To start off, I reread Part 1 (Privacy.docx). I wanted to know its main themes “personal exposure”, “technological surveillance” and “erosion of autonomy”. I was interested in how people’s “being watched” was experienced and sequentially understood in relation to different forms of data collection and control. Thus, I formed a list of keywords, including “surveillance capitalism”, “privacy taxonomy”, “GDPR data protection”, “public opinion and privacy”, “online privacy protection”. I utilized Google Scholar, my university library database, and other reputable websites organized by different organizations to find relevant academic and reputable.

In order to achieve balance and multidimensionality in my research I aimed to obtain a theoretical framework, a cultural critique, a legal document, an empirical survey, and a practical guide. This societal problem, the focus of my research, was Subordinate to the analysis in Solove’s article of 2006, which provided a structured understanding of the different kinds of privacy harms. Zuboff’s 2019 book complemented these omissions by explaining how and in what ways digital companies monetize from the human activity. Legal Text number 4 of the European Union’s general data protection regulation provided me with a practical legal framework which links individual concerns and global policies. The 2019 report by Pew research center was a crucial component that provided the paper with public opinion and data while the Electronic Frontier Foundation privacy guides transformed the issues to practical ownership of basic, legal strategies.

In the process of selecting these materials, I worked with three criteria, which are, credibility, relevance and the range of opinions. Each document was assessed with these criteria, the reputation of the author or the institution, as well as the published work, was made verification, to the best of my ability. I stayed away from unsolicited optimally opinionated pieces, which have not passed through an adequate review. Each text was also thematically classified and differentiated in accordance with the argument, analysis and relevance to the guidance of accepted academic processes and procedure.

I checked all the text for relevance and determined responsive claims for part 1. I eliminated any claims that were mere repetitions of the source. In place of those claims, I sought claims that provided supplemental evidence or reasoning.  In this regard, I understand modern private notions of vulnerability and the system that structures the digital world.