About '94.3 radio one online'-How do you see the world?
Ethical Implications in IT What is ethical and what is legal are not always the same. Unfortunately many of our laws are actually written by lobbyist, and their motives are not always ethical. Also what is ethical varies widely by culture. However, most of our core laws are based on a common core morality. One big issue in the IT area is piracy and intellectual property rights. Not only is this issue ethically debated, but the laws that govern intellectual property vary depending on content and media type. As others have pointed there have been many laws in the past such as those concerning slavery or the treatment of native peoples that are not at all moral by modern standards. You can certainly have ethics without law or law without ethics. Again, much of this depends on your own perspective as morality or ethics are variable. For this assignment, I am selecting to discuss general IT ethics, but specifically the ethics around intellectual property, inconsistencies that exist in our laws that concern it, piracy, and the future of a free internet. The famous copyright case of Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc or commonly known as "Sony vs Betamax", upheld, in principle, the right for a noncommercial entity, that is someone at home, to reproduce a copy written work for private and noncommercial use. This idea was further expanded when the Audio Home Recording Act extended legal protection to make analog home recordings of copy written works, again for private and noncommercial use. However, the laws that govern digital works are the complete opposite and do not protect the right to make home copies of copy written works for private and noncommercial use. So the law is not consistent. As an example, you can record a song off of the radio and you have a legal copy. But if you download a copy of the same song, you are in violation. It is this inconsistency that concerns me. This speaks in the larger scope to corporations with lobbyists that are contributing to laws that are clamping down on our liberty. The modern law enforcement machine has become a militant arm of corporations. The perfect example of this is the recent raid on the founders of Megaupload. I don't really agree with elements from the U.S. Justice department being able to influence a raid on a company in a sovereign and foreign country. This just shows that there is a global network already in place to increasingly tighten the noose of censorship on the internet as well as our daily lives. In other words, our justice department is out of the business of protecting the individual and only concerned with protecting the profits of corporations. I am not saying that corporations don't have a right to protect their profits, they do, but I think it should be done in the civil courts only with legal protection for individuals that only use copy written works for private non-commercial use. As for the future of IT ethics, this will depend on the fate of anti-piracy laws and if they are allowed to permeate through the internet. I personally think that the corporate influence will be the dominant force in shaping copyright law, and that the internet will be censored in this country like it is currently in China. I believe this because it is in the interest of big content providers like Yahoo and Google to go back to an AOL type model where they control content. This is also in the interest of a government that wants to control speech and liberty like our current corporatocracy. A U.S. government that can constitutionally justify such things as free speech zones, like those of the past for the Democratic National Convention and others, is capable of denying free speech everywhere. One of the big issues here is that civics in modern schools is not emphasized anymore. We don't indoctrinate our population in the views of our founding fathers, who are now described as terrorists by historical revisionists. If we want to keep the internet free and keep the government out of our homes and businesses, we have to rally and stop what is happening now. Using the internet while it is still open is the best way. As for the openness of the internet, I feel that this is something that should not be regulated beyond the standard interstate trade agreements. To me, the value of the internet is in the open nature of the content. This does not need to be censored at a government level. So, what about those who do break the copyright and piracy laws and ethics? If you want to stop piracy, let the companies go after the pirates in civil courts or police individuals on a one on one basis. There are real pirate today that exist on the ocean and plunder cruise ships and other boats. We go after them in a one on one fashion by policing. We don't destroy all the boats so that no one can use them for piracy. This backwards way of thinking permeates Washington today. If people are getting too fat, they say "outlaw sugar". Measures like this are absurd and punish the innocent. Beside if you wanted to live on nothing but sugar and get fat with diabetes, as insane as that would be to want to do, it is still your right in a free society. Property Rights and Accountability I believe that the right to private property and the protection from unlawful search and seizure is a fundamental right that supports and provides a foundation to many other rights. This is not a new idea. "No other rights are safe where property is not safe." (Daniel Webster) "The right of distribution over private property is the essence of freedom." (Merrill Jenkins) The rights of property extend beyond the right of mere ownership of property, to the guaranty of the protection of property. The protection of property from the government by means of unlawful search and seizure, and also the protection from theft and trespass by means of armed defense. Property also extends beyond land to include anything that you own, including money. Just like you would expect your homes to be secure