some modifications on newlines and textbf

source/sections/currentdiscussion.tex

@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
 \section{The Current Discussion}
 Fortunately nowadays seems that the discussion for the right to privacy it is not dead. After the recent events that mainly involved leaks on how the NSA is spying us all, new discussions and questions have been arisen not only in the world of activism, but also, at least to some extent, in the general public.\\
-But usually all these discussions have a very limited scope in some sense, talking of this or that technology issue with the most popular platform for instant messaging, but do not cover the real problem, that is establishing whether and at which extent privacy (in our case privacy related to the online or in general technological presence of the person) can be seen as a fundamental right for the individual.\\
+But usually all these discussions have a very limited scope in some sense, talking of this or that \textbf{technological issue} with the most popular platform for instant messaging, but do not cover the real problem, that is establishing whether and at which extent privacy (in our case privacy related to the on-line, or in general technological, presence of the person) can be seen as a fundamental right for the individual.\\
 This last aspect I think it is the most important and fundamental to discuss, since I see that the technology itself (more advanced than ever encryption methods, new platforms that promise anonymity etc...) can't solve the problem.
-Only a discussion that involves the social and ethical aspects of the matter can be the basis for adequate measures that can guarantee or at least protect our right to privacy.\\
+Only a discussion that involves the social and ethical aspects of the matter can be the basis for adequate measures that can guarantee or at least protect our \textbf{right to privacy}.\\
 We can find a really interesting perspective in this direction in a not so recent research, made by \textit{James Rachels} in this paper \cite{privacyimportant}, published something like 40 years ago.\\
-What I really find so interesting and important about his discussion is the idea that what we as individuals share with other people is what defines the relationships that we have. He says that the fact that we feel so intimate with another person (for example in a relation of friendship or also in a romantic relationship) is given by the degree of information that another person has on us, and obviously also by the degree of information that we have on this person. The differences between this level of "common knowledge" between two or more individuals is what defines the relationship that exists between them.\\
-I completely agree on this point of view, and I also find that is somewhat reasonable and embraceable, since we can experience in everyday life that the level of intimacy that we feel with another person depends in great part on the aspects of each other lives that we share or not. Just as an example I think that we can agree that one would not share with a simple colleague worries about his own health, but probably he will share them with family members or intimate friends.\\
+What I really find so interesting and important about his discussion is the idea that what we as individuals share with other people is what defines the relationships that we have. He says that the fact that we feel so intimate with another person (for example in a relation of friendship or also in a romantic relationship) is given by the \textbf{degree of information} that another person has on us, and obviously also by the degree of information that we have on this person. The differences between this level of \textbf{common knowledge} between two or more individuals is what differentiate the relationship with each other.\\
+I completely agree on this point of view, and I also find that is somewhat reasonable and embraceable, since we can experience in everyday life that the level of intimacy that we feel with another person depends in great part on the aspects of each other lives that we \textbf{share or not}. Just as an example I think that we can agree that one would not share with a simple colleague worries about his own health, but probably he will share them with family members or intimate friends.\\
 Of course we may have objections to this kind of point of view, but in his paper Rachels tries to respond to them, in my opinion in a reasonable and convincing way.
 Starting from this basic building block in the next section I'll try to make another step in this direction of establishing the important of the right to privacy.

