Academic Writing Sample Answers Practice 8 Test 03

Digital services often exchange convenience for data: maps need locations, recommendations reflect preferences, and banks monitor transactions for fraud. This encourages the belief that extensive tracking is the unavoidable price of participating online. I disagree. Data collection is justified when necessary, transparent and freely chosen, but continuous surveillance should not be the default. Stronger protection is worth some loss of personalisation because privacy underpins autonomy.

There are genuine benefits to analysing online activity. A navigation application cannot calculate a route without knowing where its user is, while a payment provider can identify an unusual purchase by comparing it with previous behaviour. In such cases, however, the benefit normally requires a defined category of data for a defined period; it does not justify storing a permanent record of browsing, movement and communication. Security is likewise strengthened by targeted monitoring, not necessarily by collecting everything about everyone.

The principal danger of routine tracking is the imbalance of knowledge and power it creates. Seemingly harmless clicks can be combined to infer health concerns, political beliefs, financial stress or personal relationships. These conclusions may then influence prices, advertisements or opportunities without the individual ever seeing, let alone challenging, the underlying profile. Surveillance can also change behaviour: people who believe every search is recorded may avoid investigating sensitive medical or political questions. Furthermore, even a responsible company cannot guarantee that a vast database will never be breached, sold or used for a purpose that did not exist when the information was gathered. Clicking a lengthy consent notice is therefore not equivalent to making an informed choice.

Stronger measures should focus on both law and system design. Organisations should collect the minimum information needed for a clearly stated service, delete it after a reasonable period and obtain separate permission for unrelated uses. People should be able to inspect, correct and erase their profiles without losing access to the basic service. Sensitive tracking should require explicit agreement, while government access should be subject to legal authorisation and independent scrutiny. Regulators also need the power to audit automated profiling and impose penalties large enough to affect corporate behaviour. Some advertising or recommendation systems would become less precise, but this would encourage privacy-preserving technologies and business models rather than end useful digital services.

In conclusion, the digital age inevitably involves some information sharing, but it does not require the surrender of meaningful privacy. Society should accept narrowly proportionate data use for clear benefits, while rejecting indiscriminate tracking and protecting individuals through enforceable rights, technical restraint and genuine consent.

The internet has made communication, shopping and access to knowledge much easier, but many of these services record detailed information about their users. Although tracking can improve personalisation and security, I do not believe that the general loss of privacy is an acceptable price for digital progress. Stronger rules are needed, even if some online services become less convenient or accurate as a result.

Supporters of data collection have reasonable arguments. Streaming platforms and online shops can recommend relevant material by learning what a person has previously watched or purchased. Banks can examine transaction patterns to detect possible fraud, and location data allows navigation services to provide directions or warnings about traffic. These functions can save time and protect users. In addition, many people knowingly choose to share information because they value a free or personalised service more than complete privacy.

However, the scale of modern tracking often goes far beyond what is needed to provide these benefits. Companies may follow users across different websites, combine information from several sources and keep it for years. From ordinary searches and clicks, a detailed profile may reveal interests, health worries, income level or political views. Such information could be used to influence purchasing decisions or treat people differently, while they have little understanding of how the judgement was made. Large collections of data also create attractive targets for criminals. Once private information has been leaked or sold, the affected person may never be able to recover control of it.

For these reasons, privacy protection should not depend only on users reading complicated terms and conditions. Laws should require organisations to collect only data that is genuinely necessary and to explain its purpose in plain language. Permission for advertising or other secondary uses should be separate from access to the main service. Users should be able to refuse tracking, view the information held about them and request its deletion. Strong security standards, independent inspections and meaningful penalties are also needed. These measures might make certain recommendations less precise and could reduce income from highly targeted advertising. Nevertheless, businesses would still be able to offer useful services by relying on less data or processing information directly on the device.

In conclusion, some voluntary sharing of information is a normal part of using digital tools, particularly when it provides a clear service or security benefit. Constant and hidden surveillance is different and should not be treated as inevitable. Protecting privacy is worth accepting modest limits on personalisation and convenience.

The digital age offers major benefits, including instant information, convenient services and improved online security. At the same time, websites and applications can monitor much of what people do. In my opinion, giving up personal privacy is not an acceptable general price for these benefits. Some data collection is necessary, but stronger protection should prevent organisations from tracking people without clear limits.

Tracking can be useful when it directly supports a service. For example, a map application needs access to a device location in order to provide directions. Online stores and entertainment platforms can use previous choices to suggest products, films or music that a user may like. Banks also monitor unusual account activity to identify possible fraud. Many users accept these practices because they receive a faster, safer or more personalised experience in return.

Nevertheless, there is an important difference between collecting necessary information and constantly recording online behaviour. A company may gather browsing histories, locations and purchases even when these details are not essential to its service. When information from different sources is combined, it can reveal sensitive facts about a person, such as health problems, financial difficulties or political interests. This can lead to manipulative advertising or unfair decisions. There is also a risk that criminals will steal the information in a data breach. People usually have little control after their details have been copied or sold.

Governments should therefore introduce and enforce stronger privacy measures. Companies should clearly state what they collect, why they need it and how long it will be stored. Users should have a real choice to reject unnecessary tracking without being completely blocked from a basic service. They should also be able to see, correct and delete personal information. Organisations that misuse data or fail to protect it should face serious penalties. These rules may reduce the accuracy of recommendations and make some advertising less profitable, but this is a reasonable cost. Companies can still improve services by using anonymous data or storing less information.

In conclusion, limited data use can be justified when it is transparent and necessary for a specific function. Constant surveillance, however, creates risks that are greater than the extra convenience it provides. Individual privacy should remain a realistic expectation, even if protecting it places some limits on digital services.