First I think you have to clear up your terms. For instance, society doesn't invade your privacy. Certain governmental groups may invade privacy.
Certain civilian groups may invade privacy. But you can't use a term like society because in every society there are people that do and there are people that don't. I am part of society but I don't invade people's privacy (at least not consciously - I may eavesdrop on a loud conversation while standing in line for a coffee, for instance).
Not all societies in the world even consider privacy an issue. For instance, I don't believe that privacy is really a concern in communist governments. So you need to figure out what groups in the society you are talking about and which societies in general before you can set out to address these issues.
Tackling issues of privacy in a communist country would be very difficult than addressing privacy issues in a democracy. After that, education is generally a key. Educating groups about responsibilities and why lack of privacy can be a bad thing.
However, I do not believe that you will be able to convince everyone. There are people who believe that a little lack of privacy is okay if it means more security for them, or at least a perceived security. Also, there are those that believe, "I have nothing to hide so go ahead."
Again, people who think this way may be difficult to convince. I'm not sure you can address how to stop paparazzi from invading privacy in the same type of legislation where you address the Patriot Act. After all, the patriot act was passed in order to help with the perceived security of the nation.It was embraced by many after the Sept 11 attacks.
There were dissenters but they didn't represent the majority. So now after the dust has settled, the patriot act can be seen for the invasion of privacy that it is and might be dealt with through further legislation, which is the only way to legally do this. A celebrity getting photographed at the beach is hardly the same thing.
Celebrities, for the most part, voluntarily become public interest stories when they decide that they want to be famous. Any kind of stalking behavior from paparazzi is covered under stalking laws and I believe there are other ways of combatting them.So your question is really very general to address fixes for. Some laws are already on the books at least in the U.S. But laws alone can't regulate some types of behavior.
I don't exactly know what you mean by society invading. But as far as celebrities go it is part of their lifestyle. I believe they create the buzz to keep themselves in the limelight because to fade is death.
Also, the only reason for the paparazzi is other people being nosy. If people didn't follow their lives then there would be no market for the pictures. My personal view is if they're not sending me a check or having me for dinner who cares!
I think honestly we need a culture with some mutual respect. The current problem seems to be that everyone loves their OWN privacy, but believes that all of "those" people need to be spied on. When the police violate someone's 4th Amendment rights everyone seems to shrug and just say "well, he was a criminal.
Who cares about his rights? " When the Patriot Act was passed, everyone was perfectly content knowing that the "enemy" would be the ones spied on, not them (of course, they had no proof of this). With celebrities, we enjoy seeing their embarrassing moments--we don't deem them worthy of privacy either.
Then when our privacy is invaded, we're shocked and angry. Until we see everyone as worthy, and respect everyone's privacy equally, there will be no privacy. We're perfectly happy to trade someone's rights for our own sense of temporary safety or entertainment, and we need to get over that.In the age of rapid communication and global information, we just can't seem to accept that not everything is our business, and not everyone is our property.
"Until we are all free, we are none of us free. " — Emma Lazarus.
For instance, society doesn't invade your privacy. Certain governmental groups may invade privacy. Certain civilian groups may invade privacy.
But you can't use a term like society because in every society there are people that do and there are people that don't. I am part of society but I don't invade people's privacy (at least not consciously - I may eavesdrop on a loud conversation while standing in line for a coffee, for instance). Not all societies in the world even consider privacy an issue.
For instance, I don't believe that privacy is really a concern in communist governments. So you need to figure out what groups in the society you are talking about and which societies in general before you can set out to address these issues. Tackling issues of privacy in a communist country would be very difficult than addressing privacy issues in a democracy.
After that, education is generally a key. Educating groups about responsibilities and why lack of privacy can be a bad thing. However, I do not believe that you will be able to convince everyone.
There are people who believe that a little lack of privacy is okay if it means more security for them, or at least a perceived security. Also, there are those that believe, "I have nothing to hide so go ahead." Again, people who think this way may be difficult to convince.
I'm not sure you can address how to stop paparazzi from invading privacy in the same type of legislation where you address the Patriot Act. After all, the patriot act was passed in order to help with the perceived security of the nation. It was embraced by many after the Sept 11 attacks.
I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.