FADEC-Full Authority Digital Engine Control Essay

FADEC-Full Authority Digital Engine Control Essay.

FADEC is a system comprising of a digital computer (Electronic Engine Control EEC) and the other accessories that control all the aspects of aircraft engine performance. FADEC is made for piston engine and jet engines both but they differ in the way of controlling the engine. A primary reason for the rapid technological progress of the U. S. LCA industry has been its ability to draw on and benefit from innovations in other high-technology industries. For example, high speed supercomputers accurately model aircraft airflows without the aid of wind tunnels.

Computers also have been incorporated significantly in LCA cockpits as integrators of information. With the increased usage of flat-panel displays that project the image of an electromechanical gauge, several displays either can be transferred individually to various panels or superimposed on one panel at the pilot’s discretion. In addition, computers have aided in the development of Full-Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) systems. FADEC allows for improved monitoring and adjusting of engine operating parameters, such as fuel flow and speed.

This enhanced control of aircraft engines has led to a decrease in both fuel consumption and maintenance demands. History of FADEC A FADEC (Full Authority Engine Control) is an electronic system that controls all the crucial parameters of aircraft power plants. One of the system roles is to lower the cognitive load of pilots while they operate turbojet engines, and to reduce the occurrence of pilot errors. The aim of any control system is to allow the engine to perform at the maximum capacity for a condition. The original engine control system is mechanical linkages and controlled by the pilot.

By using throttle levers which are connected to the engine, the pilot could simply control power output, fuel flow, and the other parameters of engine. These mechanical means of engine control was an introduction of analog electronic engine control. Analog electronic control varies an electronic signal to communicate the desired engine settings. This system was first introduced as an essential part of the Rolls Royce Olympus 593 engine. The 593 engine was regarded best for the famous supersonic transport aircraft, Concord.

In the 1970’s NASA and Pratt and Whitney first experimented on FADEC, it was first flown on F-111 fitted with highly modified Pratt and Whitney TF30 left engine. The experiments led to Pratt & Whitney F100 and Pratt & Whitney PW2000 being the first civil and military engines respectively fitted with FADEC and later the Pratt & Whitney PW4000 as the commercial “Duel FADEC” engine. Rolls- Royce funds almost 20 UTCs working on key areas of engine technology. Most of the UTCs focus on aspects of production technology, e. g. high temperature materials and combustion.

The York UTC is relatively unusual in that if focuses on process issues. In particular the York UTC investigates systems and software engineering processes for the development of full Authority Digital Engine Controllers (FADECs). A FADEC is a complex hydro-mechanical system which carries out all key engine control functions, typically: Thrust provision- altering fuel and air flows through the engine to provide managed thrust. Thrust control- in particular provision of reverse thrust from the engine for braking on landing.

Heat management- ensures that parts of the engine are cooled appropriately. Airframe communication- receiving control commands from the airframe (e. g. from the pilot) and returning engine status indications. Fault management- detecting faults in the engine status indications. (Henderson, pg. 38) Maintenance- recording faults data for on ground engine maintenance. At the heart of the FADEC is a computer system known as an Electronic Engine Controller (EEC). The EEC and its software form a hard real-time system and, typically, the system is safety critical, i.

e. failures could potentially lead to a loss of thrust and perhaps of the aircraft. Functions of FADEC-Full-Authority Digital Engine Control There must not be any form of manual override available for Full Authority Digital Engine Control. This fully places full authority upon the operating parameters of the engine to computer. If FADEC would fail the engine would also fail. If the engine would be controlled digitally and electronically, it would be considered as Electronic Control Unit (ECU) or Electrical Engine control (EEC).

FADEC works by the given input variables of the current flight position like engine temperatures, air density, engine pressures, throttle lever position and others. The EEC receives inputs and analyzes them up to 70 times per second. Engine operates many parameters like bleed valve position, stator vane position, and fuel flow and others are computed from this data and applied as appropriate. FADEC controls most of the functions like restarting and starting. The basic purpose of FADEC is to give optimum engine efficiency for a given flight condition.

FADEC allows receiving engine maintenance reports and program engine limitations. For instance, FADEC can be programmed to take the necessary measures without pilot intervention to avoid exceeding an engine temperature. Turbine engines The fuel control system on the turbine engine is fairly complex, as it monitors and adjusts many different parameters on the engine. These adjustments are done automatically and no action is required of the pilot other than starting and shutting down.

