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.