Reading Analysis (fiction)

READING PRESENTATION QUESTIONS: FICTION

On the day that you present in front of the class you must also write your response to the questions below and hand in your answers. You must hand in your answers on the day you signed up for.

Reading Analysis Guide for Walter Mosley’s Little Scarlet.

Guidelines for Reading Analysis Presentation

Sign-up on the presentation calendar on my desk. Make a note of the chapters and presentation date that you sign up for below.

Reading analysis chapter: __________________________Presentation date: _______________

You will be presenting your analysis in class along with other classmates. The class will be counting on you to be on top of the article you are covering, so please be prepared!

This assignment is worth 40 points – to receive credit, you must participate in the presentation of your analysis. You will be graded primarily on your written analysis (breakdown of scoring below), but outstanding presentations will be rewarded.

Read the chapters or section that you will be analyzing carefully. On your first reading, just try to identify the main idea(s) and get a feel for the writer’s approach and the flow of the chapter. On your second reading, go over the text more carefully; notice how the writer creates characters and tells the story.

To prepare your written analysis:

Identify the author’s name and the title of the chapter(s) you are covering. Answer the following questions, numbering each answer in the way the questions are numbered.

1.     What is the central theme of the selection? Your answer should be a complete sentence in your own words (not a quote!). Be as specific as possible, but remember that the theme of a book refers to the authors overall concerns. The plot is what happens as the book moves ahead. The theme refers to the overall concerns of a book.

2.     What are the concerns of the characters in the chapter(s) you have read? This book is fiction. Do you think the events in the book could happen in real life? Do you think the way the characters act is believable. If the events in the book are exaggerated by the author, does it make the book less effective? If the behavior of the characters are exaggerated, does it make the book less believable or effective?

3.     Is the central theme expressed explicitly or implicitly? The claim is explicit if the writer spells out what it is. The claim is implicit if the writer only implies the claim but does not state it outright.

4.   Did the events and actions in your chapter(s) surprise you or change your mind about the characters in the book?

4.     What is the tone – the feel – of the chapter(s) you read?

5.     What things in the story give the most insight into human nature?

6.     Does the writer leave the opinions and feelings to the readers? If so, why? Is this approach effective?

7. Make up two questions to ask the class about your chapter

Why Privacy Matters: Debunking the Nothing-to-Hide Argument 1 Why Privacy Matters: Debunking the Nothing-to-Hide Argument
In today’s society, the word “privacy” has become ubiquitous. We see it every day; on HIPAA forms, social networking sites, online transactions, et cetera. In his essay, “Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’”, published in May of 2011, Professor Daniel J. Solove argues that the issue of privacy affects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. Solove jumps right into his dissection of the “I’ve got nothing to hide” argument, which is so often mentioned in discussions regarding the government’s gathering and analysis of our personal information. He explains how this argument stems from an inadequate definition of what privacy is and the value that privacy possesses. The adherents of the nothing-to-hide argument state that because the information will not be disclosed to the public, the “privacy interest is minimal, and the security interest in preventing terrorism is much more important.”(Solove, para. 8)
Solove states that discussions about government data collection and surveillance do not focus on the problems associated with the processing and storage of the information gathered. Rather, they only focus on the collection and use of personal data. He argues that the process of information storage and analysis creates a power imbalance between people and the government. They collect small, seemingly harmless, pieces of information about us, which they combine together to make assumptions about our lives. Because we are not aware of the data that they possess, and because this data has been taken out of context, we are unable to correct any errors or misconceptions that the government might have about our actions. Solove explains how the nothing-to-hide argument focuses only on one or two minute types of privacy problems, while ignoring the others. Privacy is not often threatened by a single extreme act, but rather by a slow accumulation of small unobtrusive acts. Each act may seem innocuous, but in time “the government will be watching and knowing everything about us.” (Solove, para. 30) Solove states that even if you have nothing to hide, “the government can harm [us] inadvertently, due to errors or carelessness.” (para. 32) In conclusion, he contends that when you understand the vast amount of privacy

