Must be APA format, answer posts thoroughly, must have at least one verifiable, legitimate reference if needed no less than 150 words. Due Sunday September 1, 2019 @ 8PM EST 28 hours from now.
Week 2 Discussion #1.1
I think that in a perfect world, there would be a distinct balance in regards to security vs. privacy. Realistically, it seems that that balance ratio may not be achievable due to the ever lingering threats that could stand to pose harm to the public. I personally believe that the use of bio-metric technology is well suited as a separate layer of physical security that, when properly deployed, can be extremely effective at keeping personal things such as personal information secure. The ironic fact is that while it can be used to protect our personal information there is a real concern that it could actually be used to gain access to personal information. In the wrong hands, the use of bio-metrics can be detrimental to those who use it to protect valuable information or to keep potential plans confidential.
One of the main concerns I have in regards to the three categories is function creep. While this may be nothing more than a personal worry, it is not hard to let the mind drift off to the possibility that any personal information may be used for information other than what is stated at the time of collection. “When biometrics is instead used to offer an identity to individuals solely for the purpose of categorization, we can then consider this to be an unwelcome risk of this technology.” (Mordini, 2009) Issues such as categorization as mentioned above could be an alarming threat, however there seems to be very little evidence to suggest that this is an actual occurring practice. I think that ethically there is very little concern other than what the potential could be if these programs or technology fell into the wrong hands of those who intend to use them for malicious purposes
Mordini, E., & Green, M. (2009). Identity, security and democracy: the wider social and ethical implications of automated systems for human identification. Amsterdam: Ios Press.
Wilkerson posted Aug 27, 2019 7:24 PM
I feel that there is a valuable use for biometrics in the safety of the Nation. But, the use must be regulated and guarded. I have been fingerprinted several times throughout my life and have also had my DNA taken. I exist in several databases and have had that information breached. But still, my stance is the benefits outweigh the possible draw backs. I have identity theft monitoring for the possibility that the data breach compromised my SSN. And by having my DNA on file I can be cleared of any false accusations. I am not so naive as to think that this information could not be used by criminals or enemies for nefarious purposes. But, I have faith in our system and ultimately those individuals would be discovered and defeated. I can accept fingerprinting, DNA acquisition and retinal scans to access secured areas. But I do not think data mining of my electronic and online footprint is as acceptable. There should be limits on the use of that information. Stopping terrorist plots and criminal behavior is perfectly acceptable. Selling the fact that I looked for a couch is not acceptable. I should not log off my computer after just looking up a price for widget A and turn on my phone to see ads for the same widget.
Where the last two discussions below formed there opinion.
D2.2 will bring us in contact with cultural relativism at the local level. You may not initially see the connection but as we move through this discussion, I will post my comments and I am confident that you will see cultural relativism at work. Mayor Keegan served the city that I worked for. This scenario impacted me in a couple of profound ways. I will share those impacts as we move through the discussion.
1) Put on the hat of the City Manager and or City Council Members
2) Has a breach of ethics occurred in this situation?
3) If so, what was the breach? If not, why not?
4) In your capacity of City Manager/City Council Member, what actions would you recommend?
5) Take off the official hat and tell us your personal reaction.
Case Study Article: Wednesday, July 17, 2002- Section B
Headline: “Keegan copies article’s words, uses as his own”
By Chip Scutari-The Arizona Republic
Congressional candidate John Keegan cut and pasted several paragraphs from an article on the Heritage Foundation Web site and used it as his own answer in a newspaper questionnaire that is used to help make recommendations in statewide elections.
Most of Keegan’s answer about Social Security is taken verbatim from an article written by David C John for the popular conservative think tank. The Peoria mayor was responding to questions that The Arizona Republic asks every congressional candidate. Keegan, a Republican, is running in the 2nd Congressional District, which covers much of the West Valley, northwestern Arizona and the Hopi Reservation in northeastern Arizona.
The first paragraph of Keegan’s answer and John’s article both read: “Social Security reform will not affect today’s senior citizens. The program has more than enough resources to pay them full benefits for the rest of their lives.”
