Macroeconomics. The Solow model Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Macroeconomics. The Solow model - Essay Example The steady state condition is now that s*f(k) = (+n) * k:" (Introducing Population Growth). The Golden rule of Capital maximized the consumption at a steady state. This implies that the marginal product of capital net of depreciation must be equal to the technological progress and population hence growing for ever isn't possible without population and technological progress. The steady state is "c" and this is what is required. The values of steady state are substituted for both output. "(f(k*)) and investment which equals depreciation in steady state (k*) giving usc*=f(k*) - k*" (The Solow Model) 5. The Solow model is very simple and it creates a link between capital-output ratio and in addition to this it also it also creates a link between investment-depreciation ratio. All this is done in a dynamic model. "The main test for any model is how well it holds up against the data. Perhaps the biggest surprise is that despite its simplicity the Solow growth model can be applied to economic data. The results have been mixed though as Acemoglu writes in an extensive review of the literature. This is not necessarily bad news, for it points at some of the other factors that contribute to economic growth and differences across countries. One conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical literature is that cross-country differences in income per capita cannot be understood on the basis of differences in physical and human capital alone." (Solow growth Model) The economic growth is studied with this model and it has laid down a general basis for studying economic growth of an economy. The rate of capital accumulation and the rate of technological progress are two things that this model does not throw light upon and many models have been derived from the Solow model. The world is divided into capital and labour under this model and this is how the model progresses. The firms and households are treated as constants by this and the neoclassical growth model and this is rather considered a very odd feature of this model. "Now the question some may ask is to what extent economic growth is predicated on the use of non-renewable natural resources and thereby ultimately finite. Economic growth and capitalism rely on profit and not so much on production. Therefore both capitalism and economic growth are, in theory at least, reconcilable with sustainability. Differentiating between models of sustainable and unsustainable economic growth may be one of the greatest modelling challenges of the future." (Solow Growth Model) 6. In countries like Australia and Netherlands, the growth dynamics were determined predominantly by European integration. A broader study on the effect of convergence will

A non- Profit organization name SOLVE INC. Business plan on improving Term Paper

A non- Profit organization name SOLVE INC. Business plan on improving the Poor Performing elementary school in dallas, Texas ISD - Term Paper Example This has allowed us to proffer services that appeal to the customers, essentially to avoid mistakes. The services that we have offered to the market measure our strength and weaknesses. This has answered the needs of customers in a timely manner and provided return trade off. Price Price entails the charge of the services that we are offering; this has been tricky since it determines customer base of our company. We are offering low priced services and products to allow customers afford. In addition, we are non profit Non Governmental Organization thus our services are public oriented. We have been able to observe market environment and competitors’ price strategies to ensure we are relevant. Place Business location is a critical ingredient in success and expansion since it increases convenience between suppliers and the organization. Our location has been strategic especially in residential areas, highly traffic and main roads that are easily accessible. In essence, the strat egy is focused on the commuting families and individuals. In addition, the company aims at supplying their products and services to local businesses, offices and schools. On the other hand, location of business should be close to processing facilities, market and source of supply. Promotion We have committed in advertising our products and services through internet Web site, which has proven to be effective. Notably, internet is fast turning into a major promotional avenue, and the institution believes it will advance with regards to the importance over time. Furthermore, it is the most convenient means for us to wide presence from the onset. 6.1 Target (s) – List major customer now and expected in the future Our major customer at the moment is the S.S Conner Elementary School. After we are successful with the school we will extend our services to other poor performing elementary schools within the area before we expand to other institutions of learning within and outside the state. 6.2 Image The image of our institution is very vital because it finds out the relationship with our customers in the education sector. Having a good image will attract customers and clients to our table. We intend to do what we do best. By being the best in the education industry, we will become a respectable leader in the field. The level of education in Texas should be top-notch. We also seek to promote and offer quality services. This way, clients and prospects will acknowledge our services. 6.3 Promotion Our promotion will center on several key strategies Internet Web site – the internet is fast turning into a major promotional avenue, and the institution believes it will advance with regards to the importance over time. Furthermore, it is the most convenient means for us to wide presence from the onset. Public relations – we will put some amount of effort towards preparing and spreading a constant flow of press releases – they will be based on tales about our activities, destinations, our staff, and corporate clients. The institution will employ a public relations adviser to aid in writing, copying, and locating publications educators. 6.3.1 Image We intend to find a nice logo for out institution, which should explain what we do. Image means a lot especially for small institutions which are ready to face competition in their market. Our image will be

HSM Performance Optimization Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 7500 words - 1

HSM Performance Optimization - Essay Example Based upon the expected performance demands, this thesis proposes an optimized HSM solution to address the identified performance gap between what is required and what current HSMs can provide. The thesis describes tests and performance measurements that can be used to optimize applications of the proposed solution for HSM (or similar) devices. Security Assertion Markup Language - Is an XML-based open standard data format for exchanging authentication and authorization data between parties, in particular, between an identity provider and a service provider. I pass my gratitude to Professor XXXX who worked tirelessly to see me through the entire degree project process. The company supervisor, CCCC, also deserves a pat on their back for his counsel and guidance during the design period. Finally, my family has been with me from the start to the end. There is no other way to say thank you, but I am sincerely grateful. A study of the e-ID system was started by the Swedish government on 17th June 2010 and the complete report of this research was published on December 2010. The report identified a solution for which an Agency under the Ministry of Enterprise was established starting of 1 January 2011[2]. The acquisition of operations, management of metadata records of all members, guide service, and the test federation associated with a Swedish Federation of e-identification providers was initiated with it first phase in 2013. The request for quotation process ended with only a single quote (from Cybercom Sweden AB), hence this firm eventually got the contract. The operation of a centralized signature service was initiated in 2014.