1

Why Privacy Matters: Debunking the Nothing-to-Hide Argument 2

concerns associated with government data collection and surveillance, the nothing-to-hide argument is less persuasive.
Daniel J. Solove is a law professor at the George Washington University Law School. He is an internationally known expert in privacy law and has authored nine books. He is also the founder of TeachPrivacy, a company that provides privacy and data-security training programs. This essay is an excerpt from his new book, Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff Between Privacy and Security, published in May of 2011 by Yale University Press. The essay was also published in May of 2011 in The Chronicle of Higher Education, a newspaper and website that presents news and information to academic professionals. This essay is a response in a continued discourse regarding the invasions of privacy and other privacy issues. Solove was so often confronted with the power and ubiquity of the nothing-to-hide argument that it became the exigent event that led to this particular discourse. This kairotic essay addresses the implications of continued government data collection and surveillance, before these practices become signed into permanent law as part of the USA PATRIOT Act. Solove intends to refute the “nothing-to-hide” arguments by systematically acknowledging each claim and then using logic to discredit them. He introduces potential problems of government information gathering and surveillance that are often overlooked, with an intention to remind the audience of the importance of privacy. Solove effectively convinces the audience that the “nothing-to-hide” argument does not adequately cover all of the problems that arise from government information gathering and surveillance: through building his ethos as a moral and credible writer by demonstrating his scholarly credibility and expertise, as well as through establishing his logos by presenting the audience with logical arguments and conclusions, and finally through developing his pathos through the use of dramatic and emotional language in order to appeal to the audience’s emotions.
Throughout the introduction of this excerpt, Solove focuses on building his intrinsic ethos and creates an ethical appeal to the audience. It is formatted as a preview of what will be discussed in greater detail in the body of the essay. He begins by stating a common syllogism that is the antithesis to Solove’s argument; “I’ve got nothing to hide...only if you’re doing something wrong should you worry, and then

2

Why Privacy Matters: Debunking the Nothing-to-Hide Argument 3

you don’t deserve to keep it private.” (Solove, para 1) This statement juxtaposes the title and builds trust between Solove and the readers by recognizing a common belief held by members of the audience. In order to establish a relationship and persuade the audience, Solove begins strengthening his perceived moral character by alternating between the two opposing points-of-view; effectively proving that he is fair-minded. His effort to objectively explain the reasoning behind the nothing-to-hide argument creates a sense of good-will between Solove and the audience. To bolster the credibility of his claims, Solove quotes fellow privacy experts, authors, and scholars throughout his introduction. For example, he quotes Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who declared “everyone is guilty of something or has something to conceal. All one has to do is look hard enough to find what it is.” (para. 6) These quotations enable Solove to identify with the audience and speak to his credibility and trustworthiness.
Solove further establishes his ethos through demonstrating his scholarly credit and portraying his expertise into the historical and international discourses regarding privacy concerns. In an effort to expand the audience to include international communities, Solove explains how privacy concerns are not just associated with the American government, but are an international topic of debate. He describes how the British government installed millions of cameras throughout cities in Britain and then declared, “if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.” (para. 3) In addition to appealing to a broader audience, Solove successfully portrays his scholarly credit with the historical discourse of privacy by citing historical works of literature; such as, Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell, and The Trial, written by Franz Kafka. By acknowledging these historically famous books concerning the issues of government surveillance and data collecting, it is established that the discussion of privacy rights has previously been a topic of debate. This informs the audience that the rhetorical discourse regarding privacy rights is long-term and significant and establishes that Solove’s expertise in regards to the on- going discourse revolving around privacy.
While the introduction to Solove’s essay is mainly focused on creating an ethical appeal to the audience; he reinforces his ethos throughout the paper by first, managing the rhetorical distance between himself and the audience, and secondly, by speaking in an active voice. These choices have the intent to