from threat of government or an intruder, your computers and electronic devices should be equally protected. If you remember in 2009, the online retailer Amazon removed copies, ironically, of George Orwell's classic 1984, which is about a super controlling government with designs of engineering everyone's life and a habit of revising history. In the case of Amazon, a private company, granted and not the government, removed lawfully purchased electronic copies of the book from users devices because of internal issues. This was an obvious violation of property rights, and they got slapped on the wrist, proverbially in the form of customer backlash. As a result, Amazon changed not only the policy, but also the back end program to prevent this from happening again, so they say. This shows that we are not yet in the habit of thinking of our electronic property the same way that we think of physical property, and this goes both ways. No retailer in the world would reposes physical property from you home in the middle of the night because of a manufacturing issue on their side. Not only would it be considered breaking and entering, but they might get shot. Just the same, many people in the digital age don't consider illegally downloading music to be theft, because the original is still there. You can argue both sides. If I go to a museum and take a photo of a famous painting, did I steal it? I don't think so, but if I start selling reproductions of my photo, even though I took the picture, I could still be violating copyright. Even though this example steps outside of the bounds of the digital world, the concept is the same. Where are the lines of demarcation? These lines are hard to see. Just like the definitions surrounding physical property was vague many years ago, electronic property boundaries are vague now, but are being defined. In ancient time, property bounds were often delineated by moving objects such as tree lines of streams, and in some cases, how far a man could shoot and arrow from some central marker. Just as barbed wire tamed the western United States, further definition of electronic boundaries with tame the electronic frontier. We just have to go forward with some degree of patience and understanding, with the exception of some very basic rules. As for accountability, I think that all sides, individuals, governments, and companies, have to be accountable. As stated above, the rules concerning electronic property are still being defined, so you have to proceed with caution. One aspect of electronic property is that it can be backed up, or replicated. I personally have spent years collecting DVD movies, but now find that I use my laptop more to watch movies. I don't want to carry around a lot of physical DVD's, so I am converting my movies to digital copies and storing them on a hard drive. There is still some legal debate about my rights with DVD's that I own, but I feel pretty safe that as long as I bought it I should be able to back it up. The point of this is that if you back up your data, it makes it more difficult for it to be taken from you. Copied maybe, but not taken outright. As for a solution, I think that we need legislation that falls on the side of protecting the individual. As I have stated before, my main issue with this subject is how digital and analog reproduction is treated differently. The famous copyright case of Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc or commonly known as "Sony vs Betamax", upheld, in principle, the right for a noncommercial entity, that is someone at home, to reproduce a copy written work for private and noncommercial use. This idea was further expanded when the Audio Home Recording Act extended legal protection to make analog home recordings of copy written works, again for private and noncommercial use. However, the laws that govern digital works are the complete opposite and do not protect the right to make home copies of copy written works for private and noncommercial use. So the law is not consistent. As an example, you can record a song off of the radio and you have a legal copy. But if you download a copy of the same song, you are in violation. Not consistent. The laws have to be made consistent and have to protect the little guy in his home. I think that the future will probably see more laws in favor of corporations and more cracking down on that little guy in his home. This is unfortunate, but I believe that it is the trend. I think we are facing this issue on two fronts as individuals. First, you have corporations that are greedy and use the influence of money and lobbyists to shape the laws. Secondly, you have a Federal Government that continues to limit our liberties. At this point we need to send messages to both through voting, both at the polls and with our pocket books, and through any other legals means that we can, letters signs, etc. This may seem like a paranoid or anti-government ideology, and it is. It is innately American to be anti-government. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." (George Washington) In this country, we have forgotten then we are supposed to be self governed. "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." (John Adams) When we lose the ability to self govern, it is all over. As I read through the post this week, I saw a lot of people that were very willing to sacrifice liberty for security, but this is the reaction of someone who is acting out of impulse, and not reason. "Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin) These ideas are true for physical and digital property alike. Legal Implications in IT I think that the current state of computer related legislation is continuing to tighten the noose on individual privacy, and attempting to not only lock down the internet, but also attempting to turn IT professionals into spies and snitches. One of the best examples of using professionals as snitches, are the laws that govern the reporting of child pornography by IT professionals. Seven U.S. states have