• “Money can’t Buy Happiness”. 1/ According to an online news website named Forbes recently published news that more money buys more happiness. 2/ Money all by itself, can’t buy happiness, yet it can give away to the things we esteem throughout everyday life, like leisure time and genuine peace. 3/ Using over a million real-time reports from a large U.S. sample group, a recent study found that happiness increases linearly with reported income (logarithmic), and continues to rise beyond the $80,000/year mark. 4/ The last one is my personal opinion which I believe that Money can’t make a person happy but a way of making money make a person happy.

• Gallo argues that people’s behavior is related to societal norms. It is controversial because Gallo mentioned in the article that Norms and surveillance are locked in a self-perpetuating cycle, where each informs the human response to the other. Norms, specifically, create the need for the purposes of surveillance.

 

• Regulating real-world surveillance (Margot E. Kaminski)

 

This Article demonstrates the public authority’s interest in establishing laws administering surveillance by private gatherings. Using social clinician Irwin Altman’s system of “limit the board” as a hopping-off point, I conceptualize security hurt as an obstruction in a singular’s capacity to progressively oversee revelation and social limits. Coming from this comprehension of protection, the public authority has two related interests in instituting laws restricting surveillance: an interest in giving notification so an individual can change her conduct; and an interest in denying observation to forestall unwanted social movements.

 

REGULATING REAL-WORLD SURVEILLANCE, 90 Wash. L. Rev. 1113

This article Outlines the public authority interest, or interests, this way enjoys a few benefits. In the first place, it clearly maps on to existing laws: These laws either assist people with dealing with their ideal degree of revelation by requiring notice or keep people from turning to bothersome social movements by prohibiting reconnaissance. Second, the system assists us with evaluating the strength and authenticity of the administrative interest in these laws. Third, it permits courts to see how First Amendment interests are truth be told disguised in security laws. What’s more, fourth, it gives direction to officials to the authorization of new laws administering a scope of new reconnaissance advances – from robotized tag perusers to robots to drones.