3

Why Privacy Matters: Debunking the Nothing-to-Hide Argument 4

establish and reinforce his authority to engage in this rhetorical discourse. The use of active subjects and verbs implies a sense of immediacy to the audience. In addition, Solove is effectively claiming responsibility of his statements, which reinforces his authority to the audience. For example, Solove argues, “regardless of whether we call something a ‘privacy’ problem, it still remains a problem, and problems shouldn’t be ignored.” (para. 12) This statement infers a sense of urgency to the audience and communicates a sense of authority on Solove’s account. By oscillating between speaking in the first, second, and third persons, throughout the essay, Solove is able to appeal to the audience in different ways at specific times. For example, during the introduction, Solove uses the third person in order to establish a sense of authority before he states his thesis. He concedes that the nothing-to-hide argument is formidable and he intends to illustrate how “it stems from certain faulty assumptions about privacy and its value” (Solove, para. 8).
The effect of transitions in grammatical person from first person to third person creates a “we- they” relationship, where Solove and the audience are the “we”, and are on one side of the argument, and the adherents of the nothing-to-hide argument are the “they”, and are on the other side. For example, Solove states that it is impossible to reduce privacy to one simple idea and “we need not do so.” (Solove, para. 11) This creates an equal relationship between Solove and the audience. He is not portraying himself as a superior and therefore creates good-will for the audience. In contrast, he argues that those who support the nothing-to-hide argument do not recognize the underlying problems because they do not cause a visceral type of injury, “proponents of the nothing-to-hide argument demand a dead-bodies type of harm.” (Solove, para. 26) The astute word choice creates a division between the two sides of the argument. The audience would not want to belong to the group that demands a “dead-bodies type of harm,” therefore this reinforces the solidarity of connection between Solove and the audience. Because Solove effectively portrayed his intrinsic ethos throughout the introduction to the audience, he continues his use of transitions in grammatical person throughout the remainder of the essay to logically and emotionally appeal to the audience.

4

Why Privacy Matters: Debunking the Nothing-to-Hide Argument 5

Solove devotes the body of his essay to logically appealing to the audience. He does this by examining the weaknesses of the deductive arguments that make up the “nothing-to-hide” argument, and by explaining the inductive reasoning behind his argument. He begins by explaining that the adherents of the nothing-to-hide argument do not accurately define privacy. By analyzing how complex privacy is, and how it can not be reduced to one singular definition, he logically appeals to the audience and infers that some of the assumptions of the nothing-to-hide arguments are false. He states that privacy “is a plurality of different things that do not share any one element but nevertheless bear a resemblance to one another.” (Solove, para. 10) He then gives examples of privacy invasions to support his statement; such as, voyeurism, blackmail, and improper use of personal data. These tangible examples enable the audience to further understand the complex nature of defining privacy. Another example of a deductive weakness in the nothing-to-hide argument is the “assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things.” (Solove para. 17) Solove argues that accepting this assumption, is not acknowledging the many things that are not bad that people might want to hide, which could lead to the inhibition of First Amendment rights. Through Solove’s explanations of the weaknesses in the nothing-to-hide argument, he created an opportunity to logically appeal to the audiences inductive reasoning. Next, Solove begins building his argument with definitions and examples. He begins with the logical explanation of aggregation, which Solove defines as the “fusion of small bits of seemingly innocuous data.” (para. 19) For example, if someone bought a book about cancer, and then purchased a wig, the government could infer that that person had cancer and was undergoing treatment. Solove continues presenting arguments based on definitions to describe situations in which the government could misuse personal information. Consequently, he logically builds his inductive argument in order to persuade the audience. He concludes his inductive argument and the body of his essay with a metaphor, and one last logical appeal to the audience. He states, “although society is more likely to respond to a major oil spill, gradual pollution by a multitude of actors often creates worse problems.” (Solove, para. 29) Solove is stating that because he has shown that the government’s invasion of our privacy creates a many problems, we must not allow it to continue because it will lead to major long-term complications.