No mixture adjustment is necessary, and operation is fairly simple as far as the pilot is concerned. New generation fuel controls incorporate the use of a full authority digital engine control (FADEC) computer to control the engine’s fuel requirements. The FADEC systems increase efficiency, reduce engine wear, and also reduce pilot workload. The FADEC usually incorporates back-up systems in the events computer failure. Jet engines Modern jet engine is very considerable: it forms an integral part of the engine and is essential for its operation.

In many cases some of the engine control electronics is physically mounted on the engine. Many modern jet engines have a full authority digital engine control system (FADEC). This automatically controls the flow of fuel to the engine combustion chambers by the fuel control unit so as to provide a closed loop control of engine thrust in response to the throttle command. The control system ensures the engine limits in terms of temperatures, engine speeds and that the accelerations are not exceeded and the engine responds in an optimum manner to the throttle command.

The system has what is known as full authority in terms of the control it can exercise on the engine and the high integrity failure survival control system is essential. Otherwise a failure in the system could seriously damage the engine and hazard the safety of the aircraft. A FADEC engine control system is thus similar in many ways to a FBW flight control system. (Collinson, pg. 9) FADEC is used in almost all jet engines and new piston engines on helicopter and fixed winged aircraft. With the operation of the engines so heavily relying on automation, the most important concern is its safety.

Redundancy is provided in the separate identical digital channels. FADEC monitors a discrete and digital data coming from the engine subsystems and variety of analog, and providing for fault tolerant engine control. In the civilian transport aircraft flight, the flight crew enters the appropriate data to the day’s flight in the (FMS) flight management system. The FMS reads the data like wind, runway length, cruise altitude etc. and then calculates the settings for the different phases of flight. The flight crew advances the throttle to take off which contains no mechanical linkage to the engine.

The flight crew checks that they have merely sent an electronic signal to the engines as no direct linkage has been moved to open fuel flow. This is the same phase for all type of flights like cruise, climb etc. The FADECs compute and apply the appropriate trust setting. During the flight small changes in operation are being made to maintain efficiency. Full Authority Digital Control (FADEC) system is configured to ensure safe, stable and reliable engine operation at all the points in the flight envelope. Control laws are essential for providing the desired engine operations safely.

The control laws must be verified and validated before the engine starts for a flight. Reference Collinson, G, P, R. (2003) Introduction to Avionics Systems. Springer, pg. 9 Global Competitiveness of U. S. Advances-Technology Manufacturing Industries, DIANE Publishing Company, Darby. Henderson, Peter. System Engineering for Business Process Change: New Directions: Collected…pg. 38 Sullerey, K, R. Oommen, Charlie. Raghunandan, N,B. (2004 ). Air Breathing Engines and Aerospace Propulsion Proceedings of NCABE 2004.

FADEC-Full Authority Digital Engine Control Essay

Digital Natives Essay

Digital Natives Essay.

In a two-part series entitled “Digital Immigrants, Digital Natives,” Marc Prensky (2001a, 2001b) employs an analogy of native speakers and immigrants to describe the generation gap separating today’s students (the “Digital Natives”) from their teachers (the “Digital Immigrants”). According to Prensky, the former are surrounded by digital media to such an extent that their very brain structures may be different from those of previous generations: Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast. They like to parallel process and multi-task.

They prefer their graphics beforetheir text rather than the opposite. They prefer random access (like hypertext). They function best when networked. They thrive on instant gratification and frequent rewards. They prefer games to “serious” work. (2001a, p. 1 [print], ¶ 11 [online]) In contrast, those not born in the digital world reveal their non-native status through a “Digital Immigrant accent” that manifests itself in a number of ways—printing out a digital document to edit it rather than editing it online, for example (Prensky, 2001a, p.

4 [print]; ¶ 8 [online]).

Prensky’s analogy struck a chord for me. I could easily identify with the 12-year-old boy who moves with his family to the “new world,” quickly assimilates into the new culture, and learns to speak without an accent. As a 30-something, I am a bit older than the generation that Prensky describes, but like that generation, I spent my share of time on television and video games, and I have assimilated into the digital age relatively easily. Until recently, I was employed at a U.S. university where I played a dual role: Part of my job was to help faculty integrate technology into their teaching practices, and the other was to teach technology courses to candidates in the teacher preparation program.