A Review on Lifeboat Ethics Essay Example for Free

A Review on Lifeboat Ethics Essay Lifeboat ethics: the case against helping the poor is a famous essay written by Garret Hardin, a human ecologist in 1974. This article aims to re examine the lifeboat ethics which was developed by the author to support his controversial proposal. In the theory, the world is compared to a lifeboat with a carrying capacity of 60. There are totally 50 people on board, representing comparatively rich nations, while the 100 others swimming in the ocean outside the lifeboat stands for the poor nations. To solve the dilemma of whether the swimmers should be allowed to climb aboard at the risk of lifeboat’s safety, Hardin suggested that no admission should be granted to boat, or to interpret it in a straight way, no humanitarian aids should be offered to the poor countries. Regardless of the additional factors which the author took into consideration from the real world in the essay, in my opinion, the basic metaphor itself is questionable. Firstly, the status of the lifeboat is not an accurate reflection of reality. Arguably, natural resources of the earth are finite, however, this does not equal to the scarcity of resources in the control of the rich nations. On the contrary, nowadays in the developed countries, what the rich have used is out of proportion to their actual needs, which not only leads to colossal waste each year but also creates disposal problems. A familiar example is the popularity of losing weight among the western world, which is not solely a way of pursing beauty but also a clear indication of the growing number of obese people who consume food excessively. In contrast, in the third world especially poverty-stricken nations like Ethiopia, millions of people are filled with untold suffering. They drag themselves on the street from day to day, begging for only a slice of stale bread. Due to the unfair distribution of resources caused by the affluent people’s favorable political position, most rich nations currently obtain more than enough resources and they are still casting their greedy eyes on the untapped poor regions. In the light of the facts above, in the lifeboat metaphor people on board actually occupy  more room than normal and the real carrying capacity of a lifeboat is more than 60. With no admission given to those swimmers who are in need, the room is not allocated to each according to his needs, a principle the author cited in explanation of the rationale behind the lifeboat ethics. The second doubtful point is related to Hardin’s computation of conscience. In defense of the survivors’ guilt arising from not helping the poor, he claimed that â€Å"the net result of conscience-stricken people giving up their unjustly held seats is the elimination of that sort of conscience from the lifeboat†. He defined guilty about one’s good luck as a type of conscience and the newcomer’s lack of guilt about the rich people’s loss as conscience drain; but the author deliberately omitted the morality of rich people’s indifference to the poor asking for help. Counting the negative effects on total conscience in the lifeboat if no rescue is attempted, the final solution to the lifeboat dilemma might be changed. Essentially, the author’s negligence of social injustice against impoverished people and the ethical issue indifference is just a result of his bias for the rich countries. To improve the general population quality, the author repeatedly emphasized the necessity of reproduction control in poor nations and increasing the proportion of rich nation’s population. This suggestion in fact is based on the assumption that the people in rich nations are innately superior to their counterparts in poor countries, which is an apparent violation of the creed that everyone is born equal. In conclusion, the poor people should not be the sacrifice of the population growth in the developed regions. Logic and rigorous as the essay Lifeboat ethics: the case against helping the poor may appear to be, the author wrote more on behalf of the countries on board, group of which he belonged to. The author urged people to get rid of sentiment and make rational decisions, but ironically he himself deceived his mind with prejudice and sense of superiority.

Is Mass Surveillance Unethical?

