We live in a hyper connected society brought together through all forms of technology. It takes just seconds to send a picture or message across the world. Of course with this hyper connectivity comes the possibility of sending sensitive information such as a credit card number, a social security number, or even a message regarding a terrorist attack.
To proctor their citizens from potential attacks, some government organizations have begun accessing this sensitive data. This violates a negative right, the right to be left alone or forgotten. However one must consider: if one can trust the government to protect one's life, then what is so wrong with them accessing personal information through our hyper connected devices. Personally, if it serves for the greater benefit of the country, I have no qualms with my information being accessed by government organizations, I have nothing to hide, and quite frankly don't care. If someone can post something on Facebook and have hundreds of people read it, then what is wrong with the government seeing it.
In the end I guess where I stand is that if you are scared of the government accessing your information, maybe you're doing something questionable to begin with.
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/13/orwellian-re-branding-mass-surveillance-merely-bulk-collection/
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Sunday, March 8, 2015
Intellectual Property
The concept of intellectual property is a relatively new idea in the history of humankind. Intellectual property is the idea that people "own" ideas and this is accomplished through trademarks or patents. On an individual level, intellectual property is beneficial in that one makes royalties off of the use of their property, on a societal level this stalls the growth and progression of human development.
Contrary to popular belief, people are often not struck with ideas out of the blue, ideas are usually developed upon or derived from previous ideas or knowledge. By privatizing knowledge, society is essentially stalling creativity and new ideas/solutions by not allowing access to how they were created. How are ideas meant to be built upon unless their knowledge is known.
In my opinion ideas and developing future technology is also stifled by the high prices required to access already existing knowledge such as textbooks. All in all I believe that we must reconsider what deserves to be owned privately as opposed to public for the sake of human development and whether it is ethical for people to "own" ideas.
http://everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/
Contrary to popular belief, people are often not struck with ideas out of the blue, ideas are usually developed upon or derived from previous ideas or knowledge. By privatizing knowledge, society is essentially stalling creativity and new ideas/solutions by not allowing access to how they were created. How are ideas meant to be built upon unless their knowledge is known.
In my opinion ideas and developing future technology is also stifled by the high prices required to access already existing knowledge such as textbooks. All in all I believe that we must reconsider what deserves to be owned privately as opposed to public for the sake of human development and whether it is ethical for people to "own" ideas.
http://everythingisaremix.info/watch-the-series/
Sunday, March 1, 2015
Gun Control
The two main arguments concerning gun control are: regulating guns violates American's second amendment rights and alternately that guns contribute to the widespread violence in the United States.
The second amendment was fashioned with idea in mind of defending one's land against British invasion in the early days of the nation. It was the intention of the founding fathers that allowing the general populace personal gun rights, that a militia could be assembled so that the United States could fight off the British army.
On the other hand, one must understand that "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
This is a very hot topic in the United States any time a gun killing pops up, and one where I believe neither side is correct. Personally I don't believe in ridding people's right to bare arms, however I do believe that before owning a gun people should go through a mental examination process to determine whether or not a person is fit to own a gun. Secondly I believe that we should limit the number of guns one can own.
It is ethically incorrect to rid someone of their constitutional right but through guns, people do kill other people. Thus we as a society must reexamine what it means to bare arms with respect to other people in our society.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/27/news/assault-rifle-bullet-ban-obama-armor/index.html?section=money_topstories
The second amendment was fashioned with idea in mind of defending one's land against British invasion in the early days of the nation. It was the intention of the founding fathers that allowing the general populace personal gun rights, that a militia could be assembled so that the United States could fight off the British army.
On the other hand, one must understand that "guns don't kill people, people kill people."
This is a very hot topic in the United States any time a gun killing pops up, and one where I believe neither side is correct. Personally I don't believe in ridding people's right to bare arms, however I do believe that before owning a gun people should go through a mental examination process to determine whether or not a person is fit to own a gun. Secondly I believe that we should limit the number of guns one can own.
It is ethically incorrect to rid someone of their constitutional right but through guns, people do kill other people. Thus we as a society must reexamine what it means to bare arms with respect to other people in our society.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/27/news/assault-rifle-bullet-ban-obama-armor/index.html?section=money_topstories
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)