major themes of the play which are mirrored in the speech under consideration. (94)
Charles Lamb in On the Tragedies of Shakespeare comments on the atmosphere surrounding the play:
The state of sublime emotion into which we are elevated by those images of night and horror which Macbeth is made to utter, that solemn prelude with which he entertains the time till the bell shall strike which is to call him to murder Duncan, – when we no longer read it in a book, when we have given up that vantage-ground of abstraction which reading possesses over seing, and come to see a man in his bodily shape before our eyes actually preparing to commit a muder, if the acting be true and impressive as I have witnessed it in Mr. K’s performance of that part, the painful anxiety about the act, the natural longing to prevent it while it yet seems unperpetrated, the too close pressing semblance of reality,give a pain and an uneasiness [. . .]. (134)