1. A balance can be achieved between protecting privacy and meeting the needs of national security by meeting the needs of national security without violating people's privacy and only going against a person's privacy in extreme cases of national security; otherwise privacy should be protected and national security should have limits that balance them both out.
2. I read a few books from the list like, The Perks of Being a Wallflower and The Golden Compass, and I was very suprise to see them on the list. I feel that all books should be freely availble, because people have the choice not to read them if it goes against their belief. People that are not offended by a book shouldnt be denied it just because it offends someone else. Therefore I believe no books should be banned; if people have a problem with a book then they just dont have to read that book.
3. My overall ideas about information ethics have remained the same after completing this unit, since I already knew most of this information and I'm a strong beliver respecting copyright and other things related to information ethics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. But how do you balance these two elements? Who defines when we are in a situation of national security that warrants invasion of privacy? There will never be an easy answer to this issue. As a point of interest, there's a library law that keeps patron records private. We never let anyone know what books a patron borrows unless it's a law enforcement agency that has secured a search warrant. So what you borrow is as private as it can be.
ReplyDelete2. I agree with you on the issue of banned books--completely.
3. I'm glad you respect copyright. I do, too, although I fight constantly to expand those rights.