Is Mass Surveillance Unethical? Surveillance is no different from the casual practice of people watching, but instead of being a casual practice that might occur at one park, or at one restaurant, mass surveillance is sustained over time, and is done on a significant number of people. This practice was put in place to pay attention not just to any random person that roams the streets, but to pay attention to a specific group of people and for a specified reason. This is what raises much controversy about the issue of mass surveillance. It does not have to involve watching, sometimes it can also be done by listening, smelling, or detective hardware. When a cellphone conversation is bugged, this is mass surveillance. When a dog is used to sniff out drugs at the border, this is mass surveillance. The ethics behind this issue have been debated time and again, but whichever point wins, it still remains to be seen that surveillance is a neutral activity whose application can be geared towards good or bad (Cohen, p25). Ye t most continue to argue over the morality of the issue. As we delve into this matter, there will be specific questions that logically need to be answered in order create a proper analysis that has the capability to be brought to a final conclusion and answer. Whose responsibility is it to spy on the masses? And under which circumstances is it right to listen is? Is mass surveillance right at all? These are the questions that thus paper will explore—analyzing the two sides to the sharp edged sword that is mass surveillance. The History of Mass Surveillance Ethics Jeremy Bentham came up with the idea of The Panopticon- an idea that was considered among the first to contribute to the ethical debate on mass surveillance (Bentham 1995). The proposed the concept of The Panopticon – a circular prison whose cells were adjacent to the outside walls and whose center had a tower that hosted the prison manager. The work of this manager would be to watch the inmates as they went about their daily business. It would be built in such a way that the supervisor would see the inmates, but the watched could not see this supervisor at any point in time. There would also be a means of communication that allowed the supervisor on top of the tower to shout out their demands to the prisoners. The principle of the system was that these prisoners would not know they were under surveillance, but seeing as the supervisor would somehow have access to all their secrets, they would, eventually, come to assume that they were being watched and listened to at all times (Cropf, Cropf & Bagwell, p65). This would, in turn, encourage them to behave in the required manner, and in case they had visitors over, these visitors would also be discouraged from committing crimes on the behalf of the inmates. The concept of the Panopticon does not end there. In his book, 1984, George Orwell takes this concept to a whole new level (Orwell 2004). Orwell magnified this concept to reach way beyond the inmates in Bentham’s idea. In 1984, the Panopticon took the shape of a two-way television that gave the government visual and audio access to the homes and work offices of its citizens. In the case of prisoners, these citizens would always be reminded that they were being watched. Orwell discusses both the reasons and the impact of doing something like this. Further exploring this issue is Michel Foucault in the book Discipline and Punish (Foucault 1991). The book explores the obvious use and abuse of power that is behind the idea of mass surveillance. He analyzes how prisons have grown from a means of punishment, to a way of punishing and disciplining offenders for their wrongs. With something like the Panopticon, Foucault argues that prisoners became like social experiments- denied their very basic freedoms in an attempt to punish and discipline them. These three references in history raised fundamental questions on the ethics of surveillance, and although their text mostly revolves around a prison setting, one cannot help but equate this concept to society such that the general population in a country become the prisoners, and the supervisor watching from the tower at the center of the Panopticon becomes the government. Modern Surveillance Surveillance has evolved from a primitive and a careless procedure to a carefully planned out scheme that involves more than a few parties. The technological advancements that the contemporary society so enjoys has become the very tool to be used against them. This realization has made people question the role of mass surveillance. This debate has spilled over to the field of academics where fields of study like Surveillance Studies have come up, brining jurists, sociologists, philosophers, and scientists together to examine the ethics, the science, and the reasons behind mass surveillance (Cropf, Cropf & Bagwell, p80). Today, thanks to technology, mass surveillance has become very complex, both as a social subject and as a science. Now, people can be watched with discreteness thanks to the mobility and small size of freshly invented mass surveillance devices. Surveillance is like a wide, wild wave from the ocean that no one ever sees coming. Take the instance of CCTV (Closed Circuit Television) cameras. These devices are there to gaze and stare as people mover about daily. On the other side is an anonymous viewer that is slowly making conclusions about the way we walk, the way we talk, and the way we live. Unlike the centralized Panopticon, this type of mass surveillance is watching people on an unimaginable scale. The network behind this system transfers magnitude of information back and forth every passing minute (Fuchs, p46). The computerized society is practically exposing itself to be watched and followed around. But surveillance is here for two reasons- to stalk and probe into the private affairs of other people, or to bring forth justice. In some cases, surveillance has even been known to be accepted by the people being watched. This makes it a very ethnically neutral subject, and hence very hard to be explored. The only things left to be analyzed are the proportionality of surveillance, or the methods used to surveil, or the justification of the cause. With such concepts in mind, other smaller but equally significant issues like autonomy, trust and privacy come up in relation to ethics. Forms of Mass Surveillance CCTVs and databases are still used to monitor people today, but for the most part, mass surveillance is done on the internet. Communications are what are monitored these days, including the activity on our mobile devices and computers (Fuchs, p64). Phone spying is done by geography. People in a specific area using a specific cell tower are surveilled together. There are also some