enacted laws that govern and impose this requirement: Arkansas, Illinois, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and South Dakota. These laws, while there are differences, require at least that "computer technicians or Internet service providers to report child pornography if they encounter it in the scope of their work". (Child Pornography Reporting Requirements, 2010) Although these laws do not require the active searching of the computer, but rather only requires the reporting if found through normal work, these laws could expand to include searching. I am not making a case here that child pornography is not a serious crime, because it is, but I do have an issue with forcing civilians to police their fellow citizens. In addition to these state laws, U.S. Code Title 42, Section 13032 requires those providing electronic communication services to make a report to the Cyber Tip Line at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Again, I am not excusing the crime, I just don't like where this slippery slope leads, which is potentially a paranoid society where people are required or rewarded to spy and snitch on their neighbors and fellow citizens. I don't want to confuse this for legitimate and voluntary reporting of crimes; I just don't want to see a system where we lose our nature beliefs in the U.S. justice system of presumed innocents and waiting until someone actually commits a crime before arresting them. In addition to my own thoughts, "Critics charge that this type of law unfairly transfers law enforcement duties to individuals who may not be qualified to handle evidence or determine what constitutes child pornography. Supporters say reporting mandates for photo labs have proven effective and that similar laws for IT workers will help combat child pornography on the Internet." (Child Pornography Reporting Requirements, 2010) In terms of a dilemma, I have not experienced this particular scenario, although I have found material on computers that violated company policies, some adult in nature. In these cases, I have had to make judgment calls as to what to do. I have used my own judgment as to the content and the level of offense that it met. I agree with the critics of these laws that force IT professionals to report findings, in the idea that IT professionals can't use their judgment as to whether or not to report findings. I understand that in the case of these laws that deal specifically with child pornography, I do not disagree with these laws in principle, and I think that they are probably needed in this one case, I just want to make sure that we only cross the line of freedom verses justice in these extreme cases and don't go down the road of paranoia where we spy on our fellow citizens for whatever reason. As for the future of privacy and ethics, I still see a trend of continued legislation that tracks and controls the actions of individuals and institute more corporate and government control. With potential acts like SOPA, we see control over every aspect of our computing. I know that copyright and child pornography may seem different, but they share the fact that they are forcing non-judicial persons or entities to report or control the actions of individuals. These are also extremes, but when looking at laws that control actions, you have to look at extremes. This has been a re-occurring theme in my assignments, because as someone who values the history of liberty in this country, I see this legal trend as a threat to our liberty and way of life. I want to stress that I am not in any way condoning illegal or unethical behavior; I just want to make sure that we are proceeding in a way that supports liberty and protects the individual. This is further seen in other laws that are more and more controlling, be it screening in our airports or surveillance drones to spy on every day people. Each year our congress passes more laws, and then more the year after that, year after year the noose tightens. I think we need to step back and see what we are losing in the process. I think that we can look at other countries around the world that controls every aspect of the lives of their citizens. Great Britain is a good example where they have millions of cameras to spy on their citizens under the allusion that these cameras are there to stop crime and protect the average person. But once these surveillance and control systems are in place, they can fall into the wrong hands so to speak and then we are in a place that we can never recover from. Privacy, Security, and Information Sharing My research has continued to point in one direction. To the concept that the majority of laws in the U.S. regarding IT and the internet, are directed at securing the profits of the entertainment industry, in other words anti-piracy. I am not suggesting that this is the only category of cyber law, and I am not suggesting that the U.S. does not have a vested interest in securing the profits of a major part of the economy. What I am suggesting, however, is that there has been a shift in the last 20 years towards criminalizing activity that used to be handled in civil courts. Right or wrong, I think that this is due, in part to industry lobbyist and their influence over our lawmakers. It is a well established practice in congress these days to submit laws written entirely by corporate lobbyists in exchange for favors and campaign contributions, and it is yet another example of our democratic republic's conversion to a corporatocracy. Google CEO Eric Schmidt, in an interview with Atlantic editor James Bennet, said "The average American doesn't realize how much of the laws are written by lobbyists to protect incumbent interests ... It's shocking how the system actually works." (Google's CEO: 'The Laws Are Written by Lobbyists', 2010) This is so common, that it is not even denied. Unfortunately, the public is so dumbed down by sodium fluoride in their water and distracted by the latest Kardashian wedding, that no one knows what is going on or cares to