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.

Response to GPS in Cellphones

In response to group 2's post on the privacy issue with GPS devices in phones. I do agree that this creates a problem for personal privacy. However, the device is implanted in the phone and only activated for those who request it. It is not forced upon anyone who owns a cell phone. Furthermore, the person is in control of whom they invite to use this device and who can easily find them. Also, there is a blocker, which allows the person the disable the tracking device. This new device is controversial, but the companies have taken precautions to not violet the privacy of individuals. The companies have though about the ethical issue of invading personal privacy and have created protective measurements to protect those who use the phone from being taken advantage of. They have allowed the individual to decide to use the tracking device and who can be part of this network. I feel with all these protective measurements those who proscribe to use the device are aware of the risks and willing to allow those in their network to track them down.

On the part where parents use it on their children I feel this is not an ethical issue. Parents are responsible for these young children and do have a right to invade their privacy to insure their safety. Their child would be aware of the tracking device and of course would be agreeing to their parent’s terms. This may also help keep their children out of trouble knowing their parents are watching them. It could insure the parents their child is not cutting school, is really at their friends house, and not in bad areas where they could get into trouble. Also, I feel the issue of this being brought into the work place by bosses would be invading personal privacy. If bosses required their workers have the tracking device and have it on they would have to provide them with separate cell phones. The worker would have a work cell phone with the device and then choose to have a personal cell phone without it. This may be the only way to not breech personal privacy.

Furthermore, I feel this new device is very useful. As the article states it helps many college children find their friends on campus without having to call them. This way they do not bother their friends if they are in class. Furthermore, this device saves individual countless minutes of cell phone use, which are very important to many people who cannot afford expensive plans. I think with the right precautions, which these companies have taken, this device will be used properly and help many people in the long run. Our technology advancements are only helping us to communicate better. Stifling these advancements would only hurt our nation rather than help it.

Response to Poker Cheating

Group two discussed an online poker cheating that was blamed on the employee. I agree with Omair's view on the ethical issue. The employee was trying to teach the company that this security threat could lead to very big consequences. However, since they ignored his concerns he had to prove it to them the only way he knew how. His actions may seem unethical, but he acted to save the public. He did not withdraw the money, which means he was not trying to use the security threat to his advantage. He did not want to take the money for these people, but rather wanted to protect them. He wanted the company to see the alarm and fix the problem so innocent players would not be scammed. He was willing to sacrifice his own reputation to make sure the public was protected. I know his actions were unethical, but I feel it should be taken into consideration he was acting to fix a problem he saw as ethical. He was acting to to save the company not for personal gain, which he made clear but not touching his winnings. They should not prosecute him since he technically did not steal their money. The employee did not withdraw the winnings and the company reinstated the players’ loss.

Possible Wing Problem with Shuttle

This new article is again dealing with the Discovery shuttle set to launch this month. The article discusses a problem with the outer coating on three of the wing panels show degradation. The NASA Engineering and Safety Center recommend having the three panels be replaced before Discovery flies. But the shuttle program is leaning toward leaving them alone and proceeding with the launch based on data from other engineers. A final decision will be made next week by the top agency officials.

After the past disasters with the Challenger and Columbia shuttles one would think the mangers would take this problem more seriously. During the last two launches NASA engineers warned the NASA mangers about the problems with the shuttles. The engineers were ignored and the past proves what can happen. Even if the wings have survived past launches, they should think of the safety of the astronauts and fix the wings before launch. Furthermore, if they are worried about the cost of fixing these wings, it would be far less than the shuttle exploding and being completely destroyed, not to mention the lives it would save. By postponing the launch by a few days or weeks they would be saving seven lives along with their mission, which would be the ethical choice.

The mangers should learn from their past experiences and decisions. The engineers are trained to make sure the shuttles are built properly and in working condition. By ignoring the engineer's view, the mangers are endangering the lives of seven astronauts. They need to fix the problem before launching the shuttle just to be safe. Ensuring the safety of the astronauts should be there first priority.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/space/10/11/space.shuttle.ap/index.html

Baby Cribs Recalled After Three Deaths

About 1 million Simplicity and Graco cribs have been recalled after three children became entrapped and suffocated. In all three deaths, consumers had installed the drop-rail side of the crib upside down, the agency said. This creates a gap in the crib that children can slide into and suffocate.

The ethical issue arises because the three deaths were not close to one another. Each baby died in a different year. The John's first reported the incident in April 2005. However, the investigator failed to inspect the crib or identify the model. The second incident occurred with the Millwood's baby in November 2006. Now reports claim another child has recently died in 2007. This new crib has not been recalled but is being investigated by the safety agency.

