1. A good portion of this is going to be playing off each other. Me, Eric, Courtney, and Christina will come in early and spread out around the room; Ethan, your roll will be to act the part of the teacher, lecturing over the ethics of monitoring in the workspace. Throughout, we will do things to intentionally disrupt class and draw everybody's attention. Everyone is busy on their computers with other things - Eric will not be listening to anything going on in class, but will instead be jamming away to his music (feeling confident that he can get all the material from the book); Christina will make rude comments about the class (feeling like the class is a waste of time; everything being discussed is common sense), while Courtney will interrupt with pointless questions that either do not pertain to the lecture or which have already been answered (after all, this class doesn't have any bearing on his future). I will be the student trying to listen, and who blows up at the trouble makers. At that point, you go around and slam shut their computers, and tell us all to stay after class. We'll have an argument over who was in the wrong, and why. The point of all this, of course, is to ask both what ARE the ethics of workplace monitoring, and how far do such rights extend? Do they same ethics apply in a classroom? To really make this work, the teacher needs to get the class involved. Just try and bring about the discussion; I'll be playing along with that in the roll of the good student,and if the rest of the class gets involved, all the better.
2. My character will be a student that chooses not to pay attention and focuses on sleep rather then lectures. My character feels that since this class isn't part of his lecture he doesn't need to worry about his grade in the class.
3.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Friday, March 18, 2011
Homework 4
http://gigaom.com/2011/02/26/how-social-media-is-pushing-the-limits-of-legal-ethics/
My case involves the story on the above link. Using social media sites has become a problem in the law field. People have used social media sites white in court, sometimes in the middle of a trial. This is considered a problem usually with jury members. Jurors are supposed to keep themselves from obtainig information from outside sources such as newpapers and television and some see social media site as another outlet that can influence a jury member in an unfair way. Some judges are going as far as asking for jurors login information in order to moniter jurors social media activity during trails.
I personally think that people involved in trails that decide whether a person is going to spend his life in jail or that decide if a person are innocent of some crime should have jurors that don't get outside information. Facebook doesn't have the best source of information about a ongoing case so people should talk to anyone about cases on facebook. Judges don't have the right to ask for peoples login information though.
Susan's case involved the Westbury Church. The Westbury Church has been involved in a few court cases and alot of conflict with many groups. The Westbury Church has been protected by the 1st amendment most of the time while they are in court. We discussed how far the 1st amendment should extend and if the Westbury Church should be be protected. I felt that the Westbury Church should not be protect as while commiting such acts such as interrupting a funeral in order to protest.
Eric's case involved engineering structures. In a county in Arkansas there was a bridge that was deemed to not be structually sound by an engineer. The county did not perform anywork on the bridge though. A few years later the bridge fell and around 40 people died. The county was not held responsible. I feel that a county should have responsiblilty for something such as this. It may not be possible to "punish" the adminstration that was responsible for this bridge but it should still be the governments responsibility to work on things such as these.
Omar discussed internet censorship. He showed examples such as how tv shows are only allowed to show certain content and how China has their internet censored. This is a question of government control vs free speech. I felt that the internet shouldn't be censored in any way. Obviously this would be a huge project in the first place that would use resources that could be used elsewhere.
Christina discussed a South Dakota bill that would involve murder. The basis of the law would be that it would be legal to kill a person that was in the process of killing another person. This seemes like self defense at first glance. But Christina asked where the line would be drawn. What would be considered murder. Would doctors that perform abortions be fair game. What about judges that give the death penalty. The President has the power to declare war, one of the biggest forms of mass murder would a person then be able to kill him now in order to "prevent" future murders. I obviously disagree with this possible law.
Amber had two cases this week. One discussed the ethics of forcing good on someone. There are times when a person will disagree with a medical practice that they normal would take such as when they are afflicted with a disease that affect their mind. One example was cutting off someones leg in order to stop infection.
Her next case was about hypothetically what would you do in a situation. Your child is sick and you and your spouse decide to take him to the hospital. A cop stops your for speeding. He says that it will take a while to process the ticket. He says your can either go with him to the police station or you can pay the cop with cash on the spot.
Sometimes it is ok to force good on a person but it should not be taken lightly. The spouse should take the child to the hospital and you should go with the officer.
My case involves the story on the above link. Using social media sites has become a problem in the law field. People have used social media sites white in court, sometimes in the middle of a trial. This is considered a problem usually with jury members. Jurors are supposed to keep themselves from obtainig information from outside sources such as newpapers and television and some see social media site as another outlet that can influence a jury member in an unfair way. Some judges are going as far as asking for jurors login information in order to moniter jurors social media activity during trails.
I personally think that people involved in trails that decide whether a person is going to spend his life in jail or that decide if a person are innocent of some crime should have jurors that don't get outside information. Facebook doesn't have the best source of information about a ongoing case so people should talk to anyone about cases on facebook. Judges don't have the right to ask for peoples login information though.