5

Why Privacy Matters: Debunking the Nothing-to-Hide Argument 6

Solove continues to build his on his logos by presenting the audience with two analogies. The first analogy is based on George Orwell’s, Nineteen Eighty-Four, which Solove states “depicts a totalitarian society ruled by a government...that watches is citizens obsessively.” (para.13) The Orwell metaphor focuses on the harms of surveillance, such as inhibition and social control. He then argues that current legal and policy solutions center on the problems associated with the Orwellian metaphor. The audience is then presented with the second analogy, that of Franz Kafka’s, The Trial, where a “bureaucracy uses people’s information to make important decisions about them, yet denies the people the ability to participate in how their information is used.” (Solove, para. 14) Solove describes the Kafkaesque metaphor as portraying a different kind of problem; one that doesn’t result in inhibition, but leads to a sense of helplessness and powerlessness and alters the relationships that people have with their government. This logical appeal to the audience clarifies Solove’s claim that we aren’t considering all of the effects of government data collection. After logically convincing the audience that the nothing-to-hide argument is faulty and that his own argument is more inclusive, Solove begins his emotional appeal to the audience.
Solove begins concluding his essay with the intent of building his pathos. He emotionally appeals to the audience’s sympathies and imagination. He begins using more dramatic, emotional language, such as, “privacy is often threatened not by single egregious act but by the slow accretion of a series of relatively minor acts.” (Solove, para. 29) Due to this change in language the audience identifies with Solove’s point of view and they become aware of the urgency associated with action. Solove begins appealing to the audience’s imagination by mentioning all of these “minor acts”. He starts the list with the government monitoring of phone calls, then talks about an “elaborate network of video surveillance,” (Solove para. 30) next is satellite surveillance. Then he begins getting personal in order to invoke feelings of unease within the audience. He begins with analyzing your finances, then mentions the government combing through your health records and employment records. “Each step may seem incremental, but after a while, the government will be watching and knowing everything about us.” (Solove para. 30) In a final persuasive effort, Solove emotionally appeals to the audience’s identity and self-interests. He

6

Why Privacy Matters: Debunking the Nothing-to-Hide Argument 7

accomplishes this by discussing the possible consequences the audience could encounter if the government is allowed to continue collecting and storing personal data. Solove asks a series of questions in the second person, with the intent that the audience will have a greater emotional response by imagining themselves as the person in question. For example, “what if it denies you the right to fly? What if the government thinks your financial transactions look odd...and freezes your accounts?” (Solove, para. 30-31) These questions solicit feelings of anger and frustration within the audience. Solove capitalizes upon this emotional response and concludes his argument with the statement “even if you have nothing to hide, the government can cause you a lot of harm.” (para.31) This last persuasive statement lingers with the audience because they will naturally bend in the direction of what is advantageous to them.
Through the effective use of rhetorical tools and the mindful arrangement of this essay, Solove persuades the audience that the nothing-to-hide argument is a narrow, one-sided way of conceiving privacy. Solove uses his expertise in the art of rhetoric by focusing his introduction on ethically appealing to the audience. By managing the rhetorical distance between himself and the audience he builds a relationship and establishes his authority, while not portraying himself as a superior. He establishes his credibility and portrays his scholarly credit through his citations of literature and quotations from privacy experts. He then concentrates on logically appealing to the audience throughout the body of his essay. By displaying the weaknesses of the deductive reasoning that makes up the nothing-to-hide argument, Solove is able to build his inductive argument. In addition, Solove presents the audience with two analogies enabling them to make logical conclusions. In an effort to make a lasting impression on the audience, Solove reserved his emotional appeals for the conclusion. Through the use of dramatic and emotional language, Solove was able to appeal to the audience’s sympathies and imagination and leave them with the reminder that “in the end, the nothing-to-hide argument has nothing to say” (Solove, para. 33).

7

Why Privacy Matters: Debunking the Nothing-to-Hide Argument 8

References
Solove, D. (2011). “Why Privacy Matters even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’”. The Chronicle Review. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even- if/127461/

8 

Example of a rhetorical analysis

Example of a rhetorical analysis.

Students: I'm posting this paper, which presents a rhetorical analysis of the essay mentioned in the first paragraph on the paper. It is a complicated response to the paper he is analyzing, but should serve as a kind of example for the kind of approach I've asked you to use. He summarizes the paper before he launches into his this, which you'll find in the third paragraph: "Solove effectively convinces the audience that the “nothing-to-hide” argument does not adequately cover all of the problems that arise from government information gathering and surveillance: through building his ethos as a moral and credible writer by demonstrating his scholarly credibility and expertise, as well as through establishing his logos by presenting the audience with logical arguments and conclusions, and finally through developing his pathos through the use of dramatic and emotional language in order to appeal to the audience’s emotions."

