Hamhocks And Flakehead Case Summary

The government is always watching to ensure safety of their country, including everything and everyone in it. Camera surveillance has become an accepted and almost expected addition to modern safety and crime prevention (“Where” para 1). Many people willingly give authorization to companies like Google and Facebook to make billions selling their personal preferences, interests, and data. Canada participates with the United States and other countries in monitoring national and even global communications (“Where” para 2). Many question the usefulness of this kind of surveillance (Hier, Let, and Walby 1).However, surveillance, used non-discriminatorily, is, arguably, the key technology to preventing terrorist plots (Eijkman 1). Government

Today, Canadian’s lives today are as translucent as ever. Most organizations especially the government constantly watches each and every one of our moves. By definition, surveillance is any systematic focus on any information in order to influence, manage, entitle, or control those whose information is collected. (Bennet et Al, 6). From driving to the shopping mall to withdrawing money from the ATM machine, Canadians are being watched constantly. With Canada’s commitment to advance technology and infrastructure in the 1960s, government surveillance is much easier and much more prevalent than it was hundreds of years ago. Even as early as 1940s, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics used punch cards and machines to determine who is available

once again brought to light the various concerns and complaints that this contentious area inevitably generates.  The idea of monitoring employees’ conversations has a certain Orwellian darkness that encourages accusations of privacy invasion and corporate spying.  Indeed, some companies have taken this too far – some reportedly even requesting their employee’s Facebook login details.  However, by and large the concept of employee monitoring – when done appropriately – seems to me to be relatively

The watch of the government should be to the limit of protecting the citizens, not spying on them, ”Down in the street little eddies of wind were whirling dust and torn paper into spirals, and though the sun was shining and the sky a harsh blue, there seemed to be no color in anything, except the posters that were plastered everywhere. The black mustachioed face gazed down from every commanding corner. There was one on the house-front immediately opposite. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption said, while the dark eyes looked deep into Winston's own” ("1984 Power Quotes"). Citizens needs privacy in public, in private, and in mind. Big brother represents protection, but at the same time it is scary to think that he is “watching you”. Safety is crucial in today’s society, because there are many things that are harmful. ”The ACLU has been at the forefront of the struggle to prevent the entrenchment of a surveillance state by challenging the secrecy of the government’s surveillance and watchlisting practices; its violations of our rights to privacy, free speech, due process, and association; and its stigmatization of minority communities and activists disproportionately targeted by surveillance”("Privacy and Surveillance"). Invading the privacy of others can lead to many serious consequences. If one is trying to protect another, it is their responsibility to do it correctly. Privacy is

In support of privacy, Daniel J. Solove wrote, Why Privacy Matters Even If You Have ‘Nothing to Hide.’ Solove begins his argument by introducing the nothing-to-hide argument. In general, the argument for surveillance is ‘if you’ve got nothing to hide, you’ve got nothing to fear:’ hence people’s support for government efforts and regulations to ‘protect’ citizens by decreasing privacy. Those who object this argument target its most extreme cases. For example, if you have nothing to hide, could I take a nude picture of you, own all entitlements to the photo, and share it with anyone? Absolutely not, most would say, but this objection is not exceptionally compelling according to Solove. In order to understand privacy, we must not reduce it to one single definition. Privacy is extremely complex and involves a range of different things that share common characteristics. For instance, one’s privacy can be invaded by the expose of your innermost secrets, but it may also be invaded if a peeping Tom (without the reveal of any secrets) is observing you. Your privacy may also be invaded if the government seeks extensive information about you. All of these examples cause harm related to an invasion of privacy, thus making the definition of privacy not applicable for a “one size fits all” conclusion. The underlying and most significant harm that comes from surveillance is the problem of information processing. Solove uses The Trial example to demonstrate this effect. Here, the

Citizens have to be careful about how they speak in public, just like on social media people have to be careful about the contents of their posts. If an authority figure detects something inappropriate or offensive that someone has made public, they can get in trouble, whether it be with the law or simply their superiors at the workplace. In 1984 there’s an instance in which Winston and Julia are trying to find a private place to be together, free of microphones, given that they can’t risk the Police discovering their rebellious act. “There were no telescreens, of course, but there was always the danger of concealed microphones by which your voice might be picked up and recognized” (Orwell, 128). Throughout the book, there is a repetitive concept regarding the dangers of the technology and surveillance in Oceania. Microphones are put in place to monitor the conversations people have in order to limit the talk contradicting the Party’s rules. Citizens can’t express themselves freely or have open discussions because they are scared of the consequences. In this case, Winston was with Julia, who wasn’t his wife, but since divorce isn’t permitted they weren’t allowed to be together. If the microphones caught them they would have gotten in trouble. While in present day there aren’t limits as to what can be discussed in