know. It reminds me of the old joke, what is the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know, and I don't care. This is sad but true, the average person in the U.S. is asleep at the wheel. Fortunately, intra-corporation and intra-industry interest conflicts, so every law does not get passed. So as pharmaceutical companies write and submit our drug laws, so Hollywood does with our copyright laws. I understand that all is fair in love, war, and business and while I believe that companies have the right to secure their profits, my concern over the long term is the little man at home. What I see happening is that laws meant to secure profit are being morphed into tolls that can be used to spy on the public. A court ruling from just days ago makes this point for me. According to the Routers article "U.S. court approves warrantless searches of cell phones", "U.S. police can search a cell phone for its number without having a warrant, according to a federal appeals court ruling". (U.S. court approves warrantless searches of cell phones, 2012) The article goes on to say "Officers in Indiana found a number of cell phones at the scene of a drug bust, and searched each phone for its telephone number. Having the numbers allowed the government to subpoena the owners' call histories, linking them to the drug-selling scheme … One of the suspects, Abel Flores-Lopez, who was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison, argued on appeal that the police had no right to search the phone's contents without a warrant. The U.S. Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit rejected that argument on Wednesday, finding that the invasion of privacy was so slight that the police's actions did not violate the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches." (U.S. court approves warrantless searches of cell phones, 2012) This to me regardless of the context is a travesty of privacy rights. This line in particular "finding that the invasion of privacy was so slight". (U.S. court approves warrantless searches of cell phones, 2012) This is an admission that there was an invasion of privacy, and the U.S. Constitution does not place a level of permissibility on the freedoms granted in the Bill of Rights. We are so obsessed with finding someone that has violated one law, that we are willing as a society to give up our God given right to do so. No one crime could ever be justification to bypass the U.S. Constitution. Don't take me the wrong way, I hate drugs. I have witness first hand their evil effects. However, that still does not justify scrapping the supreme law of the land. We caught criminals is this country before the invention of the cell phone, as a matter of fact, we caught criminals is this country before the invention of the land line phone. This is just an example of lazy and sloppy police work getting a pass from a high court that has no respect for the Constitution, and the chemically lobotomized public not caring. I am a reader by nature; I have been all of my life. In addition to my reading for school and work, I read about forty books per year, mostly fiction. One book that stands out to me in the context of this discussion is Fahrenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury. As the story unfolds and the protagonist, Guy Montag is being awaked to the reality around him, his wife buries her head from any truth in the form of television, what Bradbury call the "Parlor Walls", basically a full wall interactive reality soap opera. Does any of this sound familiar, a story of a society that is obsessed with reality television, chemically lobotomized by sodium fluoride in their water and mercury in every vaccination shot taken, totally oblivious as the once free society spirals out of control to a dystrophic nightmare. This could be Bradbury's latest novel if it weren't for the fact that it is real and happening around us. I see a very sad future and electronic devices are on the forefront. The date and information is so easy to get, that is why it is so tempting. The pot bellied modern law enforcement officer doesn't have the physical characteristics to chase a criminal the old fashion way anymore because he is a product of system he protects. High on any pharmaceutical he can legally get, chemically lobotomized, overweight from trans-fats and nitrates in the fast food, suffering from diabetes and heart disease, barely able to make it from car to desk. We have no choice as a society, but to make crime fighting easy. Just log into Google's law enforcement portal, download someone's history where they did a web search for a bong, and then go arrest them, simple and easy. If you think this is farfetched, it is not. In an article in the National Journal, Google admitted to Josh Smith that, "law enforcement agencies in the United States requested user data from the company more than 8,000 times last year. As part of its Transparency Report feature, which also tracks requests to remove information, Google noted that ... the company fully or partially complied with 94 percent of the requests". (Google gives user data to U.S. government in almost all cases, 2011) Google went on to say "The number of requests we receive for user account information as part of criminal investigations has increased year after year ... The increase isn't surprising, since each year we offer more products and services, and we have a larger number of users." (Google gives user data to U.S. government in almost all cases, 2011) This is not a joke, this is not a dream, and this is not the latest Bradbury novel, this is the real world, and it is happening right now around us and the outcome does not look good. As we explore the cyber end of this, the current executive branch wants to be able to label you a terrorist is you do anything to impact our economy, and we all know what happens when they label you a terrorist, citizen or not, you end up in Guantanamo sans trial. This is not my opinion, this is based on an article in the CNET News by Staff