Facebook Users Finally Allowed to Avoid Beacon

Recently, Facebook has created a tool called the Beacon, which picked up data on users' activity and send alerts to their Facebook friends' "news feeds." Their friends were suddenly allowed to see what movies their friends were going to watch as well as Christmas presents they had purchased. Facebook had given users two alerts to decline the feature; however, they were easily missed. Many users were obviously outraged by this tool, especially since most users were unaware of the feature.

The makers of Facebook clearly invaded the users' personal privacy. They should have clearly advertised the new tool and made sure all their users were aware of the new device. They had access to the users email and other personal information, and had the ability to make sure everyone had a chance to decline the new tool, but did not. They should have been more careful handling users personal information.

Though many of the users do give up some privacy by joining the site, it is still their responsibility to keep the rest private. Facebook has many options for who can view the users' profile, including specific parts of the profile. So how could they allow friends to see the users’ online activities? They had to know the tool encroached on the users' privacy, and must have chosen to poorly advertise the new tool because they wanted many to use it.

The makers need to think about their new tools before releasing them into the site. They should never have made this tool an opt-out instead of an opt- in feature, especially knowing the level of privacy it invaded. A website holding such personal information needs to be more careful about the tools they create, and needs to make sure the users are fully aware of them before releasing them.

Furthermore, once they learned users were outraged by the tool they should have immediately turned it off. They should not have been deliberating about what to do or how to shut it off. The makers new it was a huge invasion of privacy and should have taken the appropriate steps to end it. The makers need to really think about their tools and options before they are available not after. They should think about the ethics and possible problems prior to release, and not fix or make changes after.

Respones to Aqua Dots

The fact that China's government is not over seeing their safety laws is unethical. After the last few months, China's government should be paying closer attention to the toys being shipped out. This is just one of the few toys manufactured in China that are being recalled. Furthermore, American companies should also be overlooking products imported from China in light of all the recalls. They should try to find another place to manufacture their toys or ban importation from China until the problems are fixed. The Chinese government and American companies need to do something drastic to get the manufactures to follow safe rules, especially in products intended for children.

Response to Dishonesty in Electronics Recycling

I agree with Group One when they say the cost for safely disposing the materials should be part of the selling price and the company that produces it should be held accountable for it. I also feel some of the burden should remain on the businessmen. This seems to be the only way to force all parties involved to safely recycle electronic waste. By adding a cost to the selling price, the consumer will also feel the effect of recycling and force consumers to think about what happens after the product is unusable. Furthermore, it makes an incentive for companies to create more bio-friendly products since they are responsible for its safe clean up. Furthermore, with some of the burden still on businessmen they will push the companies to use safer materials in their products.

By making the companies responsible for recycling their products it may also lower the electronic waste exported to other companies. Many of the products being exported are created in foreign countries, which is why many in the US feel it is not their burden. The companies will be required to take responsibility no matter where their products are shipped to. This will give them incentive to use safer materials in their products.

Breakthrough on Stem Cell Research

An article in NY Times explains a new procedure to create stem cells. Instead of using embryos and eggs scientists have started the process, called direct reprogramming. The scientists used aged cells and manipulate them to stop the aging process. These cells can now be used thee same way stem cells are. The achievements completely reset the boundaries of the stem cell debate.

This process virtually eliminates the ethical debate of where the cells are coming from. They are not using trial and error and killing embryos. They are simply using a process to cause our own cells to revert back to their original state. This technology will allow scientists to help patients dying from diseases and transplant patients. However, generating stem cells is suddenly possible for anyone with a basic background in molecular biology. No special expertise in handling chromosomes, nuclei or eggs is needed, which could turn out to be dangerous. There would be no telling who would produce the cells and what they would use them for.

Furthermore, this procedure does no eliminate the ethical dilemmas of individuals using the process to become immortal. Stem cell research would allow them to replace any old, damaged cells allowing one to virtually live forever. These cells could even reproduce brain and nerve cells, which do not naturally occur in our bodies. Though the actually procedure no longer would cause ethical concern the outcome of the process has many ethical dilemmas. When the procedure is actually perfected to be used in clinical study there will need to be many rules and regulations to prevent this procedure from being used for personal gain. However, there does not seem to be anyway to really control who performs the procedure and what they use it for.

Bay Bridge Ship Collision

The Cosco Busan crashed into the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge dumping over 58,000 gallons of bunker fuel oil into the Bay waters, which is the biggest environmental disaster in this local area in over two decades. It seems the pilot reported the ship’s radar was out just before the crash. However, tests by the National Transportation and Safety Board’s technician following the accident found it working properly. The pilot also told investigators that he had problems with the ship's electric charts, but the agency has not checked the ship's voyage voice recorder yet to make sure that claim was true. Also, the pilot has claimed the radar “conked out” twice after leaving the docks at the Port of Oakland.