cases when the government can set up fake mobile base stations so as to listen in on all the communication ongoing in a specific area, for instance, during a riot that is likely to turn violent. The limitations of mass surveillance devices are virtually disappearing and the government can now access more information than ever. Cell phone conversations are saved by phone companies to be retrieved incase the government needs it. All this information comes with immense power. Even in our homes there is surveillance. The invention of smart devices enables companies to monitor our electricity usage, and smart cities track vehicles for miles on end using sensors and cameras (Babcock & Freivogel, p34). The legality of these devices has been documented, so the only thing that is left for us to debate on is their ethicality. What is the Problem of Mass Surveillance? Governments have tried to sugarcoat the situation by calling mass surveillance ‘bulk collection of communications’, but however it is phrased, it is still just mass surveillance.   The problem is that mass surveillance interferes with privacy. This point cannot be stressed enough because all surveillance devices are bent on one goal- record it all. They are created specifically to mine data, to exploit data, to draw conclusions from this data, and to try and create patters from the information if provides (Babcock & Freivogel, p53). Systems are made specifically to filter out suspicious words and to determine relationships between suspicious persons. Mass surveillance, at the very beginning, assumes that each and every person is a suspect. Slowly but surely, most of the population is eliminated from this bracket. People are correlated on the basis of what many be nothing more than a coincidence. Visiting the same website at the same time, or going to the same restaurant every morning for coffee- conclusions are made from the little connections that can be made. With the little details, patterns can be created and the government can have a whole idea of what an individual’s life is like. By listening to what they do, what they say, what they buy, what they eat, and where they go, law enforcement agencies can create 100 percent accurate profiled on people without these people ever knowing. With this kind of information, there is always risk. In as much as there might be very strong guidelines put in place to protect the information from abuse, there will always be the few cases that slip through the cracks (Babcock & Freivogel, p74). Mass surveillance therefore becomes a danger to the very people that it is meant to protect. Those who end up as victims of such abuses suffer the worst mistakes of mass surveillance as the attacker usually has all the personal information anyone would need to cause harm. This is called the ‘chilling effect’ of surveillance. Sure, it is meant to protect and it does protect, but generally, mass surveillance puts people on alert. There is a difference between being watched and not being watched, most people are just too used to it to even notice, but take mass surveillance away and people will be freer to commit all sorts of acts- not necessarily criminal acts, but acts nevertheless. Ultimately, we believe that mass surveillance is there to protect us, but before we can be protected, how much do we have to give up? Our innovation? Our free imagination and free speech? Do we have to succumb to conformity just to be safe? Do we have to stand something so unethical? The Ethics of Privacy, Autonomy and Trust Privacy is an important this to society- it makes us feel safe, makes us feel in control again, even if just for a while. Mass surveillance is a threat to this privacy, or at least that is what most people use to make their arguments against it. Especially at the individual level, privacy is an important thing. It is called the right to privacy for a reason- it is not in the place of anyone, not even the state, to take it away from people without their consent. This right is really a blanket policy that incorporates other minor rights within itself. There is a right to privacy of property, and there is a right to personal privacy. This right, apart from consisting of other sub-rights, does not stand on its own. The right to privacy, in this respect, ceases to be a distinct right at all. It is consisted of the right to autonomy, and other such rights. For instance, when a person disposes their diary, it is violation of their right to pick up this diary and read it. This is a violation of the right to dispose of property privately. Torturing a person so as to get certain information from them is a violation of their right not to be physically hurt (Baxi, McCrudden & Paliwala, p56).   Yet in both these examples, there is still a violation of privacy among other rights. The definition of the right to privacy is therefore not definite. Mass surveillance cannot violate something that is not even definitely explained in the first. We are therefore forced to come up with our own definition of this right so that we can survive with the idea that we are being watched and listened to at all moments of the day. Privacy gives us some control and some dignity. As we interact with other people, a large amount of our security and our confidence comes from our privacy. Even though we know nothing about the strangers we meet each day, we feel safe with the notion that these people don’t know anything about us. If strangers knew our weaknesses, then they might use them against us, so we feel safe knowing that no one knows anything about our private lives. But mass surveillance violates this safe zone. In mass surveillance, we are exposed to an all-seeing eye and in a way, we are made to feel as though our secrets are out in the open. But the public has a level of dependency on the government, and in this way, it becomes okay for the state to violate our privacy for the greater good. But the more surveillance is used as an excuse to violate the privacy of the public, the more that people lose their sense of autonomy(Baxi, McCrudden & Paliwala, p76). Mass surveillance makes it so that we are not as confidence to speak in public. It entices fear because we know that any and everything we do has severe consequences. Using mass surveillance to make sure people don’t commit any crimes is like forcing them to be good, and this just increases their need for rebellion. So if the population becomes better because they are being watched, it can be argued that these actions are only pretentious, and if the mass surveillance equipment is taken away, then the public will back to its true colors. In this way, the government is also dependent on mass surveillance, and therefore it becomes unethical in such a way that it is used as a crutch for the