It seems to be a legal blunder that is very straight forward, but becomes a heated debate. It begins with the argument should we prosecute a gamer for stealing via the virtual world? Alex Weiss is correct in saying that prosecution for virtual theft is wrong in the scheme of things, because each player reacts differently to behaviors. Even though a person is a “raider” in a game, it doesn’t make them a criminal in the real world. Weiss opens up his article with, “As a reformed online gaming thief, this ruling makes no sense to me.
This is done to prevent a terrorist from using a student status as a cover-up to allow admittance to this country with the intention to commit acts of terrorism. There are many different surveillance methods that the government uses to spy on terrorist suspects, including email, financial records, and store receipts. But, one of the most common methods of surveillance that the government uses is roving wiretaps. This is tapping into phone calls. “The government says roving wiretaps are needed to deal with technologically sophisticated terrorists.” (Abramson & Godoy) But, one of the negatives of wiretapping is that the government might make an excuse for using it to monitor terrorism with the real intention to spy on foreign
Leonard Birts ENF 234 Computers in Law Enforcement October 30, 2011 The growing danger from crimes committed against computers, or against information on computers, is beginning to claim attention all around the world. This lack of legal protection means that businesses and governments must rely solely on technical measures to protect themselves from those who would steal, deny access to, or destroy valuable information. Self-protection, while essential, is not sufficient to make cyberspace a safe place to conduct business. Countries where legal protections are inadequate will become increasingly less able to compete in the new economy. As cybercrime increasingly breaches national borders, nations perceived as havens run the risk of having
Week 1: * Question 1 * Question 2 | | | A policy vacuum, according to James Moor, is best described as | | | | | Answers: | A. occurring in new situations where there are no policies for conduct | | B. occurring in new situations where old policies seem inadequate | | C. neither a or b | | D. both a or b | | | | | * Question 3 | | | A good example of an issue in computer ethics is someone coming into your home and stealing your computer. | | | | | Answers: | True | | False | | | | | * Question 4 | The main point of Nicholas Carr's article, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" is | | | | | Answers: | A. to explain what is so particularly terrifying about a particular scene in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey. | | B. that our increasing use of computers makes it harder for us to read novels. | | C. that relying on computers negatively affects our intellectual tendencies and capacities | | D. that using technology of any sort affects the way we think.
Nothing in the world can justify a means except the end which it is intended to serve and a means can be right only in relation to an end, and only by serving that end ethically. The means in a situation is what I do in order to accomplish my goal. The end in a situation is my accomplishment or goal desired. Examples: If an individual saves up money for months in order to buy a new computer yet they have stolen the money from others to do so, the end in this situation is not justified because the individual has obtained the money by stealing which is not legal and not ethical. Therefore, the end does not justify the means.
Other types of risks that BUGusa, Inc. can potentially face without property protection and poor management are: loss in customer trust, penalties for law violations, compliance risk, availability risk, access risk, and more. (Priviti, 2008) B. Discuss in detail what types(s), if any, of civil liability Steve and/or WIRETIME may face if caught. a. BUGusa is facing the issues of their work being stolen and internet hacking. Not to mention WIRETIME is unethical in their actions.
Because of the fear of privacy invasion, the different federal agency databases were held on individual agency specific computer systems and were not accessible to anyone, but the owner. Having such a compartmentalized system did not give law enforcement nor intelligence the ability to assist each other in putting together potentially complex terror plots, and often the more sophisticated the terror plot, the more potential for mass killing (White, 2006). Communication is key in all parts of life, and especially important when dealing with such dire consequences. The USA PATRIOT Act, in Title VII, granted the expansion of information sharing systems in order to better facilitate communication between all agencies involved in counterterrorism. This called for the implementation of the Regional Information Sharing System (RISS) as a central database for all law enforcement to use (USA PATRIOT Act, 2001).
I would consider adopting the new law of cell phone use being banned while operating a motor vehicle. I say this because of all the accidents that have occurred with teens and even elder people talking on the phone while driving. Also, because cell phones can be a distraction, even when the cell phone is not in use. There are many reasons why cell phones usage should be banned while driving I will only state a few but at the end of my essay you will understand my reasoning. Cell phone usage while driving is a very touchy subject.
However, the outcome, getting a high mark, is considerd good. On the other hand, I disagree with ‘The end justifying the mean’ beacause the result might cause yet another problem than you have already made. An example of something the end not justifying the means is if a person saves up months to buy a new computer however they have stolen the money from their friends or others to do so, the end of the situation is not justified. This is because the individual gained the money by stealing which is illegal. Therefore, the end does not justify the means.
You think, surely there is not some geek out there that plans to hack the system and change votes for his satisfaction; but I have heard of much worse things happening. The real fear would be if someone could gain access to the voters’ personal information. They we have a real concern for safety and identity theft, the list goes on. For this reason, I vote a big fat NO with a score of 4. Another big NO that comes to mind would be the bugs that come out of the wood works.