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