state to control the behavior of its citizens. Why Surveillance? So many people jump straight to the impact that mass surveillance has on people- no one ever really stops to ask why surveillance is installed all around them. It is a basic assumption that surveillance is for security purposes, and while this might be true, this question still needs to be explored is the ethical foundation of mass surveillance is to be determined   (Cohen, p37). Yet even as we jump to security reasons as the obvious answer this question, the degree of security devices around us is a bit too much. There is also the question of who is monitoring the footage that is recorded on all the cameras. Take the example of political insurgents- is surveilling them really going to improve the security of the state? The first thing we need to understand is that their more than a few forms of surveillance. This practice extends far beyond the CCTV cameras on our streets and in our offices- mass surveillance has roots in each and every sector of the country. But security is not the only reason for mass surveillance. Retail stores and other companies get information on the kinds of goods that customers buy from the information on their loyalty cards- this is also a form of mass surveillance. The customers, in exchange of some discount deals of similar promotions, gladly participate in such forms of surveillance (Cohen, p57). Is this to be considered unethical? How can it be unethical when the shopping experience of these customers will be improved through their participation? Looking at transportation, especially public transit, people can now use the subway even with no money on them. This is as a result of the invention of smart cards. Using these cards, a person’s spending can be tracked and if they get into some medical trouble when far away from home, the cards can be used to identify who they are and provide their medical history. If police officers need to establish the credibility of a suspect’s alibi, then they can simply track their credit card movements and build a profile from there. These forms of surveillance are not only beneficial, they can sometimes be essential to the well-being of people. This is in no way unethical. Mass surveillance can be used for individual needs as well. A financially unstable computer genius might decide to use their skills to hack into a credit card company server and steal the numbers, hence taking other people’s money (Cohen, p81). The hacker is unethical, but the credit card company is not unethical for monitoring the spending of their customers. This makes mass surveillance both ethical and unethical- it all depends on how the issue is approached. For personal reasons, people might choose to exploit the mass surveillance equipment already in place to invade the privacy of others. These systems have a lot of personal information about many different people, and for this reason, they are sensitive. If used for good, mass surveillance can benefit millions, but is allowed into the wrong hands, then an unlucky few will suffer for it. Is it ethical, therefore, to allow the few to suffer for the well-being of the many? This brings up a whole other division of ethics that will take time and research to explore, but mass surveillance is not a subject to be approached in black and white. There are issues of distribution- who gets to suffer and who gets to live if a specific instance of mass surveillance goes wrong? There is the issue of consent. Supermarket customers have to agree to participate in promotions that monitor their spending and the kind of goods they buy, but criminals being investigated are denied to right to consent to privacy intrusion, and the law has no obligation to them as long as they are suspects (Cohen, p87). There is a concept of the greater good involved here, and for the few that have to fall victim to the dark side of mass surveillance, one million others get to live. Is this justified? No. but neither is it unjustified. Who is in Charge? As the party being watched loses autonomy and power, the surveilling party gains more power and control. The information that most people would rather keep to themselves is known- it is out there in the public and the chances of it circulating even further are higher. There is a power imbalance between the masses and the people that are in charge of mass surveillance. In this context, surveillance becomes wrong, almost like a primitive form of intimidation. It becomes unethical and very dangerous for all the parties involved. Everyone, no matter how insignificant, is entitled to certain basic rights. These are such as the right to freely speak, the right to interact with other people, and the right to freely protest against that which one finds distasteful. These rights are law and are preached to all citizens every waking day, but with mass surveillance, they become less equated to human rights and become more equated to evidence (Pandey, p24). If there is a record of a person speaking freely for or against certain beliefs they have, then thus record can be used against them if they are ever suspected of committing a crime. People, therefore, decide to stay low and only speak in the shadows, for the state holds all the power. When it comes to a point when a person’s rights are no longer their own, then mass surveillance is considered to have crossed the ethical line. The simplest democratic practices are hindered by cameras and such monitoring devices. What is the point of giving away privileges only to use them against the very people that are supposed to be protected by these privileges? There is also the question of distance. The surveilling team is literally on the other side of the screen- adding to the power imbalance between the authorities and the masses (Pandey, p32). This gives a sense of two very different parties where one in pulling the strings and the other party has to adhere to all the rules or there will be consequences. People are spied upon, denied basic rights, and made to feel powerless. In this way, mass surveillance becomes unethical, even though it is used to protect these very people. Nothing to Hide There is a famous statement, â€Å"if you haven’t done anything wrong, then there is nothing to fear.