In this dual role, the cultural divide that Prensky describes was apparent. The native/immigrant analogy can help us understand the differences between those who are comfortable with technology and those who are not; however, I disagree with many of the conclusions that Prensky draws from it. In this article, I consider the implications of Prensky’s analogy and whether it provides sufficient justification to radically change the way we view teaching and learning.

Bridging the Gap: New Technologies, New Languages

Prensky argues that the gap between Digital Natives and Digital Immigrants is the fundamental cause of the alleged “decline of education in the US,” and he contends that our current educational system has not been designed to serve today’s students (2001a, p. 1 [print]; ¶ 1 [online]). Today’s students have not just changed incrementally from those of the past, nor simply changed their slang, clothes, body adornments, or styles, as has happened between generations previously. A really big discontinuityhas taken place. One might even call it a “singularity”—an event which changes things so fundamentally that there is absolutely no going back. This so-called “singularity” is the arrival and rapid dissemination of digital technology in the last decades of the 20th century. (2001a, p. 1 [print]; ¶ 2 [online]) How can we bridge the cultural and linguistic divide separating today’s teachers from their students? According to Prensky, Digital Immigrants are attempting to teach the Digital Natives with methods that are no longer valid; the only choice may be for educators to change the way they teach.

“Unfortunately,” he says, “no matter how much the Immigrants may wish it, it is highly unlikely the Digital Natives will go backwards. In the first place, it may be impossible—their brains may already be different” (2001a, p. 4 [print]; ¶ 17 [online]). The solution Prensky proposes is for today’s teachers to learn the language of the Natives, to speed up instruction, and to provide “random access” (2001a, p. 4 [print]; ¶ 11 [online]). Prensky argues for a new way of looking at educational content as well. A category that he calls “legacy content” consists of traditional subjects such as reading, writing, and logical thinking; “future content” is “digital and technological,” including such subjects as “software, hardware, robotics, nanotechnology, genomics, etc.” as well as the “ethics, politics, sociology, languages and other things that go with them” (2001a, p. 5 [print]; ¶ 21 [online]). Prensky’s personal approach to this issue is the use of edutainment. “My own preference for teaching Digital Natives,” he writes, “is to invent computer games to do the job, even for the most serious content” (2001a, p. 5 [print]; ¶ 24 [online]). According to Prensky, virtually all content can be taught in this way. He believes that it is . . . just dumb (and lazy) of educators—not to mention ineffective—to presume that (despite their traditions) the Digital Immigrant way is theonly way to teach, and that the Digital Natives’ “language” is not as capable as their own of encompassing any and every idea. (2001a, p. 6 [print]; ¶ 33 [online])

A Counterargument

I find it hard to believe that neurological structures could change to such a dramatic extent from one generation to the next. Yet even if we grant that Digital Natives think and learn somewhat differently than older generations, we may be doing them a disservice to de-emphasize “legacy” content such as reading, writing, and logical thinking, or to say that the methodologies we have used in the past are no longer relevant. For example, as a technology instructor of pre-service teachers, I found that while most of the younger students were proficient in using the Web, they could not adequately perform advanced searches or evaluate the validity of the resources they found. Digital Immigrants and Natives alike are bombarded with vast volumes of information in today’s electronic society, which, in my opinion, calls for an even greater emphasis on critical thinking and research skills—the very sort of “legacy” content that teachers have focused on since classical times. The Internet, being a primary medium of this emerging culture, is certainly not something that we in education can ignore.

Non-Native educators will need to learn to incorporate the Internet into their teaching because, as Prensky notes, that is the first place the Digital Natives will go for information. But before we discard all of our Digital Immigrant notions of teaching and learning, and before we turn to video games and simulations as the primary modes of instruction, we should answer a number of questions. First among these is whether all of today’s students fit Prensky’s definition of Digital Natives. Are all students, for example, exposed to information technology and video games to the same extent? What are the demographic differences? I currently am living with my family in Hungary, raising two bicultural children. From this perspective, I take issue with a number of Prensky’s assertions about immigrants and cultural assimilation. It seems to me that Prensky overemphasizes the differences between his two groups and de-emphasizes the similarities.