Surveillance is not a new thing. In fact, espionage, tracking, and sleuthing were part of society ever since 5000 B.C. But in the rise of the modern era, the idea of surveillance in the public eye serves as a controversial topic of discussion. People everywhere complain about the existence of security cameras, government tracking, and the right to privacy. Such problems, however, are not due to the sudden discovery of surveillance, but the modern abuse of it. Seeing the disastrous effects of over surveillance from George Orwell’s 1984, the public rightfully fears societal deterioration through modern surveillance abuse portrayed in Matthew Hutson’s “Even Bugs Will Be Bugged” and the effects of such in Jennifer Golbeck’s “All Eyes On You”. The abuse of surveillance induces the fear of discovery through the invasion of privacy, and ensures the omnipresence of one’s past that haunt future endeavors, to ultimately obstruct human development and the progress of society overall.

I went to Schinker's room and knocked on the door. A male opened the door and I later verbally identified him as Schinker. I identified myself and asked Schinker if I could come into the room to talk to him. Schinker stated that he would talk to me outside of his room because his roommate was sleeping. I asked Schinker if there were

When information is posted online for example, individuals are now aware that CSIS has full control over that information—and can get a warrant essentially whenever they want. This can lead individuals self-governing what they say, what they post—and in a way—the way they think. Based on Michel Foucault’s research in his article Discipline and Punish, CSIS’s mode of surveillance is much like the notion of Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon. The panopticon is an idea for a prison where there is a guard tower in the centre of a circular room. Around the perimeter of the prison is where the cells are.

In his excerpt from Testaments Betrayed, Milan Kundera claims that for one to be truly free, one must have the right to privacy. He says that the curtain must remain closed between private and public and that those “curtain-rippers” are criminals. However, although I believe that privacy must be respected and protected, there are times when the invasion of privacy may be necessary if a person’s life or well-being is in immediate danger.

Specific Purpose: My purpose of this presentation is to inform listeners about the dangers of government surveillance and why it should be stopped.

“Tracking Is an Assault on Liberty” is an essay written by Nicholas Carr in 2010 in the Wall Street Journal. He said that there are chances that, “our personal data will fall into the wrong hands” (Carr 438). It means that people’s personal information might drop under the hands of hackers, data aggressors, and stalkers. In addition, Carr believes that “personal information may be used to influence our behavior and even our thoughts in ways that are invisible to us” (Carr 439). It means that the data aggressors misuse people’s information in opposite way or in a wrong way. For example, data aggressors steal the people’s personal information and use that information for their own benefits. Therefore, Carr believes that government should regulate the internet. Unlike Carr, Harper believes that people are responsible for their own information. They should be aware and concerned about potential dangers of posting their personal information on the internet. However, it’s people duty to be aware of its consequences before posting any of their personal

Throughout a journalist’s career, it is probable that he or she experiences an ethical dilemma or two. It is the journalist’s job responsibility to do everything in his or her power to make the news as accurate and honest as possible. In the movie Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, the main ethical issue that occurred was the KVWN Channel 4 News’ sudden rehiring of Ron Burgundy after he had been fired. Burgundy should not have been allowed to return because of the negative impact that he made on the audience after he said, “Go fuck yourself San Diego” at the end of a newscast.

Privacy also hinges on a respect for a person's inherent dignity. An employee can claim a protection of his reputation and sense of self-worth against defamation, discrimination, or personal abuse. A person also has the right to maintain his personal beliefs and convictions against coercion and manipulation. Applied to the environment of public employment, this conception would prohibit any employer from harassing individuals on the basis of their class or status, or their personal characteristics. It would prohibit employers from shaming employees and causing emotional distress in the process. It would prohibit an employer from breaching the confidentiality of an employee's record or publicizing closed hearings concerning the employee. This is one area where an employee's privacy interests may be violated in a technological environment by fellow employees who may use bulletin boards to post embarrassing information or defamatory messages to be read by others. This conception of privacy can also be extended to a claim against pervasive intrusion by employers into employees' work activities. An employee may feel constant camera surveillance, monitoring of phone calls and computer use, and an accounting for every minute of duty time reflects an omnipresent, oppressive employer, who exhibits little trust and little

Individuals claim that the states throughout our country are always being watched by the Government; our every move, our every purchase, and even our every commute to and from work are being monitored. Welsh and Farrington(2004) both agree in explaining that the closed-circuit television(CCTV) is doing the exact same thing. "America is on the verge of becoming a 'surveillance society' (Stanley and Steinhardt, 2003:1)" (Welsh, 2004: 2). George Orwell discusses that “Every single technical device that has been invented, restored, or refurbished in the last ten years is becoming an increasing negative towards individuals freedom of interference”, but Welsh and Farrington seem to disagree. "Fact is, there are no longer any barriers to the Big Brother regime portrayed by George Orwell" (Welsh, 2004:2).