You don't need to use his approach, but check out his thesis statement before writing your thesis statement.


Why Privacy Matters: Debunking the Nothing-to-Hide Argument 

In today’s society, the word “privacy” has become ubiquitous. We see it every day; on HIPAA forms, social networking sites, online transactions, et cetera. In his essay, “Why Privacy Matters Even if You Have ‘Nothing to Hide’”, published in May of 2011, Professor Daniel J. Solove argues that the issue of privacy affects more than just individuals hiding a wrong. Solove jumps right into his dissection of the “I’ve got nothing to hide” argument, which is so often mentioned in discussions regarding the government’s gathering and analysis of our personal information. He explains how this argument stems from an inadequate definition of what privacy is and the value that privacy possesses. The adherents of the nothing-to-hide argument state that because the information will not be disclosed to the public, the “privacy interest is minimal, and the security interest in preventing terrorism is much more important.”(Solove, para. 8)

Solove states that discussions about government data collection and surveillance do not focus on the problems associated with the processing and storage of the information gathered. Rather, they only focus on the collection and use of personal data. He argues that the process of information storage and analysis creates a power imbalance between people and the government. They collect small, seemingly harmless, pieces of information about us, which they combine together to make assumptions about our lives. Because we are not aware of the data that they possess, and because this data has been taken out of context, we are unable to correct any errors or misconceptions that the government might have about our actions. Solove explains how the nothing-to-hide argument focuses only on one or two minute types of privacy problems, while ignoring the others. Privacy is not often threatened by a single extreme act, but rather by a slow accumulation of small unobtrusive acts. Each act may seem innocuous, but in time “the government will be watching and knowing everything about us.” (Solove, para. 30) Solove states that even if you have nothing to hide, “the government can harm [us] inadvertently, due to errors or carelessness.” (para. 32) In conclusion, he contends that when you understand the vast amount of privacy concerns associated with government data collection and surveillance, the nothing-to-hide argument is less persuasive.

Daniel J. Solove is a law professor at the George Washington University Law School. He is an internationally known expert in privacy law and has authored nine books. He is also the founder of TeachPrivacy, a company that provides privacy and data-security training programs. This essay is an excerpt from his new book, Nothing to Hide: The False Tradeoff Between Privacy and Security, published in May of 2011 by Yale University Press. The essay was also published in May of 2011 in The Chronicle of Higher Education, a newspaper and website that presents news and information to academic professionals. This essay is a response in a continued discourse regarding the invasions of privacy and other privacy issues. Solove was so often confronted with the power and ubiquity of the nothing-to-hide argument that it became the exigent event that led to this particular discourse. This kairotic essay addresses the implications of continued government data collection and surveillance, before these practices become signed into permanent law as part of the USA PATRIOT Act. Solove intends to refute the “nothing-to-hide” arguments by systematically acknowledging each claim and then using logic to discredit them. He introduces potential problems of government information gathering and surveillance that are often overlooked, with an intention to remind the audience of the importance of privacy. Solove effectively convinces the audience that the “nothing-to-hide” argument does not adequately cover all of the problems that arise from government information gathering and surveillance: through building his ethos as a moral and credible writer by demonstrating his scholarly credibility and expertise, as well as through establishing his logos by presenting the audience with logical arguments and conclusions, and finally through developing his pathos through the use of dramatic and emotional language in order to appeal to the audience’s emotions. (Thesis statement)


Throughout the introduction of this excerpt, Solove focuses on building his intrinsic ethos and creates an ethical appeal to the audience. It is formatted as a preview of what will be discussed in greater detail in the body of the essay. He begins by stating a common syllogism that is the antithesis to Solove’s argument; “I’ve got nothing to hide...only if you’re doing something wrong should you worry, and then you don’t deserve to keep it private.” (Solove, para 1) This statement juxtaposes the title and builds trust between Solove and the readers by recognizing a common belief held by members of the audience. In order to establish a relationship and persuade the audience, Solove begins strengthening his perceived moral character by alternating between the two opposing points-of-view; effectively proving that he is fair-minded. His effort to objectively explain the reasoning behind the nothing-to-hide argument creates a sense of good-will between Solove and the audience. To bolster the credibility of his claims, Solove quotes fellow privacy experts, authors, and scholars throughout his introduction. For example, he quotes Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, who declared “everyone is guilty of something or has something to conceal. All one has to do is look hard enough to find what it is.” (para. 6) These quotations enable Solove to identify with the audience and speak to his credibility and trustworthiness.