† This statement has long been used to justify the ethics of surveillance. If the public has nothing to hide, then they have nothing to fear even if the government pricks and probes at the most private details of their lives. Looking at it carefully, however, it does make sense. Majority of the people have no criminal records, nor do they have any intention of committing any crimes in the future. In this sense, mass surveillance does not affect them in any way. Surveillance is only meant to catch the bad few and make the lives of others safer in the process. In this reasoning, the government has installed cameras, wiretaps, and record checks almost everywhere. Citizens are convinced that all this effort is for their own good, and once the terrorists have been eliminated, it will have been worth it. But the bad guys never quit, and every waking morning, the government finds new ways to get more information- both in quantity and in depth. It is true that mass surveillance makes it safer for the majority, but this does not make it ethical (Bishop, Miloslavskaya & Theocharidou,   p51). If the government mandated every citizen to walk around with a tracking device in an effort to advance mass surveillance, then it would make sense that anyone who refused to do so has something to hide and should be investigated further. But it can also be argued that such measures are simply wrong and in violation of most forms of privacy. So if most people refuse to willingly submit to the will of government and give themselves up to be examined, then it does not necessarily mean that these people are criminals, it just means that they value their privacy more than their security- or something like that. Yet, with the modern advancements in technology, the government can already track people even when they are not carrying any tracking devices on them. People can be tracked using their credit card actions, or using cameras that are lodged on every street corner(Bishop, Miloslavskaya & Theocharidou,   p74). These movements, however, can only be tracked to a certain extent. In this way, a person is able to be kept safe and they are also able to maintain their privacy. Yet this is not any better that if the government forcefully implemented a law that mandated everyone to carry around a tracking device. Both actions are invasive, and thus both actions are wrong, and just because one is more invasive than the other does not make the latter action any less unethical. There is also the issue of storage. After the information has been collected from the public, it is stored in archives that are vulnerable to hackers. There are people capable of accessing this information and using it to harm and not to protect. This puts the whole argument against the use of mass surveillance to watch the public. For instance, back in 2007, a worker from the Department of Commerce, Benjamin Robinson, accessed a government database and used the information within it to track the movements of his former girlfriend. He accessed this system at least 163 times before he was discovered, an if it had continued for any longer, then the girl that was being tracked could have ended up in real danger (Bishop, Miloslavskaya & Theocharidou,   p85). This man was unethical in his actions, but so was the government for collecting personal information and storing it in such a way that it could be accessed more than 100 times before any red flags were raised. When to use Mass Surveillance So when exactly is mass surveillance ethical? Would it be ethical when we are invaded and it is the only way that the invaders can be flushed out? Would it be ethical if the data collected in the devices is not used against the people that are supposed to be protected by the surveillance systems? There are lines that should not be crossed, the only problem is that these lines are not clear. According to M.I.T. Professor Gary Marx, there are a number of questions that need to be answered before mass surveillance can be implemented anywhere. Means The first issue that needs to be explored is the means of mass surveillance being used. Does it cause any sort of harm to the public, be it physical or psychological? Does the surveillance method have boundaries? The technique used should not be allowed to cross a certain line without consent of the party being surveilled. The techniques being used also needs to be trustworthy. The personal information of the people being surveilled should be kept safe and it should not be used against them. Is the method invasive to personal relationships? Lastly, the means used to enforce mass surveillance needs to produce results as they were- the results should be valid and not doctored in any way (Berleur & Whitehouse. P42). Context The second issue that has to be explored to justify mass surveillance is that of data collection context. Those being surveilled need to be aware that personal information is being collected on them, and they need to know who is collecting this information and why they are collecting it. These individuals need to agree to be surveilled- consent is a key issue. And then comes the golden rule- those that are responsible to setting up and implementing surveillance also need to be its subjects. In short, everyone, even government officials, need to agree to the same conditions that everyone else agrees to. Mass surveillance should indeed look out for the masses- no exceptions. For it to be ethically justifiable at all, then a certain principle of minimization needs to be enforced. Mass surveillance also has to be decided by the public. To come to the decision of setting up surveillance, a discussion has to be held publicly and people have to decide for or against it. If they decide to go through with it, then there needs to be a human review of the machines and the equipment that are to be used. The people that decide to be surveilled are also entitled to inspect the results of this surveillance and question how the results were created and how they are going to be used. They also have a right to challenge the records in case any obvious errors are made with the surveillance results (Berleur & Whitehouse. P62). Before mass surveillance can be allowed to function in society, then there needs to be a means of redress. In case any individual is treated unjustly because of surveillance, then there should be appropriate punishments in place for the perpetrator of the crime so as to phase out unethical surveillance behavior. The data collected needs to be protected adequately so as to avoid any unethical use of this information in the first place. Mass surveillance methods need to have very minimal negative effects, or preferable, no negative effects at all. Lastly, mass surveillance needs to be equal. The same methods used on the middle class need to be used on the upper class, and is there is a way of resisting mass surveillance, then the government needs to make sure that these methods are available to the privileged as well as to the less privileged (Berleur & Whitehouse. P69). If even one person can escape mass surveillance, then all the other members of the public have no business being watched by the government. Uses The final issue that has to be analyzed is that of the uses of the data that is collected from mass surveillance