Security Assurance
Where the line should be drawn on GPS tracking¬ or should there be a line at all?
Response to Student One
I agree with the answer provided by the student one in relation to the limit of the application of GPS tracking devices. Despite the fact that GPS devices offer security to individuals through monitoring the influence or movements of the sex offenders and criminals, it is ideal to respect the autonomy of an individual. It is crucial to inform an individual that he or she is under watch through the GPS devices. This relates to the right to privacy that individuals are entitled to in the constitution. Implementation of GPS devices in the working organizations with reference to monitoring employees demoralizes the spirit of the workers. Employees have the right to enjoy private and confidential lives thus must be aware that they are under critical watch by the GPS devices. It is also unethical monitoring teenagers without their knowledge. Since they are remarkably innovative in the modern society, teenagers might find an opportunity to trick GPS thus ineffective aspect of tracking individuals. GPS should not treat individuals, as objects hence must seek their consent before adoption and implementation (Reynolds, 2011).
Response to Student Two
Student two do not offer accurate information in relation to the line or limitation of GPS in the modern technological field. Despite this inaccuracy in the answer, student two notes that individuals should have the knowledge that they are under critical watch by the GPS devices. It is critical to note the limitation of GPS in the working places, domestic set-ups, and schools. I disagree with the second student on the allegation that guardians have the right to watch or track their children with the GPS without consulting them on the issue. Teenagers have the right to privacy or autonomy like their parents hence should know or obtain information on the application of GPS in tracking their movements. The teenagers also have private lives that must exclude their parents hence drawing of the line in the tracking of children without their knowledge (Northcutt, 2004).
Response to Student Three
Student three does not offer accurate answer to the question in relation to the limitation of GPS tracking within the society. The student notes that the line should be drawn with reference to criminals and sex offenders. The student illustrates on the benefits of adoption and implementation of GPS to track individuals in relation to their behaviors and movements. The student fails to address the issue of privacy that is the main topic with reference to drawing the line on adoption and implantation of the GPS devices in tracking individuals. The student illustrates on how GPS adoption and implementation could be beneficial in working environments, domestic settings, and alternative to a jail term for criminals to enjoy their lives away from prison. I believe it is ideal to highlight the issue of autonomy and privacy that individuals for example workers, criminals, teenager and sex offender enjoy in relation to privacy (Montello, 2006).
Response to Student Four
I agree with student four on the adoption and implementation of GPS to track crimes and criminals within the society. Student 4 notes that GPS should track crime but fails to illustrate whether criminals should have the idea on the tracking within the society. This is the main issue in ensuring security of the society through GPS devices. Criminals have the right to private and confidential lives and tracking should entail critical information on the events taking place. This is an indication that tracking firms must notify criminals that they are under extensive watch by the GPS devices. Student four also notes that the implementation of GPS is essential in the transportation sector. This is to ensure that the goods are safe. Since goods do not require information on the tracking activity, it is ideal to note that there is no limitation in the implementation of GPS in the transportation sector (Arrigo et al, 2011).
Should authorities be able to monitor the location of individuals without their knowledge? What are the risks and rewards?
Response to Student One
I agree with the answer of student one in relation to the tracking of individuals without their knowledge. In this situation, the end should justify the means. For instance, in the tracking of the criminals, if the GPS device is capable of reducing elements of crime within the society, then it should happen at the expense of privacy of the individuals. Hardened criminals should be under watch without their knowledge with the aim of reducing cases of criminal acts in the society. There are several rewards in relation to adoption and implementation of GPS without the knowledge of individuals. Such rewards include cost effective approach, efficient in the determination of the evidence that crime was committed, and acts towards minimization of criminal activities in the society. Relevant risks such as invasion of privacy, autonomy, and filing of suits by individuals against the tracking firms might also relate to the tracking by authorities without knowledge of the criminals (Montello, 2006).
Response to Student Two
I disagree with the answer by student two in relation to the question on whether the authority should track individuals without their knowledge and the risks or rewards that relate to the process of applying GPS devices. This is because the student avoids the question exclusively. The student notes the fact that the government or relevant authorities apply GPS tracking without the authority of the individual in the context. The student fails to justify whether this tracking method is ethical or unethical with reference to rewards and risks. The student also notes the essence of hot debate that surrounds adoption and implementation of GPS tracking devices in enhancing security within the society. In this case, the student fails again to illustrate on the ethics behind tracking of individuals by the authority without their knowledge. The student also ignores the last part of the question that requires rewards or risks that relate to tracking of individuals without their knowledge (Arrigo et al, 2011).