Solove further establishes his ethos through demonstrating his scholarly credit and portraying his expertise into the historical and international discourses regarding privacy concerns. In an effort to expand the audience to include international communities, Solove explains how privacy concerns are not just associated with the American government, but are an international topic of debate. He describes how the British government installed millions of cameras throughout cities in Britain and then declared, “if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear.” (para. 3) In addition to appealing to a broader audience, Solove successfully portrays his scholarly credit with the historical discourse of privacy by citing historical works of literature; such as, Nineteen Eighty-Four, written by George Orwell, and The Trial, written by Franz Kafka. By acknowledging these historically famous books concerning the issues of government surveillance and data collecting, it is established that the discussion of privacy rights has previously been a topic of debate. This informs the audience that the rhetorical discourse regarding privacy rights is long-term and significant and establishes that Solove’s expertise in regards to the on- going discourse revolving around privacy. 

While the introduction to Solove’s essay is mainly focused on creating an ethical appeal to the audience; he reinforces his ethos throughout the paper by first, managing the rhetorical distance between himself and the audience, and secondly, by speaking in an active voice. These choices have the intent to establish and reinforce his authority to engage in this rhetorical discourse. The use of active subjects and verbs implies a sense of immediacy to the audience. In addition, Solove is effectively claiming responsibility of his statements, which reinforces his authority to the audience. For example, Solove argues, “regardless of whether we call something a ‘privacy’ problem, it still remains a problem, and problems shouldn’t be ignored.” (para. 12) This statement infers a sense of urgency to the audience and communicates a sense of authority on Solove’s account. By oscillating between speaking in the first, second, and third persons, throughout the essay, Solove is able to appeal to the audience in different ways at specific times. For example, during the introduction, Solove uses the third person in order to establish a sense of authority before he states his thesis. He concedes that the nothing-to-hide argument is formidable and he intends to illustrate how “it stems from certain faulty assumptions about privacy and its value” (Solove, para. 8).

The effect of transitions in grammatical person from first person to third person creates a “we- they” relationship, where Solove and the audience are the “we”, and are on one side of the argument, and the adherents of the nothing-to-hide argument are the “they”, and are on the other side. For example, Solove states that it is impossible to reduce privacy to one simple idea and “we need not do so.” (Solove, para. 11) This creates an equal relationship between Solove and the audience. He is not portraying himself as a superior and therefore creates good-will for the audience. In contrast, he argues that those who support the nothing-to-hide argument do not recognize the underlying problems because they do not cause a visceral type of injury, “proponents of the nothing-to-hide argument demand a dead-bodies type of harm.” (Solove, para. 26) The astute word choice creates a division between the two sides of the argument. The audience would not want to belong to the group that demands a “dead-bodies type of harm,” therefore this reinforces the solidarity of connection between Solove and the audience. Because Solove effectively portrayed his intrinsic ethos throughout the introduction to the audience, he continues his use of transitions in grammatical person throughout the remainder of the essay to logically and emotionally appeal to the audience.