source/sections/newperspective.tex

@@ -1,16 +1,16 @@
 \section{A New Perspective}
 I think that we can go beyond the setting exposed by Rachels, and in doing this I'll base my discussion on the work \cite{cccvideo} presented by Charleyne Biondi at the \textit{33rd Chaos Communication Congress}, which I attended in the last December.\\
-The title "The High priests of the digital age" is someway itself suggestive. Biondi tries to make a comparison between the campaign established in the 18th century against onanism and the current digital global surveillance state.
+The title \textbf{The High priests of the digital age} is someway itself suggestive. Biondi tries to make a comparison between the campaign established in the 18th century against onanism and the current digital global surveillance state.
 She starts by identifying the three main actors that concurred in the campaign against masturbation, and by identifying the main actors in that scenario.\\
-The first actor is the category of doctors from which all the crusade started. All started from a study that tried to demonstrate what devastating effects onanism has on the body of a person.
-The second actor is represented by the priests or more in general by the clergy members that took this studies and contributed in enhancing the campaign, by enlightening all the moral corruption that those sinful behaviors brought. It is thanks to the support of this actor that the campaign against onanism has been possible, thanks to the power that the clergy organizations had on the society.
-The last actor is composed by the family members that should prevent such behaviors in particular by \textit{supervisioning} the kids that were the category more likely to indulge in such acts.\\
-The next step is to map three actors involved in global surveillance on the previous three, and try to find the similarities between the two phenomena.\\
-We can start from the state, and we can notice that it has been the first to reclaim the right to enhances policies that permitted to invade the individual privacy in order to guarantee a greater good, the security of our society. The parallelism is made with the doctors of the previous settings, that as said were the first to initiate the crusade by invoking a greater good that in that case was the health of the population.
-Then there are the privates, or in other words the big internet corporations, that make the surveillance possible by enacting the data surveillance over our communications and personal data. This category is of course mapped on the priests, thus the name of the presentation itself.
-The last actor is identified with the society itself, and is naturally mapped with the family in the previous case. It is thanks to this last actor, that is possible to realize and to impose the surveillance culture, thanks to which the systems sustains itself, being feed with all the data provided by ourself.\\
+The first actor is the category of \textbf{doctors} from which all the crusade started. All started from a study that tried to demonstrate what devastating effects onanism has on the body of a person.\\
+The second actor is represented by the \textbf{priests} or more in general by the clergy members that took this studies and contributed in enhancing the campaign, by enlightening all the moral corruption that those sinful behaviors brought. It is thanks to the support of this actor that the campaign against onanism has been possible, thanks to the power that the clergy organizations had on the society.\\
+The third and last actor is composed by the \textbf{family} members that should prevent such behaviors in particular by \textbf{supervisioning} the kids that were the category more likely to indulge in such acts.\\
+The next step is to map three actors involved in global surveillance on the previous three, and to try to find the similarities between the two phenomena.\\
+We can start from the textbf{state}, and we can notice that it has been the first to reclaim the right to enhances policies that permitted to invade the individual privacy in order to guarantee a greater good, the \textbf{security} of our society. The parallelism is made with the doctors of the previous settings, that as said were the first to initiate the crusade by invoking a greater good that in that case was the health of the population.\\
+Then there are the privates, or in other words the big internet \textbf{corporations}, that make the surveillance possible by enacting the data surveillance over our communications and personal data. This category is of course mapped on the priests, thus the name of the presentation itself.\\
+The last actor is identified with the \textbf{society} itself, and is naturally mapped with the family in the previous case. It is thanks to this last actor, that is possible to realize and to impose the surveillance culture, thanks to which the systems sustains itself, being feed with all the data provided by ourself.\\
 This concludes the mapping of actors between the two scenario. We can see that, even by not agreeing completely with the point of view and the passages of Biondi, the similarities are very well highlighted. The conclusions that the presenter draws are more radical, and I'll briefly talk about them since, even not being essential for the following of the analysis, can help in understanding the previous mapping.\\
-Biondi says that in some studies have been enlightened that the birth of capitalism brought with itself the concept of the body seen as a \textbf{tool of performance}, and this also concurred in the crusade against onanism, since the possibility of behaviors that in some way could intact the abilities of the body to perform were seen much more in a negative way.
-Capitalism also in some way brings the idea that private vice is transformed in public good or virtue through commerce. And in the digital age we may withdraw the conclusion that opposing to the free circulation of information can be destructive for the good of the society and stop this creation of public virtue, or, written in another way, public security. This ultimately brings us to the commodification of everything, even private and social aspects of our lives.
-This last point of view seems to be based on a too huge leap. Personally, looking at our society I don't think that these conclusions are so unreasonable, but for sure they need another type of discussion and they also touch other big and debated ethical issues, that can't be discussed here. As said before these last conclusions are not essentials to the following of the discussion, probably Biondi tried to sketch some possible discussion points for further analysis and discussions.\\
+Biondi says that in some studies have been enlightened that the birth of capitalism brought with itself the concept of the body seen as a \textbf{tool of performance}, and this also concurred in the crusade against onanism, since the possibility of behaviors that in some way could intact the abilities of the body to perform were seen much more in a negative way.\\
+Capitalism also in some way brings the idea that private vice is transformed in \textbf{public good} or virtue through commerce. And in the digital age we may withdraw the conclusion that opposing to the free circulation of information can be destructive for the good of the society and stop this creation of public virtue, or, written in another way, public security. This ultimately brings us to the commodification of everything, even private and social aspects of our lives.\\
+This last point of view seems to be based on a too huge leap. Personally, looking at our society I don't think that these conclusions are so unreasonable, but for sure they need another type of discussion, and they also touch other big and debated ethical issues, that can't be discussed here. As said before these last conclusions are not essentials to the following of the discussion, probably even Biondi knows that these conclusions are too stretched, but she tried to sketch some possible discussion points for further analysis and discussions.\\
 What I think is important to keep from this section is the comparison between two at first sight completely different scenarios, and the problem that in this kind of surveillance culture we are giving up some rights over our privacy like that could affect our relationships as highlighted by Rachels \cite{privacyimportant}, and in the next section we'll try to go further and try to sketch some other implications and issues.