There is no attribution contained in his answer. The third and fourth paragraphs also are lifted word-for-word from the same article on the Heritage Foundation Web site. Near the end of his questionnaire, Keegan includes a line that says:
“In preparing these answers, I drew on a variety of sources; some were think tanks that I admire such as the Hoover Institution, Empower America and Heritage Foundation.”
Keegan said that he’s comfortable with that attribution.
“I like the stuff they write.” Keegan said. “I like their stuff on things that I don’t have a personal background on.
Since 1994, the Heritage Foundation has written a ‘candidates briefing book to guide lawmakers on crucial election issues. Keegan said he leans on that book for advice on different topics.
In addition to questions about Social Security, the survey asks the West Valley congressional candidates about national security, taxes, immigration and Luke Air Force Base. The answers along with research and candidate interviews help The Arizona Republic editorial board make its recommendations
Not first controversy
This isn’t the first time Keegan has been embroiled in a campaign controversy. In 1994, it was found that he had more than 20 forged signatures on his nominating petitions that he sent to the Secretary of State’s Office. He eventually quit that legislative race, which then political newcomer Scott Bundgaard eventually won.
Bundgaard, who has battled Keegan in the past, said he’d let voters decide about Keegan’s ‘problem’.
“We’ve got more serious issues facing this country, like cutting taxes, improving education and making health care accessible,” Bundgaard said. These issues are more important than whether a candidate is copying someone else’s homework. I trust the voters to decide whether this problem is important to them.
Bundgaard, a state senator, and Keegan are locked in a seven-way GOP primary to fill Bob Stump’s seat in Congress. Stump has issued a ringing endorsement of Lisa Atkins, his chief aide of 26 years, to succeed him. Former state legislator and children’s advocate Trent Franks is also running.
The Atkins campaign didn’t want to comment.
The three other Republicans running in the 2nd Congressional District are Dick Hensley, Dusko Jovicic and Mike Schaefer.
Keegan’s wife Lisa was Arizona’s superintendent of public instruction from 1994 to 2001, when she left to work for a think tank in Washington, DC.
In the summer of 1994, Keegan acknowledged that the signatures might have been forged as he tried to run for the statehouse.
At the time, he said he had hired a college student know to him only as “Bob” to collect signatures. But when “Bob” was never found, Keegan bowed out of the race.
Girimonti posted Aug 29, 2019 8:58 PM
I believe that a breach of ethics has occurred. Mr. Keegan failed to answer the questions from a personal and professional standpoint and instead used others work, word for word, for his response. The breach of ethics did not necessarily occur when he failed to give credit to this association in particular but I believe it came during a crucial time in his campaign where his answers needed to come from personal knowledge and experience rather than citing an outside source.
My actions would be a simple apology for the answers as well as a direct question and answer session regarding the matters that were cited. Instead of drawing out the matter into political litigation I think the main message would be a sincere apology for taking “shortcuts” and a personal defense of character to hopefully mend the broken trust between Mr. Keegan and the public.
Personally I feel that this is a slight breach of ethics but more of a testament to the type of character that is representative of this person. Whether or not this candidate used these answers to intentionally take a shortcut, there isn’t much evidence to show that this was done with any type of malicious intent. I think that in the world of politics a small infraction such as this can, and usually is, drawn out with the intention of smearing another candidate look bad.
The expectation for a manager is that they are either a subject matter expert in a field or know where they can get the most accurate information. Should Keegan have given the Heritage Foundation credit fo there work? Absolutely!! Is he required to? I don’t think so.
Being a student and a professional are on two different sides of this spectrum. It makes a student look like a cheater because they are doing this for a grade but when giving this information to the public the majority of them wouldnt care wher it came from as long as they do not have to look it up. I think the major problem would be how his integrity would suffer, especially after he is outted. It makes him look lazy for the most part and that could harm his reputation greatly and when you are in a public office that is all you have.
Lut us not believe that this is the only place this has happened in politics. Every day we have politicians spitting out information as their own, and we can be sure that they were not even the ones that researched it or even wrote the information for how it was disseminated.