The "Terrorism" Information Awareness Initiative

[MCWebsite.Staff]

** This thread discusses the article: The "Terrorism" Information Awareness Initiative **
** This thread discusses the Content article: The "Terrorism" Information Awareness Initiative **0

[Guest.Visitor]

The "Terrorism" Information Awareness Initiative

** This thread discusses the article: The "Terrorism" Information Awareness Initiative **
From Article: On the other hand, few among us would begrudge the loss of a little privacy if it meant the prevention of tragic events and the consequential human suffering. Under one approach to ethics, where the common good is weighed against individual rights, it could be argued that privacy advocates are reacting emotionally and are failing to see the bigger picture. Sure, some mistakes may be made, but the overall benefit to society surely outweighs the occasional individual tragedy. Reply: I strongly disagree. My privacy does not belong to the government and me. It belongs to me only. The government does not have the right to pry into my affairs just to be sure things are 'OK', based on their current definition of 'OK'. My privacy still belongs to me only even if the government decides to wrap the flag around their momentary concern in an attempt to manipulate public opinion. My privacy still belongs only to me even when the government points to a crime far away from me and implies that they need more control, need to spy on all, need to put a policeman on every street corner, need to put a camera in every room just to protect granny or a child or presents some other image of a weak and defenseless person. My privacy is still mine even if they conjure up the image of a 10 foot tall boogeyman who will come out and get me if I don't allow the government to protect me in ways only they decide upon. This is manipulation and deceit. People who wrap themselves in the flag and promote the removal of Constitutional rights are not patriotic. They are stupid and useful idiots for those who want to takeover the US by means of loss of personal freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. Have you ever seen those who sneer when they are told their ideas of control violate the Constitution? These are the people who want to control you. The only Constitution they want to protect and defend is one that is substantially overhauled from the current one. People who just want to live their own lives and have fun in their own way strongly offend these people. Many of these people would have you pray frequently to a God of their choice. Others have a fantasy of turning back the clock to a time that never was. They want to take us back to a place that never existed. These are otherwise nice people who want to remove you personal freedom and replace it with their version of 'responsible' personal freedom. They define 'responsible'. If you want wrap yourself in the flag, then you should protect the Constitution and try to think you way out of difficult problems. Don't just buy a bigger lock for your door and turn over responsibilities to a group of exceptionally average people who will rarely admit mistakes.

[bharder@nlrha.ab.ca]

The "Terrorism" Information Awareness Initiative

** This thread discusses the article: The "Terrorism" Information Awareness Initiative **
Let me state right up front that I had never even heard of the ACM Code of Conduct and Professional Ethics. The ACM yes, but their code of conduct, no. This to me points up a major problem. It's fine to wave a code of conduct at us and say that it's imperative that we comply, but it just doesn't work that way in the real world. Our employers expect us to obey their managerial directives and their Policies and Procedures. Failure to do so is a pretty good way to get fired. Now, anyone with some real world experience can find some good examples where tactical or even strategic directives from management conflicted with P&P. This is a violation of internal consistency and yet it exists. To then pile on the ACM code of conduct is really going too far. Unless the company P&P directly referenced the ACM code of conduct and held it up as the penultimate in standards of behaviour, then we are living in a fantasy world. Note that this does not mean to imply that there's anything wrong with the ACM code of conduct. It's probably fine and well thought out. It may coincide with many companies Policy & Procedure manuals. However, anywhere there might be a deviation between the two, where do you think that company priorities will lay? Some professions have dominant, or even mandatory professional bodies. These organizations have real clout. Their codes of conduct can therefore exist even outside of the direct reference of individual companies. There are numerous professional associations and professional certifications in this industry. Membership in them is generally seen as nice, but not mandatory. Very few technology employees belong to even one such organization. However, unless such a professional organization achieved a real lock in the industry, they don't have the kind of leverage needed to set professional standards. So, although this is a nice idea, it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Sad to say but the ACM code of conduct really isn't very influential.