The company and safety agency has known about the defect for over two years. They have created newer models; however, they all seem to have the same problem as the original. The fact that these other two babies could have been saved if they had inspected the incident thoroughly in 2005 is an outrage. The recall should have occurred years ago, instead of in the fall of 2007. Furthermore, the fact they are "investigating" into the third death is unwarranted. Due to the history of the cribs even the new models should be recalled.

The company is only thinking about the profits not the lives of then children. It unethical to allow these cribs to be used daily knowing there is a defect that can lead to their death. There were over fifty-five reports about the cribs drop sides detaching or faulty hardware. The company should be tried for negligent homicide for allowing two other babies to die knowing the crib was faulty. The company officials cannot continue to allow even their new models to be used. Until it is proven the third victim was not killed by their crib it should also be recalled with the older models. The company needs to start thinking about the consumer rather than the profit.


SITE: http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=3637191

Schools Fingerprinting Students

This article explains new technology to be used in school lunch rooms. The technology would allow a scanner to identify a kid qualified for lunch with the swipe of a finger, moving him or her quickly along the line. This technology would replace old-fashioned key pads or swipe systems. It would also add extra time to kids lunch time since there would be little hold up at the end of the line.

However, take a child's fingerprint, or anyone for that matter, is an invasion of privacy. Many parents are outraged by this new technology, and they refuse to allow school systems to use it. The parents are afraid what could happen with such invasive information on their children. Many fear it will be used in the wrong hands or will later be used against there child.

Though the USA is advancing technology in many areas there are many times one must consider the ethical issue of invading another individual's privacy. This new technology would be keeping records of children’s’ fingerprints in there systems in the same way they keep files on all students. There is no way to tell if this information could be used against them later in life. For example, during police investigation they could obtain these fingerprints in the same way they obtain student records. Furthermore, there are many individuals, who could hack into this system. There is no guarantee these students private information will not be leaked out in the public.

Obtaining children's fingerprints to add an extra 10 or so minutes to lunch time is not enough reason to invade their privacy. Furthermore, this technology would add extra expenses to the school. The technology does not cut down the staff needed in a lunch room. The schools are better off adding extra time to students' lunch period rather than instituting invasive technology.

Response to Mattel Recalls

In response to Group 1 and Group 3's post on the Mattel recall of toys I agree this was an unethical issue. Whether, it is the companies fault for allowing subcontractors to approve the safety of the toy or the contractor himself for choosing lead based paint, both are partially to blame. Though the company has allowed subcontractors to overlook toy safety it still should have been checking up on the subcontractors. They should have already had programs installed to check for unsafe toys instead of starting them now. Also, the subcontractors did have the right to use a cheaper paint then the one offered to them, but when they discovered it was lead based they should have been ethically obligated to speak up. They should have known the effects it can have on the children who will play with their toys. Furthermore, they should have switched back to a safer paint. Overall, this is an unethical situation and everyone involved is to blame.

Response to Discovery Liftoff

In response to Group 6's blog on the delays with the Discovery Liftoff, I agree in the engineers made the ethical decision. By taking the time out to check for and fix problems to ensure astronauts safety proves the engineer care about the lives of the astronauts. These engineers understand that sending them up in a fault spaceship just to launch on time is not moral. They have realized that the individual lives are more important than rushing a launch just to make discoveries that could have waited a few more weeks. The engineers care about those involved with the launch not just the rewards they may receive from being involved with the launch. They are truly acting morally.

Chip Implant May Cause Cancer

VeriChip is a company that makes a microscopic chip that can be implanted in humans and animals. The chip stores information that can be read when held to a scanner. It has been a highly contraversioal topic because many feel it will encroach on individual's privacy. However, many feel they are taking advantage of this technology and it should not be used in this manner. It is also felt to be an infringement on personal privacy, and many feel eventually it will be used in the wrong way virtually eliminating personal privacy. The chip has therefore been widely used in many animals, usually pets, instead of humans. Home Again is a widely known company that implants microchips into pets incase they run away from home. The chip allows stores the animal's residential information so they can be returned to their owner.

However, recently studies have been reported showing cancer developing in animals implanted with the chip. They believe it is either created through the process of injecting the chip or the chip itself. VeriChip is denying the reports and says they have never heard of such studies. They plan to look into the claims before implanting humans with the chip.

The medical problems linked to the chip should be thoroughly investigated, especially if it is about to be implanted into humans. I feel during this investigation period no more pets should be implanted with the chip. Although, VeriChip claims to "look" into the problem, due to the reprocusions this new report is causing them I feel there investigation may not be thorough. I feel a neutral party should investigate the research and find out if the chip does cause cancer. If after thorough research and additional tests it is proven the chip does not cause cancer then and only then should the chip continued to be implanted into animals. I feel the chip should not be implanted into humans until the contraversy over privacy is resolved. I feel VeriChip should prove the chip will not be used to the governments advantage or used to invade indivudal privacy.