Capitol Mob’s Phone Apps Betrayed Them Article Analysis

Out of all American households in 2018, ninety-two percent had at least one type of computer and eighty-five percent had an internet subscription, according to a study done by the American Community Survey. In their article “Capitol Mob’s Phone Apps Betrayed Them”, Charlie Warzel and Stuart A. Thompson go in depth on the government’s invasion of internet user’s privacy and the way Americans are negatively affected by it. By using various statistics, real life events, as well as precise numbers and dates the authors were able to inform the reader on the improper use of government surveillance. However, they failed to name specific organizations, did not have credible sources, and held a one-sided argument. Due to these issues the argument being made is weak. 

At the start of their article, Thompson and Warzel explain a file they received containing locations of millions of smartphones. Additionally, the information was not private and exposed the whereabouts of celebrities, law enforcement officials, as well as average citizens. Receiving the file opened the eyes of Thompson and Warzel and shed light on the invasion of privacy most Americans face. The two go on to explain other dangers of technology and privacy violations such as records of where people go, the marketing industry buying user data, and government officials using technology to solve crimes. At the end of the article, they explain how most Americans will never know if their personal information is being shared. In addition, it is very difficult to delete the information, if possible. With several issues arising between technology and the invasion of privacy, more attention is brought to the stopping of the spread of personal information and investigating its legality. 

Warzel and Thompson begin their article with an appeal to ethos by adding details about a file that they received filled with personal information of average citizens. However, the appeal weakened the credibility of the information because it lacked specific details. In addition, another negative use of ethos was presented when the two stated “a source has provided another data set… (Thompson, Warzel)” By failing to use specific names or industries, the information does not seem accurate or reliable. In addition to not providing specific details, Thompson and Warzel did not state or quote any of their sources into their article. An emailed statement from the company Cuebiq as well as an account from Ronnie Vincent, a victim of government surveillance, are some of the few sources stated. However, when talking about data following the rioters of Washington, D.C. on January 6, the author does not site a source. Despite not citing a source, they included the following information: “The data set we were given showed what some in the tech industry might call a God-view vantage of that dark day. It included about 100,000 location pings for thousands of smartphones, revealing around 130 devices inside the Capitol… (Thompson, Warzel)” This attempt at logos was unsuccessful due to the lack of quotations or citations to confirm the facts. The rest of the article includes the same flaws and therefore reduces the accuracy needed to argue the authors’ opinions. 

Regardless of the article’s lack of logos, the authors use an approach that is relatable to the reader. Their choice of wording such as “smartphone users” and “plenty of Americans” catch the reader’s attention and cause them to think about the contents of the article and its application to their life (Thompson, Warzel). By using examples of how Americans have been impacted by the government’s invasion of privacy, it causes the reader to be concerned about their privacy rights. An example of this would be when the authors introduced Ronnie Vincent, one of the many who stormed the capitol building on January 6. The authors explained how Ronnie’s information was used by the government to locate his whereabouts. Thompson and Warzel also use simple language and real-life examples which allow the reader to be able to understand and follow along with the article. The authors successfully speak concisely as well as entertain the reader, however they lack the logic needed to argue their opinion. 

Warzel and Thompson filled their article with information that can not be backed up or supported as a fact. With little logos used, the article is not effective at convincing the reader. The attempt to relate to the reader is not enough to make up for the lack of facts and evidence. Even though the use of pathos will catch the attention of the reader and question their privacy, it is not enough to convince them it is an issue. With more direct sources and citations, specific details, and acceptance of other opinions the article would be more reliable. For the reader to be convinced that government surveillance invading the right to privacy is an issue, well-grounded information is needed.