Susan's case involved the Westbury Church. The Westbury Church has been involved in a few court cases and alot of conflict with many groups. The Westbury Church has been protected by the 1st amendment most of the time while they are in court. We discussed how far the 1st amendment should extend and if the Westbury Church should be be protected. I felt that the Westbury Church should not be protect as while commiting such acts such as interrupting a funeral in order to protest.
Eric's case involved engineering structures. In a county in Arkansas there was a bridge that was deemed to not be structually sound by an engineer. The county did not perform anywork on the bridge though. A few years later the bridge fell and around 40 people died. The county was not held responsible. I feel that a county should have responsiblilty for something such as this. It may not be possible to "punish" the adminstration that was responsible for this bridge but it should still be the governments responsibility to work on things such as these.
Omar discussed internet censorship. He showed examples such as how tv shows are only allowed to show certain content and how China has their internet censored. This is a question of government control vs free speech. I felt that the internet shouldn't be censored in any way. Obviously this would be a huge project in the first place that would use resources that could be used elsewhere.
Christina discussed a South Dakota bill that would involve murder. The basis of the law would be that it would be legal to kill a person that was in the process of killing another person. This seemes like self defense at first glance. But Christina asked where the line would be drawn. What would be considered murder. Would doctors that perform abortions be fair game. What about judges that give the death penalty. The President has the power to declare war, one of the biggest forms of mass murder would a person then be able to kill him now in order to "prevent" future murders. I obviously disagree with this possible law.
Amber had two cases this week. One discussed the ethics of forcing good on someone. There are times when a person will disagree with a medical practice that they normal would take such as when they are afflicted with a disease that affect their mind. One example was cutting off someones leg in order to stop infection.
Her next case was about hypothetically what would you do in a situation. Your child is sick and you and your spouse decide to take him to the hospital. A cop stops your for speeding. He says that it will take a while to process the ticket. He says your can either go with him to the police station or you can pay the cop with cash on the spot.
Sometimes it is ok to force good on a person but it should not be taken lightly. The spouse should take the child to the hospital and you should go with the officer.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Homework 3
I brought a story about an employer that asked for a man's facebook login along with
other information in his background check. The man was outraged that he was asked to
give this information for a background check when he had never committed a crime
before. On top of this the worker had even worked at the place before. we discussed
how far a company should be able to go when performing a background check.
1. Eric brought a report that Sony threatened jailbreakers recently. The PS3
was fully hacked for the first time recently.
Sony wanted all of the people with hacked or jailbroken content on their
consoles to be removed immedieatly. Anyone with hacked content will be
banned from the Playstation Network.
2. Sue discussed a story about a high school that experimented with tracking its
students. This school issued GPS trackers to students that had more than 3
unexcused absences. The school would check the locations of the students
periodically thoughout the day. The last checkin would be at 8 P.M. We
discussed whether the school had the right to check the locations of the
students even after school hours.
3. Christina discussed Facebook stalking. It is now legal for New York lawyers
to find evidence on a persons facebook page and use it in court. The lawyers
aren't allowed to friend a person under false pretense. Although this is legal
in New York we discussed if it should be legal in other states as well.
4. Omar discussed Facebook and the fact that it does not notify users when it
implement's a policy change. Facebook used to notify user's about the
policy change but at some point stopped notifying users about it's policy
change.
5. Amber brought a story about online psychotherapy. We discussed the pros and
cons of this new type of therapy. It could be more conviant and less time
consuming. For people that have problems getting out of their house for
whatever reason. The disadvatages could be that it would make it easy for
people to keep people from getting over fears about going outside.
other information in his background check. The man was outraged that he was asked to
give this information for a background check when he had never committed a crime
before. On top of this the worker had even worked at the place before. we discussed
how far a company should be able to go when performing a background check.
1. Eric brought a report that Sony threatened jailbreakers recently. The PS3
was fully hacked for the first time recently.
Sony wanted all of the people with hacked or jailbroken content on their
consoles to be removed immedieatly. Anyone with hacked content will be
banned from the Playstation Network.
2. Sue discussed a story about a high school that experimented with tracking its
students. This school issued GPS trackers to students that had more than 3
unexcused absences. The school would check the locations of the students
periodically thoughout the day. The last checkin would be at 8 P.M. We
discussed whether the school had the right to check the locations of the
students even after school hours.
3. Christina discussed Facebook stalking. It is now legal for New York lawyers
to find evidence on a persons facebook page and use it in court. The lawyers
aren't allowed to friend a person under false pretense. Although this is legal
in New York we discussed if it should be legal in other states as well.
4. Omar discussed Facebook and the fact that it does not notify users when it
implement's a policy change. Facebook used to notify user's about the
policy change but at some point stopped notifying users about it's policy
change.
