21 October 2016
What Would You Do?
3. Your 15-year-old nephew exclaims “Oh wow!” and proceeds to tell you about a very revealing photo attachment he just received in a text message from his 14-year-old girlfriend of three weeks. He can’t wait to forward the image to others in his school using the Snapchat application on his phone. What would you say to your nephew? Are further steps needed besides a discussion on sexting?
I would try to prevent him from sharing such a photo for the sole reason that it would expose his girlfriend, embarrass her and would be on the internet for “eternity” forever compromising her status. I would also outline the dangers of sexting and what could happen. There is not much to prevent this entirely other than informing politely.
2. A former high school classmate of yours who moved to China emails you that he has been offered a part-time job monitoring a Chinese Web site and posting comments favorable to the government. How would you respond?
Given China’s reputation with the United States, Communism, and its hacking actions I would be wary of such a friend who willingly participates in such activities. Actions such as whistle blowing and being a traitor would be the first thing to come to my mind. I would think the same way if this involved Russia and North Korea.
1. Visit Yelp’s Web site (www.yelp.com) and search for reviews for a service from a local business with which you are familiar. Do you notice any reviews that are overly negative or that seem to border on defamation based on your experience with this business? Are there any reviews that are so positive that they sound like they were written by or paid for by the owner? Imagine that you are the Web site owner and want to automatically filter out such reviews. How might you do this in an ethical manner?
I think that ethically all of the reviews would have to view “available” but that doesn’t mean they have to be the first viewed, either. These could be filtered to the bottom of the results so someone that is looking would have to skim all of them to view the seemingly “phony” positive and negative reviews. It is one think to organize but it’s another to silence someone’s views, this violates the First Amendment.
2. Brainstorm possible actions that a local business owner can take to offset the negative publicity associated with an especially bad review—identify both ethical and unethical actions.
An unethical decision would be “fabricating” positive reviews to outweigh the negative ones. An ethical decision would be to promote good business and cater to the customer to naturally receive good reviews.
3. What risks do you run in posting online reviews?
The risks you run posting online reviews are exposing information about yourself and, if negative, severely damaging the reputation of a place.
1. How does the First Amendment protect WikiLeaks from prosecution?
The freedom of speech and expression is what protects WikiLeaks from prosecution, plain and simple.
2. Is WikiLeaks justified in releasing Syrian government emails? Is this different from posting classified U.S. documents?
This sort of information is eye opening and things the people of the respective countries should know, but is it ethical? Some may argue yes, some may argue no. It is difficult to say. Since I am a citizen of the US, I would say the release of classified documents to other countries is very wrong, exposing us to all sorts of unknown.
3. What limits, if any, should be placed on WikiLeaks’ right to post government or corporate secrets?
There should be a series of guidelines that must pass, such as the obscenity test implemented. A series of three categories where it must pass all three to be unpermitted.