The governement should not be able to access cell phone data [argumentative essay]

The easiness of communication and almost effortless access to information have had a great impact on the lives of people in the 21st century. Even though immediate, global flow of data certainly helps improve relations between members of various cultures and citizens of countries around the world, it also possesses risk of the the personal content being easily obtained not just by intelligence agencies, but legally elected governments. The opponents of the idea of the state collecting cell phone data
claim that such procedure violates basic human rights and helps criminals develop alternative means of communication, unbeknowst to the police. Others argue that it is the first step to estabilishing a totalitarian regime, as well as to teaching citizens to censor themselves on a daily basis.
The right to privacy is one of the most important values that uphold human dignity. Supporters of surveillance often raise the arguement that if a person has nothing to hide, they should not be afraid when their phones are being monitored. However, such logic can easily be dismissed. Why do people lock the bathroom door? Why do they cover their bodies with clothes? These activities, among many others - especially being able to talk with the other person without the conversation being tracked
by the authorities - fulfill the natural desire for security and confidentiality.
Furthermore, a law allowing the government to collect cell phone data would inspire lawbreakers, particularly larger terrorist groups like The Islamic State, to estabilish new channels of communication since they would be aware of their activity being observed. Journalist Don Reisinger warns that: "[...] they've built their own "customized" tools to communicate. Those tools include an encrypted email application called Mojahedeen Secrets, a mobile app called Tashfeer al-Jawwal, and even an
Android-based news app for "terrorist-related actions," called Alemarah." 1 It means that, ironically, regulations designed to stop criminals would actually benefit them, as their technology would make it harder for intelligence agencies to track their steps.
What is more, legal monitoring of information shared by people is characteristic of totalitarianism. For instance, wiretapping was one of the main aspects of the regimes of Fidel Castro and other like-minded leaders.2 Supervising cell phone data would not just allow authorities to gather even more knowledge, since they would be able to track online activity and text messages as well, but would help construct a new totalitarian state.
Finally, lawful cell phone surveillance would spark the destruction of one of the modern world's most important qualities, the freedom of speech and expression. Knowing their communication might be observed, people would subconsciously develop a fear of expressing creative or controversial ideas. Such self-censorship would be devastating to human artistry and discourage citizens from resisting opressive or wrongful conditions.
In general, allowing governments to collect cell phone data would lead to depriving people of their basic rights and freedom of thought. As Evgeny Morozov once said: "Surveillance might reduce crime - even though the evidence here is mixed - but no studies show that it results in greater happiness of everyone involved."
________________________________________
1fortune.com/2016/05/03/terrorists-email-social-media/

The causes of divorces [example cause-(effect) essay]

A high divorce rate in developing countries sparks questions related to the causes of the phenomenon. Whether the decision to end the marriage is based on severe or rather trivial concerns, the responisibility for separation is usually caused by the other person's behaviour.
First, the most common reason for leaving the partner is adultery. Although there are many types of relationships, the union of two people is the foundation of marriage. Not everyone is comfortable with their spouse having a romantic relationship with someone else, and even though polygamous relationships are present, the majority of people do not tolerate cheating.
Next, the decision to end the union might be motivated by one - or both - of the spouses' infertility. Not every childless marriage remains so by choice. Even if some couples decide to stay together, there are also people who get overcomed by the desire to have a child and decide to find a healthy partner.
Furthermore, various addictions can also contribute to a divorce. If substance dependence becomes so severe that the person starts abusing their husband, wife, or children, leaving the abuser is, in most cases, the only way to save the physical and mental health of the victims.
Finally, the relationship might end because one party has fallen out of love with the other - more often than not, they might have also already developed a romantic interest in someone else. If the spouse realizes they are not their partner's significant one anymore, they usually face serious issues with self-esteem and jealously; the best way for the couple to stop being surrounded by such negative emotions in their relationship is to end it.
To sum up, although there are many different causes of ending the marriage, the demeanour, behaviour and well-being of the spouse plays an important role in making such a decision. Not everyone is capable of succesfully fighting the difficulties they are likely to face in their relationship. What is more, leaving the partner might - just like in case of being abused by an addict - be the only way to achieve happiness in the future.