Response to Student Three
I agree with the answer by student three in relation to tracking of individuals without their knowledge. The student takes a broader perspective of the matter and outlines the ethics behind tracking without integrating elements of crime or any determining factor. From this perspective, it is critical to respect the rights of individuals with reference to autonomy and privacy. Individuals have the right to know that they are under critical watch by the GPS devices in order to protect their privacy and confidentiality. The reward for tracking with the knowledge of an individual is the ability to understand effects and procedures that might relate to implementation of GPS. Student three highlights this effectively thus providing an answer to the later part of the question. I also concur with the risk in which authorities would spend most of their time in tracking minor crimes within the society thus invading private life of individuals (Buchanan, 2009).
Response to Student Four
I support the argument proposed by student four in relation to tracking of individuals without their knowledge. Student four understands the elements of autonomy and privacy with reference to the lives of individuals under critical tracking by the GPS devices. Although student four supports tracking without knowledge of the individual, it is evident that his or her argument calls for the drawing of the line in the implementation of GPS devices to track movement and activities within the society. I also support that tracking without knowledge should be applicable to criminals with proved records by the authority. This would enhance the security levels in the society hence making it safe for growth and development. In other cases, the student notes that the authority should provide information on the tracking elements hence it is unethical to track individuals without their knowledge unless in the context of proved criminal activities. Student four notes that invasion of privacy of individuals would also lead to court cases hence a risky affair (Floridi, 2010).
If you were to speak next at the panel discussion, what would you say?
Response to Student One
I agree with the proposal of student one in relation to what he or she would say to the panel during the discussion. It is essential to underline negative and positive effects of tracking of individuals through the GPS devices. It is crucial for the authority to enhance the security of the society through tracking of individuals. The authority should also watch on the rights to privacy and autonomy by individuals during the exercise. This illustrates on the need to draw the boundary with reference to adoption and implementation of GPS devices in meeting the security needs in the society. The student also identifies the benefits of GPS that would facilitate effective and efficient decision making by the panel during the discussion process. This would promote rational implementation of GPS devices by weighing the benefits against the limitations (Van der Spek et al, 2009).
Response to Student Two
I agree with the response by student two in relation to his or her response to the panel during the discussion. It is necessary to highlight on the issue of privacy and autonomy while discussing adoption and implementation of GPS within the context of enhancing security within the society. The student also provides an option that relates to the amendment of the constitution with reference to the fourth amendment that would enhance clarification of the process of tracking by authority. This would be ideal for determination of the legality of tracking of individuals without their knowledge. It is also critical to note that individuals have privacy rights hence the need for warrants when tracking individuals or invading their confidentiality (Landau et al, 2011).
References
Arrigo, B. A., Bersot, H. Y., & Sellers, B. G. (2011). The ethics of total confinement: A critique of madness, citizenship, and social justice. New York: Oxford University Press.
Buchanan, E. A., & Henderson, K. A. (2009). Case studies in library and information science ethics. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland & Company.
Floridi, L. (2010). The Cambridge handbook of information and computer ethics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Is Human Mobility Tracking a Good Idea?. (2012). Communications of the ACM, 55(4), 35. doi:10.1145/2133806.2133819
Landau, R., Auslander, G. K., Werner, S., Shoval, N., & Heinik, J. (2011). Who should make the decision on the use of GPS for people with dementia?. Aging & Mental Health, 15(1), 78- 84. doi:10.1080/13607861003713166
Montello, D. R., & Sutton, P. C. (2006). An introduction to scientific research methods in geography. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Northcutt, S. (2004). IT ethics handbook: Right and wrong for IT professionals ; [your complete survival guide to right and wrong]. Rockland, Mass: Syngress.
Reynolds, G. W. (2011). Ethics in information technology. Mason, Ohio: South-Western.
Usefulness of commercially available GPS data-loggers for tracking human movement and exposure to dengue virus. (2009). International Journal of Health Geographics, 868-78.
van der Spek, S., van Schaick, J., de Bois, P., & de Haan, R. (2009). Sensing Human Activity: GPS Tracking. Sensors (14248220), 9(4), 3033-3055. doi:10.3390/s90403033