While it appears that the Digital Natives, on average, grew up reading less and engaging with digital media more, this does not mean that they are illiterate or unresponsive to traditional forms of teaching and learning. Like many observers of other cultures, Prensky overgeneralizes his description of the Digital Native and then draws dramatic conclusions from those generalizations. He states, for example, that “Kids born into any new culture learn the new language easily, and forcefully resist using the old” (2001a, p. 4 [print]; ¶ 17 [online])—an assertion that, in my experience at least, is completely unfounded. My own children are living examples of young people who have no problem functioning in two cultures: They can easily speak Hungarian or English depending on their environment, for example. Moreover, many immigrant youths who do fully assimilate into the new culture later regret the loss of connection to their parents’ background (Skerry, 2000).

Cultural assimilation rarely entails a wholesale abandonment of previous customs or practices; rather, it typically involves a flexible process of negotiation and adaptation, wherein certain elements of both cultures are retained in a new combination with one another. We can learn much from looking at the Digital Natives and Immigrants as diverging cultures, but we need not take the analogy too far. Education does need to adapt and evolve with the times, and educators need to understand the learning styles of their students, but we do not have to assume that our students are incapable of learning from or communicating with the Digital Immigrants even if we suspect that their thought patterns are different from our own. One of the most significant problems I see with Prensky’s description of the Digital Native culture is the generalization that all of today’s students fit the stereotype of the kid glued to the computer or the television 20 hours a day.

A typical classroom is much more diverse, with students coming from a range of backgrounds. Many do not have computers at home, some have disabilities, and some are simply not interested in computer games. Can a computer game adapt its lessons to this diverse population? These considerations raise a more fundamental question: The computer may be an effective trainer, but is it an effective teacher? Prensky presents a number of examples of computer games being used to teach students skills and knowledge. And it appears, from these examples, that tutorials modeled on video games are the answer to tomorrow’s educational challenges. In Computers as Mindtools for Schools: Engaging Critical Thinking, however, Jonassen (2000) asserts that the computer is a tool to learn “with” rather than something we learn “from.” Learning, Jonassen explains, is a something that is “constructed, not transmitted.” I do not believe students learn from computers or teachers—which has been a traditional assumption of most schooling. Rather, students learn from thinking in meaningful ways.

Thinking is engaged by activities, which can be fostered by computers or teachers. (p. 4) When seen as a tool for helping students construct knowledge, the computer plays a different role than that proposed by Prensky, and so does the teacher. In this perspective, the teacher uses computers to create an environment where students engage in active, self-directed learning. The WebQuest model allows teachers to create a contextualized Web-based lesson for students; CoVis is a “collaborative visualization tool” that helps students understand complex weather patterns. With these example technologies, the role of the teacher is as important as ever since it is the teacher’s responsibility to structure and support the students’ learning experience. The computer is a medium, whereas the learner and the teacher are the mediators. It is odd for me to argue in opposition to someone who is a proponent of using computers in education; usually I would be in the chorus of agreement and doing my best to drown out the voices of the Luddites. It is not that I disagree with all that Prensky proposes.

I do believe that students are changing, as are the times, and that these changes call for different approaches to teaching and learning. I agree that computers can play a great role in education. I do not agree, however, with the types of changes that Prensky proposes or with the idea that Digital Immigrants must learn to speak a new language in order to be effective teachers. I know a number of teachers today who have adopted new, engaging teaching methods that are student-centered and that promote active learning. Some of these teachers have computers in their classrooms and some do not; among those that do, some often choose not to turn on the computers because they do not fit their particular teaching styles. Such a range of teaching methods does not necessarily suggest an unwillingness to adapt to new circumstances, but rather an understanding that the incorporation of technology in the learning process is always context-specific, always determined by the particular circumstances of a given course.

A final point: Not all technology-assisted learning needs to fit the stereotype of the Digital Native to serve as a conduit between the Natives and Immigrants. Consider the many discussion forums and mailing lists that have emerged in recent years in which educators from around the world are engaged in dialogue concerning all manner of educational issues. The technologies used to support such asynchronous communication are not flashy or fast-paced, “first-person-shooter” video games, and yet they do facilitate discourse in which a considerable amount of teaching and learning occurs. Soon enough, colleagues from the Digital Native generation will join such communities and be able to succeed without any short videos or flashy animations. For evidence of that proposition, just search the Web for discussion groups targeted at video game players (see for example, the Quake3World Forumsor the PlanetTonyHawk Forums).