devices. Surveillance needs to have a certain goal- whether it is to improve the shopping experience of customers, or to reduce crime rate. The data collected needs to be useful in fulfilling this goal, otherwise, there is no point. In as much as the goal needs to be fulfilled, there also needs to be a perfect balance between fulfilling this goal and spending just the right amount of money- not too much for it to be wasteful, and not too little for the surveillance to bear worthless results. Before surveillance is implemented, the responsible party needs to make sure there is no other means that will cost less money and fulfill the same duties (Berleur & Whitehouse. P87). If it is too costly, then are there any consequences of not installing surveillance equipment, and if so, to what extent will these consequences affect society? How can the cost and the risk be minimized? The information collected needs to be used only for its intended purposes only and nothing more. Therefore, mass surveillance can be ethical, but it also has a large capacity to be unethical. Following this guideline, mass surveillance should be installed with no problems and with no major violations of any kind. However this issue is approached, there will always be a basic violation of privacy that is associated with surveillance, but the damage is controllable as long as the public consents to it. there needs to be appropriate measures and guidelines put in place before using any form of mass surveillance on a population, and these guidelines need to be adhered to by all the involved parties- be it the party surveilling, or the party being surveilled. How do we make Surveillance Ethical? There is a lot of fuss about mass surveillance. We should never stop discussing the underlying issues on mass surveillance, but we should also give the government a chance to prove that mass surveillance is truly for the good of the public and not just some scheme to keep citizens in check. Mass surveillance attempts to do the impossible- keep people safe while also maintaining an open and free society with people who are not afraid to express their views. Amidst all these issues, the question of how to make mass surveillance more ethical is often overlooked, but there is truly a way in which we can make sure that mass surveillance is justified and only in the best interest of the masses. For mass surveillance to be ethical, there needs to be a reason for it. Secretively spying on people without them knowing why or how is why surveillance is considered unethical, but approaching these people from a logical standpoint and explaining to them why mass surveillance is necessary is in every way ethical (Duquenoy, Jones & Blundell, p38). For surveillance to be ethical, there also needs to be transparency. This means that there should be integrity of motive- no secret agendas. Right from the way the data is collected to the way it is handled and used, there needs to complete honesty between the parties involved. The methods used need to be analyzed for proportionality, there must be laws put in place to protect the interests of those being surveilled, and lastly, there needs to be a clear prospect for success if mass surveillance is to be carried on for a long period of time (Duquenoy, Jones & Blundell, p78). Conclusion So, is mass surveillance unethical? Yes it is, and no, it is not. This is one of those issues that has to be examined in context. If a criminal hacks into the surveillance system of a particular government and uses it to commit a major crime, then this criminal is wrong, but this still does not make mass surveillance unethical. The justification and ethicality of mass surveillance are often treated as one subject, and in as much as they may overlap, they are quite different. For instance, it is justified for a government to put up cameras to protect the many while they focus on the few bad apples that are likely to commit crimes, but it is unethical that this same government is intruding the privacy of so many people just to catch a few criminals. In the same way, it is unethical to listen in on a cell phone conversation of a suspect in a criminal investigation, but if this person ends up being convicted because of the conversation, then it becomes justified, and to some extent, also ethical. If we go back to the basics, parents have to monitor their children in order for these infants to survive. In this context, the infants are viewed as powerless, helpless, and in need of constant care and attention. It is therefore the parent’s responsibility, both ethically and morally, to be there for their child. After these children grow, they become independent and are no longer in need of constant attention. These children start to pull away from their parents and seek out their own privacy. The same knowledge can be applied to the issue of mass surveillance. The public can be seen as children who have grown over time and earned the right to their own privacy, and yet the government persists on monitoring them constantly (Cohen, p85). In the public consents to this surveillance, then it becomes ethically justifiable for mass surveillance to continue, but without the public’s consent to surveillance, then it becomes wrong and an intrusion of privacy. Work cited Cropf, Robert A, Robert A Cropf, and Timothy C Bagwell. Ethical Issues And Citizen Rights In The Era Of Digital Government Surveillance. 1st ed. Print. Cohen, E.  Mass Surveillance And State Control. 1st ed. [Place of publication not identified]: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Print. Gamino Garcia, Arkaitz et al.  Mass Surveillance. 1st ed. [Brussels]: [European Commission], 2015. Print. Pandey, Archit.  An Introduction To Mass Surveillance And International Law. 1st ed. Print. Baxi, Upendra, Christopher McCrudden, and Abdul Paliwala. Laws Ethical, Global And Theoretical Contexts. Essays In Honour Of William Twining. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016. Print. Babcock, William A, and William H Freivogel. The SAGE Guide To Key Issues In Mass Media Ethics And Law. 1st ed. Print. Berleur, J, and Diane Whitehouse. An Ethical Global Information Society. 1st ed. London: New York, 1997. Print. Laws Ethical, Global, And Theoretical Contexts. 1st ed. Cambridge University Press, 2015. Print. Bishop, Matt, Natalia Miloslavskaya, and Marianthi Theocharidou.  Information Security Education Across The Curriculum. 1st ed. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2015. Print. Duquenoy, Penny, Simon Jones, and Barry Blundell. Ethical, Legal And Professional Issues In Computing. 1st ed. Australia: Thomson, 2008. Print. Fuchs, Christian.  Internet And Surveillance: The Challenges Of Web 2.0 And Social Media. 1st ed. New York: Routledge, 2012. Print.

