Chapter 7 Question No. 6
Should someone who runs a pornographic website containing images of him- or her- self be fired by an employer because it could give the employer a bad image, even if the person never states where he or she works on the website? Why or why not?
Personally, I think it is up to the company. People need to be aware of everything they do on the internet. One mistake can have an everlasting effect on a person's life. Once you click send, it is out there. The reason I think a company should have the right to fire someone who has been involved in porn because that could effect the company's bottom line. For example, if customers or possible customers of that company notice that an employee is involved with a pornographic site then that may cause the company to lose money. If a company is losing money or business because of an employee then they should have the right to "cut ties" because of that. It is very similar to the people who warn us students that we should be very careful what we put on Facebook. Companies will check those things and if a person has an inappropriate picture or post that can be the difference between being hired or passed over. I know there are other people that would probably disagree with my view and they probably argue that if a person can do their job effectively and behave (at work) in a professional manner then what they do in their personal lives is nobody's business. But times are changing and with all the great technology that has been created and that will continue to evolve and because of this people now have less privacy than the pre-internet days. If people do not like it then I would suggest that they stay off the internet.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Friday, March 22, 2013
Chapter 6 Question No. 3
Some contend that secretly recording conversations or activities, even when the acts recorded occur in a public space, is a violation of privacy. State and defend your position on the matter.
This is a controversial topic. I believe that people should not be recorded without their own consent unless the person(s) are deemed dangerous or participating in illegal activity and that person(s) could somehow harm others. As I read the question I thought right away that it should in no way be allowed but as I thought more about it, I started to think about different scenarios a person might be in where it is hard to say if it should be allowed or not. The book gives an example of when Rodney King, an African American, was beaten by police officers in Los Angeles. The police officers had no idea they were being taped but the person recording the event knew that what the police were doing was wrong and went ahead and taped it. This was important because it: "gave the entire U.S. population a window into the simmering racial tensions of the second-largest city in the country" (175). This gave proof and merit to the people who had been complaining about being mistreated for decades. People could actually see the mistreatment with their own eyes. There are many other situations that a person could use to argue that people should be allowed to record conversations or activities but the question is whether I feel that it is a violation of privacy. It took me awhile to really consider both sides but I feel that it is simply not right to record someone without their knowledge unless someone is dangerous or in danger (as I stated earlier). I believe that if a person feels the need to record an important meeting or event than the other people that are participating should be made aware that they are being recorded. Some people say or do things "off the record" or discuss things that are deeply private that the person(s) is/are the only ones the message or action is intended for.
According to Digital Law Media Research: "If you plan to record telephone calls or in-person conversations (including by recording video that captures sound), you should be aware that there are federal and state wiretapping laws that may limit your ability to do so. These laws not only expose you to the risk of criminal prosecution, but also potentially give an injured party a civil claim for money damages against you." I am not saying that my view is the way the law works but I want to stress that I believe it a violation of privacy. Even though this was not an easy topic to decide on, I believe that this would bring more harm than good.
This is a controversial topic. I believe that people should not be recorded without their own consent unless the person(s) are deemed dangerous or participating in illegal activity and that person(s) could somehow harm others. As I read the question I thought right away that it should in no way be allowed but as I thought more about it, I started to think about different scenarios a person might be in where it is hard to say if it should be allowed or not. The book gives an example of when Rodney King, an African American, was beaten by police officers in Los Angeles. The police officers had no idea they were being taped but the person recording the event knew that what the police were doing was wrong and went ahead and taped it. This was important because it: "gave the entire U.S. population a window into the simmering racial tensions of the second-largest city in the country" (175). This gave proof and merit to the people who had been complaining about being mistreated for decades. People could actually see the mistreatment with their own eyes. There are many other situations that a person could use to argue that people should be allowed to record conversations or activities but the question is whether I feel that it is a violation of privacy. It took me awhile to really consider both sides but I feel that it is simply not right to record someone without their knowledge unless someone is dangerous or in danger (as I stated earlier). I believe that if a person feels the need to record an important meeting or event than the other people that are participating should be made aware that they are being recorded. Some people say or do things "off the record" or discuss things that are deeply private that the person(s) is/are the only ones the message or action is intended for.
According to Digital Law Media Research: "If you plan to record telephone calls or in-person conversations (including by recording video that captures sound), you should be aware that there are federal and state wiretapping laws that may limit your ability to do so. These laws not only expose you to the risk of criminal prosecution, but also potentially give an injured party a civil claim for money damages against you." I am not saying that my view is the way the law works but I want to stress that I believe it a violation of privacy. Even though this was not an easy topic to decide on, I believe that this would bring more harm than good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)