You will find that members of those communities teach and learn the intricacies of their favorite video games in much the same way that we forge education and technology discussions: through discourse. The very fact that the Digital Natives are forming such communities shows us that their cognitive processes are much the same as our own. While it is true that they are attracted to faster, more random forms of input (as Prensky suggests), they are also “wired” to use discourse as a means of making sense of the experience. This capability suggests that we should conceive of the cultural assimilation between Digital Natives and Immigrants as a mutual process of adaptation rather than a one-way street.

The rapid pace of change is undeniable, and it is likely that generations growing up amidst such change will be amazingly adaptable. Thus, there is no reason to think that they cannot adapt to an Immigrant’s way of teaching—as long as it is good teaching. Good teaching engages learners’ interests. Given that fact, we would be wise to heed part of Prensky’s advice and do what we can to learn about Digital Native culture as it emerges.

However, good teaching also aims to improve students’ ability to engage in higher-order thinking; it recognizes the diversity of learners’ abilities and needs; and it reflects an awareness of both the complexity of the learning process and the need to make adjustments in different circumstances. Human teachers do not always accomplish all of these tasks at once, or any one of them consistently. Even so, there has yet to be a computer program that can come even close to replicating what a human teacher does on a daily basis. Rather than focusing on the development of computer applications that teach, I am in favor of creating better tools for teachers, and then helping teachers become better users of the tools.

Digital Natives Essay

POW: A Digital Proof Essay

POW: A Digital Proof Essay.

This problem of the week has a main gain goal set upon boxes. There are five boxes numbered one through zero. Underneath the boxes have the numbers written under them. In the boxes, there are numbers that should be entered in the boxes that all evenly works out. For instance, the number that you put in box zero must be the same as the number of zeros that were used. The same procedures apply when using other boxes. The same number cannot be used in the box, for example, a four cannot be placed in box four or the number two cannot be enlisted in box two.

The same number is tolerable to be used more than once. The only exception is that no number higher than four can be expended. My goal for this POW is to corroborate and demonstrate that I have found all solutions and that all solutions work and is credible.

Process:

This POW was very challenging to achieve at first.

A few methods that I used to help me with this POW was using when Mr. Kohnen first showed us how to play a game of Sudoku. Sudoku is number game where you have to have numbers one through nine in a box going across and up and down. There are nine boxes so only one number can be in the box. This game helped me get a generalization of how to complete the task of this POW. I also had the opportunity to work with other classmates. Working with other classmates helped me a lot because we were able to come up with solutions faster and other solutions of how to solve the problem. Coming up with different ways to find the answer was useful because as you’re getting close to the answer, all that needs to be done is switching around numbers that will facilitate and lead you to the answer.

This is he incorrect to do this because there is a one in box two and more than one two is used in the boxes. Likewise, there is a two in box four, but the number of fours is not two. I also used the process of elimination to find the correct answer.

Solution:

After doing all of the work and figuring out the solutions, here is how I found a way to find the correct solution. I am assured that there are no other ways of how to find any other solutions. The zeros generate a larger amount of numbers. Whichever number that is placed in the zero boxes that is how may zeros that need to be revealed.

POW: A Digital Proof Essay

Privacy in Digital Age Essay

Privacy in Digital Age Essay.

Indeed, the Digital age has been considered as one of the greatest development of the world today. It has brought different benefits to the lives of people and catered all their needs and wants. As the world gets into crave for things that are “quick and easy”, the Digital Age had posed threat to people’s privacy and security (Meeks, 2000). The advancement in new technologies and gadgets should not only be considered as something good that came into people’s lives but also danger in the privacy of their personal information.

Loss of privacy is the most inevitable risk that these technologies have brought to mankind. Every now and then, as people post in their status in Facebook, twit things on Twitter, sends emails to friends and blog facts on their pages, the risk of the digital world is in front of their houses, waiting for their doors to open and hacks into their personal lives and property. This thing can likely to be compared to a professional thief, who had planned long for its victims.

Every bits of information given away to the web has been automatically rendered as property of the Digital world. Whatever is in there can never be taken back; it stays there, often forever (Kalbach & Leous, 2012).