Unrealistic Expectations of Women :: Media

Unrealistic Expectations of Women I can’t tell you how many times I have opened up a fashion magazine, listened to adds on the radio, watched commercials on TV, or observed the stereotyping in today’s extremely judgmental society and seen the effects that our expectations have had on people, especially young women. There are so many instances throughout the course of everyday life, that I feel expected to live vicariously through the body of a Victoria’s Secret model. I can only wonder how many others feel this way as well. I was recently leafing through the pages of the 2002 Sport’s Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, and within a matter of five minutes, I was majorly downing my body and my looks. I couldn’t help but compare my body to that of a woman who is 5’10† and weighs 105 pounds, when the average female is 5’6† and weighs 140 pounds. It’s no wonder there are so many cases of anorexia and bulimia when a model, comparable to the stick figures drawn by kindergartener's everywhere, is yet another symbol of what is considered to be beautiful. Another article that caught my eye was in an old Cosmopolitan magazine I just had lying around. It was entitled, â€Å"Five Fixes That’ll Make Him Want You.† Now, my initial reaction was one of frustration. Why is there so much pressure to make the opposite sex want you. It’s a dreaded curse that is utterly inescapable. We will always be trying to impress the opposite sex. There is always going to be something about us that isn’t quite right, or one flaw that if we could just in some way fix, we’d be perfect. Girls, let me ask you something. Do you think those models are happy? They are constantly under an enormous amount of pressure to keep the body they have, to not eat, and to be absolutely flawless.

Why Cant We All Just Get Along? :: essays research papers fc

Why Can’t We All Just Get Along?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  The concern of weapons of mass destruction is perhaps one of the largest growing issues in the world today. These weapons are a threat to everyone; actually, they are a threat to the existence of the world, and it is for this simple reason, why there is concern regarding this topic all over the globe. â€Å" [The threat of weapons of mass destruction is] A Damocles sword poised on the neck of the human race, the magnitude of the threat they pose cannot be overstated† (Sid-Ahmed, 1). It is for this reason efforts are being made to ban the use of and/or destroy weapons of mass destruction all over the world. The question is, will the prohibition and destruction of weapons benefit the world or will it put us at a disadvantage?   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  If all nuclear weapons in the world were destroyed, the world would certainly benefit because the threat would be eliminated. America is making efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons all over the world. They have decided it is a good idea to go into other countries and â€Å"peacefully† force them to stop production of and destroy their nuclear weapons. The New York Times states, â€Å"Iraq has to get rid of its biological and chemical arms and missiles and the means to make them, and abandon its efforts to develop nuclear weapons† (NYT, 1). This of course sounds like a splendid idea because the less nuclear weapons we have, the less chance people have to use them, but then the United States goes on to give Iraq an ultimatum. â€Å"That [the destruction of the nuclear weapons] can be accomplished in one of two ways. Iraq can make a full declaration of its weapons arsenal this weekend, and then work with the UN to destroy the arms. If it doesn’t , the United States is likely to use military forces to disarm Iraq† (NYT, 1). While the intentions of the United States are noble enough, they are not going about getting results in the most intelligent manner because by â€Å"threatening† Iraq they seem as if their motives are not quite what they seem. It is almost a hypocritical concept because the United States says that they want to eliminate violence, but they are going about it by threatening other countries. The Tehran Times of Iran shows us how they view what the United States is trying to do.