Writer Declan McCullagh, called "Terrorist link to copyright piracy alleged". I think that I can explain the root problem here. Government and laws are inherently oppressive and therefore evil. As George Washington said "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master". (George Washington) He also said this, "Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty." (George Washington) I think he would see our current governmental structure as tyrannical. The root cause is that we no longer respect the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law, or the liberties that is gives. But there is also an underlying false idea that laws and government, which is evil, can be used for good. I submit that this is a false premise when taken to in whole, and the level of oppressive evil is directly proportional to the number of laws enacted, so in effect, like a slip not, the more weight that is added, the tighter the noose. I have another literary reference. I submit to you the plot line the Lord of the Rings trilogy by J.R.R. Tolkien. The story centers around a master ring that is forged by the dark lord Sauron, to control the world of middle earth under a dark and evil rule. Now, the ring has power, but the power is of an evil origin, so in the end, the ring can only be used for evil, even things meant for good still turn to evil. Through a set of circumstances to detailed to mention here, men, or rather a succession of men find themselves in possession of the ring. Each one initially sets out to use the ring for good, but since the ring can only be used for evil, no good comes of their actions. Only when it is almost too late do they realize that the ring must be destroyed. Too much government is the same way. Every new legislator goes to Washington, D.C., or their local state legislative body thinking that they can use the ring for good, i.e. government and law, but the end result is the same almost every time. It just ends up being a mess and we end up with a law so bloated and packed with pork and riders that most legislators don't even read the laws they vote on. I think we need to end this and I am afraid we might need to start over to correct the issue. Conclusion In closing, I think that there is little doubt to me, that the current U.S. congress and president want a China styled filtering in place. SOPA and PIPA would be a good start down this road. We have the power to stop this through voting and other civil means. I believe that a government regulation is rarely the right answer, and that we need to focus on individual freedom and liberty, not corporate profits. This is about ethics and the law, and the supreme law is still supposed to be the U.S. Constitution. References Ethics (n.d.). Retrieved February 5, 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics Computer Ethics (n.d.). Retrieved February 5, 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_ethics Megaupload (n.d.). Retrieved February 5, 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaupload Megaupload Busted as Piracy War Heats Up (n.d.). Retrieved February 5, 2012, http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/megaupload-busted-as-piracy-war-heats-up-20120203 Amazon Erases Orwell Books From Kindle (n.d.). Retrieved February 19, 2012, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/18/technology/companies/18amazon.html Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section (n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2012, http://www.cybercrime.gov/cclaws.html Computer and Information Ethics (n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2012, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-computer/ Child Pornography Reporting Requirements (n.d.). Retrieved February 26, 2012, http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/telecom/child-pornography-reporting-requirements-isps-and.aspx Computer Security (n.d.). Retrieved March 4, 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_security Cyber Security Standards (n.d.). Retrieved March 4, 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_security_standards Cyber Security Regulation (n.d.). Retrieved March 4, 2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber-security_regulation Does The Cybersecurity Act Of 2012 Mark The Beginning Of The War On Cyber-terrorism? (2012). Retrieved March 4, 2012, http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/02/22/does-the-cybersecurity-act-of-2012-mark-the-beginning-of-the-war-on-cyber-terrorism/ Google's CEO: 'The Laws Are Written by Lobbyists' (2010). Retrieved March 4, 2012, http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/10/googles-ceo-the-laws-are-written-by-lobbyists/63908/ U.S. court approves warrantless searches of cell phones (2012). Retrieved March 4, 2012, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/01/cellphone-searches-idUSL4E8E15KN20120301 Google gives user data to U.S. government in almost all cases (2011). Retrieved March 4, 2012, http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20110628_4456.php Terrorist link to copyright piracy alleged (2005). Retrieved March 4, 2012, http://news.cnet.com/Terrorist-link-to-copyright-piracy-alleged/2100-1028_3-5722835.html |
Image of 94.3 radio one online
94.3 radio one online Image 1
94.3 radio one online Image 2
94.3 radio one online Image 3
94.3 radio one online Image 4
94.3 radio one online Image 5
Related blog with 94.3 radio one online
Related Video with 94.3 radio one online
94.3 radio one online Video 1
94.3 radio one online Video 2
94.3 radio one online Video 3
We are urgently in need of kidney donors with the sum of $500,000.00 USD (3 crore) and Also In Foreign currency. Apply Now!,For more info Email: healthc976@gmail.com
답글삭제Call or whatsapp +91 9945317569
Here you will find latest online sweepstakes, Contests and Giveaways and win lots of cash prizes or more.
답글삭제sweepstakes.com
onlinesweepstakes.com
sweepstakesoffer.com
contestgirl.com
contesthub.com
sweeptakeskeys.com
sweeptakesvalue.com