The Digital Age had used the advanced technologies to lure people to its hidden traps. According to Brock Meeks (2000), technologies had fed the people with “fast food” mentality and turned them into speed freaks. It has lured and seduced the people with discounts (Meeks, 2000). With little bits of personal information, an instant discount will be given to anyone. This has been Meeks’ argument over the strategy that the Digital world had done to intrude people’s lives. Discounts were just simple examples of how Digital Age has posed threat to the world (Meeks, 2000). What about the more extensive ways it does just to veer towards personal lives of people? Definitely, there would be more complicated actions it can do. There would really be a problem in privacy of information in the Digital Age. As people enter the digital world, they are widely exposed out from privacy and to the entire world itself.

Risks of Digital Age don’t just only lie on its own ways, but also on the outside factors that trigger to people’s detriment. There have been rich people and government officials who are willing to use the advancement of technologies to devour other people (Meeks, 2000). Indeed, the people have little control over the information they want to be private in Internet (JWT, 2008). The fact that through the internet it is easy to embarrass, hurt, and shame people makes the existence of technologies more risky to people’s privacy and personal security (JWT, 2008). At some point, privacy can survive in the Digital Age with the help of technologies itself. But there are only few people who can actually afford to protect themselves from the risk of the loss of privacy. Much of these people are the rich ones and people in authorities (Meeks, 2000).

As one releases information to the Digital Age, the information cannot be pulled back or removed before it can cause damage and consequences (Kalbach & Leous, 2012). It will never be easy to ask an Internet company to remove private information it knows from you (Kalbach & Leous, 2012). As what Sun Microsystems CEO Scoot McNealy said, Privacy is really dead and people should deal with it (Meeks, 2000). With the coming of the Digital Age, privacy has been put to the verge of its death. Indeed, the Digital Age has made changes to the lives of people from buying food, travelling, treating diseases up to socializing with friends and family (NAAG, 2012). But it became the most challenging phenomenon in the ability of people to control how and whom their personal information is shared (NAAG, 2012). The advancement of technology had really created risks for the whole world.

How to protect Information Privacy?

One of the arguments that had been given about the issue of protecting information privacy is equality and transparency (Meeks, 2000). People should all give up their privacy equally (Meeks, 2000). Even those who are in high authorities should be transparent about this. If the Police have the right to put surveillance to the public, then the public should also have the same right over these authorities (Meeks, 2000). In that case, government officials and high authorities would be obliged to respect such right for everybody. Privacy then would gain its ultimate protection. How? A very simple question would probably answer it.

Whose government official, high authorities or rich people would agree on putting their lives in the eyes of the public? None. It would actually trigger not to enact such surveillance to everybody resulting to protection of information privacy of all. Equality and transparency will address the problem of loss of privacy. If somebody wants you to share your information or get your personal data, a fair condition is a good idea to make (Meeks, 2000). He/she should do the same thing which he wanted you to do. In such way, it would be fair that both parties have agreed to share information intentionally. The deal would just be a “give and take” relationship. One should give, to gain something. The main purpose of the idea would be to avoid anyone to get private information from you as they would not agree to share theirs with you.

Is it possible to redefine Privacy?

It would actually be impossible to redefine privacy today. Privacy is simple as “it’s PRIVATE”. How would it be redefine? Once a right to privacy is removed, the mere meaning will be of no sense. Some says it would be better to get legislation to protect privacy, but what would the legislation do if there is no certain person who runs the world of Digital Age (Kalbach & Leous, 2012)? It is designed to “route around.” (Kalbach & Leous, 2012) Who would be the people accountable for its flaws? Answer: the people itself. The idea now goes, people made legislation to protect their privacy from their selves. It would actually turn out to be an unreasonable thought.

People know that their privacy is under attack, but they never knew that it was all their actions that devour them. The people would never know how to fight back against the threat of the Digital Age as soon as they realize how to manage their actions over technology. Privacy need not to be redefined. People just need to know the discipline on how to properly use technology and manage their information at hand. Their personal information should be kept to their selves. It would just be a matter of choice how and whom they would like to share them.

References
Meeks, B., (2000). “Is Privacy possible in Digital Age: if isn’t dead, then it’s hanging on by a thread.” NBC News. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3078854/t/privacy-possible-digital-age/#.UMQAweTCntB JWT, (2008). “ Privacy in Digital Age.” WPP.com. Retrieved from http://www.wpp.com/wpp/marketing/digital/privacy-in-the-digital-age.htm Kalbach, J., & Leous, J., (2012). “Be Proactive in protecting your

Privacy in Digital Age Essay