Solove devotes the body of his essay to logically appealing to the audience. He does this by examining the weaknesses of the deductive arguments that make up the “nothing-to-hide” argument, and by explaining the inductive reasoning behind his argument. He begins by explaining that the adherents of the nothing-to-hide argument do not accurately define privacy. By analyzing how complex privacy is, and how it can not be reduced to one singular definition, he logically appeals to the audience and infers that some of the assumptions of the nothing-to-hide arguments are false. He states that privacy “is a plurality of different things that do not share any one element but nevertheless bear a resemblance to one another.” (Solove, para. 10) He then gives examples of privacy invasions to support his statement; such as, voyeurism, blackmail, and improper use of personal data. These tangible examples enable the audience to further understand the complex nature of defining privacy. Another example of a deductive weakness in the nothing-to-hide argument is the “assumption that privacy is about hiding bad things.” (Solove para. 17) Solove argues that accepting this assumption, is not acknowledging the many things that are not bad that people might want to hide, which could lead to the inhibition of First Amendment rights. Through Solove’s explanations of the weaknesses in the nothing-to-hide argument, he created an opportunity to logically appeal to the audiences inductive reasoning. Next, Solove begins building his argument with definitions and examples. He begins with the logical explanation of aggregation, which Solove defines as the “fusion of small bits of seemingly innocuous data.” (para. 19) For example, if someone bought a book about cancer, and then purchased a wig, the government could infer that that person had cancer and was undergoing treatment. Solove continues presenting arguments based on definitions to describe situations in which the government could misuse personal information. Consequently, he logically builds his inductive argument in order to persuade the audience. He concludes his inductive argument and the body of his essay with a metaphor, and one last logical appeal to the audience. He states, “although society is more likely to respond to a major oil spill, gradual pollution by a multitude of actors often creates worse problems.” (Solove, para. 29) Solove is stating that because he has shown that the government’s invasion of our privacy creates a many problems, we must not allow it to continue because it will lead to major long-term complications.

Solove continues to build his on his logos by presenting the audience with two analogies. The first analogy is based on George Orwell’s, Nineteen Eighty-Four, which Solove states “depicts a totalitarian society ruled by a government...that watches is citizens obsessively.” (para.13) The Orwell metaphor focuses on the harms of surveillance, such as inhibition and social control. He then argues that current legal and policy solutions center on the problems associated with the Orwellian metaphor. The audience is then presented with the second analogy, that of Franz Kafka’s, The Trial, where a “bureaucracy uses people’s information to make important decisions about them, yet denies the people the ability to participate in how their information is used.” (Solove, para. 14) Solove describes the Kafkaesque metaphor as portraying a different kind of problem; one that doesn’t result in inhibition, but leads to a sense of helplessness and powerlessness and alters the relationships that people have with their government. This logical appeal to the audience clarifies Solove’s claim that we aren’t considering all of the effects of government data collection. After logically convincing the audience that the nothing-to-hide argument is faulty and that his own argument is more inclusive, Solove begins his emotional appeal to the audience. 

Solove begins concluding his essay with the intent of building his pathos. He emotionally appeals to the audience’s sympathies and imagination. He begins using more dramatic, emotional language, such as, “privacy is often threatened not by single egregious act but by the slow accretion of a series of relatively minor acts.” (Solove, para. 29) Due to this change in language the audience identifies with Solove’s point of view and they become aware of the urgency associated with action. Solove begins appealing to the audience’s imagination by mentioning all of these “minor acts”. He starts the list with the government monitoring of phone calls, then talks about an “elaborate network of video surveillance,” (Solove para. 30) next is satellite surveillance. Then he begins getting personal in order to invoke feelings of unease within the audience. He begins with analyzing your finances, then mentions the government combing through your health records and employment records. “Each step may seem incremental, but after a while, the government will be watching and knowing everything about us.” (Solove para. 30) In a final persuasive effort, Solove emotionally appeals to the audience’s identity and self-interests. He accomplishes this by discussing the possible consequences the audience could encounter if the government is allowed to continue collecting and storing personal data. Solove asks a series of questions in the second person, with the intent that the audience will have a greater emotional response by imagining themselves as the person in question. For example, “what if it denies you the right to fly? What if the government thinks your financial transactions look odd...and freezes your accounts?” (Solove, para. 30-31) These questions solicit feelings of anger and frustration within the audience. Solove capitalizes upon this emotional response and concludes his argument with the statement “even if you have nothing to hide, the government can cause you a lot of harm.” (para.31) This last persuasive statement lingers with the audience because they will naturally bend in the direction of what is advantageous to them.