5. Amber brought a story about online psychotherapy. We discussed the pros and
cons of this new type of therapy. It could be more conviant and less time
consuming. For people that have problems getting out of their house for
whatever reason. The disadvatages could be that it would make it easy for
people to keep people from getting over fears about going outside.
Friday, February 18, 2011
Homework 2
My Case:
I brought in an article about amputation by choice. Some people want to have limbs
amputated even though there may be nothing physically wrong with the limbs. A
disorder has been named body integrity identity disorder (BIID). People with BIID
feel that their limbs are not part of their bodies or it excites them. Some people
researchers think that people with this disorder have a type of reverse phantom limb
experience where they feel that their is no limb where their limb physically is.
Doctors are divided on whether it is right or wrong to perform these amputations
under these conditions.
Group's Cases
1. Eric: A student does research for a professor. The findings will be used by the
professor in a conference he will be attending soon. The data the student obtains
supports the professors view. The student discovers however that not all of the
controls were set right. we discussed if the student should tell the professor or not
about the controls.
A student does a long series of experiments for his professor. The
experiments show no results that support the professors ideas. The professor has
faith in the experiments though and wants the student to continue. We discussed
whether the student should stop doing the experiments or to continue.
2. Suzanne: suzanne brought an article about Google vs. Bing. Bing has been using
some sort of algorithm in order to copy all of the search results that Google has
been using. Google performed a test in which they linked a random string of letters
to a website that had nothing to do with the search. A few days later Bing had the
exact same search result that Google had. We discussed what Google should do about
this issue.
3. Christina: Christina asked when animal testing would be ethical. Such as for
medical reasons or for cosmetics and other such reasons.
4. T. J.: Nelson Nice ran an undergraduate program but did not finish his
experiement. Jason asked for the research data and later published the research as
his own. We discussed what should be done by Nelson Nice.
5. Omar: NASA had a satelite built. A foreign company was contracted to help build
it. When NASA wanted to send the satelite to Mars it was lost. The contracted
company had used a measurement system but told NASA the wrong measurement system. We
discussed whether this was ethical or not.
6. Amber: We had a discussion about social networking sites and what should be done
when a person does. If the page should be locked after a certain period of time or if
control the person's page should be given to someone the person trusted.
7. Caleb: A researcher did some research on a hypothesis. She obtained some data
and intended to do intensive research based on the data she had already obtained.
Another group approached her about using the data for their research. we asked if she
should give the group the data or keep it for herself.
My Project Idea:
For my project I am interesting in researching how cyber warfare would be fought in the future such as who would be the soldiers, what sort of attacks would be used, how would a group "win" a war.
I brought in an article about amputation by choice. Some people want to have limbs
amputated even though there may be nothing physically wrong with the limbs. A
disorder has been named body integrity identity disorder (BIID). People with BIID
feel that their limbs are not part of their bodies or it excites them. Some people
researchers think that people with this disorder have a type of reverse phantom limb
experience where they feel that their is no limb where their limb physically is.
Doctors are divided on whether it is right or wrong to perform these amputations
under these conditions.
Group's Cases
1. Eric: A student does research for a professor. The findings will be used by the
professor in a conference he will be attending soon. The data the student obtains
supports the professors view. The student discovers however that not all of the
controls were set right. we discussed if the student should tell the professor or not
about the controls.
A student does a long series of experiments for his professor. The
experiments show no results that support the professors ideas. The professor has
faith in the experiments though and wants the student to continue. We discussed
whether the student should stop doing the experiments or to continue.
2. Suzanne: suzanne brought an article about Google vs. Bing. Bing has been using
some sort of algorithm in order to copy all of the search results that Google has
been using. Google performed a test in which they linked a random string of letters
to a website that had nothing to do with the search. A few days later Bing had the
exact same search result that Google had. We discussed what Google should do about
this issue.
3. Christina: Christina asked when animal testing would be ethical. Such as for
medical reasons or for cosmetics and other such reasons.
4. T. J.: Nelson Nice ran an undergraduate program but did not finish his
experiement. Jason asked for the research data and later published the research as
his own. We discussed what should be done by Nelson Nice.
5. Omar: NASA had a satelite built. A foreign company was contracted to help build
it. When NASA wanted to send the satelite to Mars it was lost. The contracted
company had used a measurement system but told NASA the wrong measurement system. We
discussed whether this was ethical or not.
6. Amber: We had a discussion about social networking sites and what should be done
when a person does. If the page should be locked after a certain period of time or if
control the person's page should be given to someone the person trusted.
7. Caleb: A researcher did some research on a hypothesis. She obtained some data
and intended to do intensive research based on the data she had already obtained.
Another group approached her about using the data for their research. we asked if she
should give the group the data or keep it for herself.
My Project Idea:
For my project I am interesting in researching how cyber warfare would be fought in the future such as who would be the soldiers, what sort of attacks would be used, how would a group "win" a war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)