The National Transportation and Safety Board should have been more thorough in their check with the radar. The pilot had reported problems with the radar and electric charts several times before the crash. The agency should have known what a problem such defects in the equipment could have caused and take better actions. They should have had the ship dock in a closer location to check out the problems instead of letting it continue its course.

The National Transportation and Safety Board’s lack of concern has created an environmental crisis in the Bay. Their disregard to the problems with the equipment led to the crash creating the spill. However, there were also problems with the clean-up, which created an even bigger disaster.

Apparently, after the reported spill it took clean up crews over 90 minutes to get to the scene. The crew also too several hours to inform officials that the spill was much larger than they first anticipated. The coast guard says there was miscommunication between them and the public. However, it is completely unacceptable to take over an hour to start cleaning up the spill. They are aware of how harmful oil spills are to the local economy as well as the marine life. They took so long to react to the spill that by the next day the oil was all over the bay.

The National Transportation and Safety Board and the Coast Guard did not perform their jobs effectively or efficiently. The National Transportation and Safety Board should have had enough experience with failed radars to know such a detrimental incident could occur. They should have taken immediate action to correct the faulty equipment, instead of ignoring the problem since their tests claimed everything was in working order. Furthermore, the Coast Guard is well aware of what oil spills can do to a local economy. They should have reacted quicker to the incident and started cleaning up the spill before it affected the entire bay. Furthermore, local officials should have been contacted immediately when they noticed the size of the spill. Both agencies were not doing their job to ensure the safety of the bay. They acted lazily towards the incident and now the fisherman of the bay will suffer.

Response to Genetic Engineering in Athletics

I agree with Omair, in Group 2, about genetic engineering in athletes. Since this procedure is still fairly new it will cost lots of money to perform. This will allow those with money to design their children to be better than those who work for it. It will given them an edge in athletics just because they have the money to engineer themselves to be better than average. It would be unethical to give the rich a better chance than any other social class. Furthermore, even if the procedure was offered to everyone equally it will create higher standards for athletes. Also, it may even eliminate games and competitions since everyone would be able to perform at the same level. Omair makes this clear with his quote “If everyone did what I am doing, would this undermine my own ability to do the same thing?” Obviously, if everyone becomes genetically engineered to be a good athlete, no one will have an advantage over anyone else.

There does need to be a public policy created outlawing such a procedure. If we do not act now, it will not be very long until this procedure is used for other personal reasons. Parents could start select exactly what genes they want in their children. They could engineer Einstein’s or Mozart’s. Or society could start engineering the "perfect" human and reinstitute the ideas of eugenics. There is no telling what aspects genetic engineering will affect, and how far people will take it. It could even lead us into creating clones. We need to act now to stop this procedure from being used unethically.

GPS Tracking Device in Jackets

In London a British clothing company, Bladerunner, has created a jacket which includes a GPS tracking device. The device is embedded in the lining. It was initially for adults who were climbing mountains, skiing, or snowboarding. It was supposed to help find them in case of avalanches or injuries. However, now it is designed to help parents keep track of their children.

The ethical issue is over personal privacy. Parents have always been able to break the barrier of their children’s personal privacy, but with new technology it seems the child has no privacy. The jacket will tell the parents if the child has left school, are at a boyfriend’s house, or leaving town. Moreover, parents could buy this jacket for their children and not even mention the tracking device. The child would get caught every time he or she tried to do something "against the rules." They could never go anywhere without feeling like someone was out their watching their every move.

However, parents do have a right to watch their children. They are responsible for their actions and many parents would use the device to keep their children safe. Children could no longer lie to their parent about where they were going, and therefore could not go anywhere unsafe. Also, they would be unable to skip school or lie about going to a party, which again is for the safety of the child.

These GPS tracking devices are becoming more and more popular for protecting the safety of the child. However, where does one draw the line? Are students in college or high school still allowed to be monitored by their parents? At what age do children have the right to personal privacy? Furthermore, do parents have this much right to violate their child’s privacy, especially if they do not inform them about the tracking device. Even though parents are protecting their child the devices are not guaranteed to keep them out of trouble. Also, parents and children often differ on the terms of safety. Many parents may get the device to keep their child away from a boyfriend, girlfriend, or a friend they do not approve. This, however, does not necessarily have to do with safety but the child’s right to pick their friends. This device will arise many problems in the future.

Also, children are smart enough to lose the tracking device or leave it in a safe place where their parents will not worry. This of course will cause problems because the parent will not really know where their child is. If something were to go wrong they would be in the dark about what their child has been up to. Furthermore, children, especially the pre-teens and teenagers, will see this as more constrictions and rules and feel the need to rebel against them.

I feel that these devices are going to cause more problems then solve. Parents and children are going to have to sit down and discuss the line between personal privacy and safety.