Through the effective use of rhetorical tools and the mindful arrangement of this essay, Solove persuades the audience that the nothing-to-hide argument is a narrow, one-sided way of conceiving privacy. Solove uses his expertise in the art of rhetoric by focusing his introduction on ethically appealing to the audience. By managing the rhetorical distance between himself and the audience he builds a relationship and establishes his authority, while not portraying himself as a superior. He establishes his credibility and portrays his scholarly credit through his citations of literature and quotations from privacy experts. He then concentrates on logically appealing to the audience throughout the body of his essay. By displaying the weaknesses of the deductive reasoning that makes up the nothing-to-hide argument, Solove is able to build his inductive argument. In addition, Solove presents the audience with two analogies enabling them to make logical conclusions. In an effort to make a lasting impression on the audience, Solove reserved his emotional appeals for the conclusion. Through the use of dramatic and emotional language, Solove was able to appeal to the audience’s sympathies and imagination and leave them with the reminder that “in the end, the nothing-to-hide argument has nothing to say” (Solove, para. 33).

A Peaceful Woman

The Black Table is Still There

The 'Black Table' Is Still There 14 Years Later, Lawyer Mulls Why He Sat Elsewhere

By Lawrence Otis Graham, From the New York Times

POSTED: February 06, 1991

During a recent visit to my old junior high school, I came upon something that I never expected to see again: the all-black lunch table in the cafeteria of my predominantly white suburban junior high school.

As I look back on 27 years of often being the first black person integrating such activities and institutions as the college newspaper, summer music camps, our suburban neighborhood, my eating club at Princeton or my private social club at Harvard Law School, the scenario that puzzled me the most then and now is the all-black lunch table.

Why was it there? Why did the black kids separate themselves?

What did the table say about the integration that was supposedly going on in home rooms and gym classes? What did it say about the black kids? The white kids?

What did it say about me when I refused to sit there, day after day, for three years?

Each afternoon, after fourth period, I was among 600 12-, 13- and 14-year- olds who marched into the cafeteria and dashed for a seat at one of the 27 lunch tables.

No matter who I walked in with - usually a white friend - one thing was certain: I would not sit at the black table.

I would never consider sitting at the black table.

What was wrong with me? What was I afraid of?

I would like to think my decision was a heroic one, made in order to express my solidarity with the theories of integration that my community was espousing. But I was just 12 at the time and there was nothing heroic in my actions.

I avoided the black table because I was afraid that by sitting at the black table I'd lose all my white friends. I thought that by sitting there I'd be making a racist, anti-white statement.

Is that what the all-black table means? Is it a rejection of white people?

I no longer think so.

At the time, I was angry that there was a black lunch table. I believed that the black kids were the reason why other kids didn't mix more. I was ready to believe that their self-segregation was the cause of white bigotry.

Ironically, I even believed this after my best friend told me I probably shouldn't come to his bar mitzvah because I'd be the only black and people would feel uncomfortable. I even believed this after my Saturday afternoon visit, at age 10, to a private country club pool prompted incensed white parents to pull their kids from the pool in terror.

In the face of this blatantly racist behavior, I still somehow managed to blame only the black kids for being the barrier to integration in my school and my little world.

I realize now how wrong I was. During that same time there were at least two tables of athletes, an Italian table, a Jewish girls' table, a Jewish boys' table (where I usually sat), a table of kids who were into heavy-metal music and smoking pot, a table of middle-class Irish kids. Weren't these tables just as segregationist as the black table?

At the time, no one thought so. At the time, no one even acknowledged the segregated nature of these other tables.

Maybe it's the color difference that makes all-black groups attract the scrutiny and wrath of so many people. It scares and angers people.

It did those things to me, and I'm black.

As an integrating black person, I know my decision not to join the black lunch table attracted its own kind of scrutiny and wrath from my classmates. While hearing angry words such as "Oreo" and "white boy" hurled at me from the black table, I was also dodging impatient questions from white classmates: ''Why do all those black kids sit together?" or "Why don't you ever sit with the other blacks?"

The black lunch table, like those other segregated tables, is a comment on the superficial inroads that integration has made in society. Perhaps I should be happy that even this is a long way from where we started.

Yet, I can't get over the fact that the 27th table in my junior high school cafeteria is still known as the "black table" - 14 years after my adolescence.