1. Privacy. (From Baase, 2.42, p 133). Last year, Google released Street View. Among other features, there are quite a few photos of people in places or circumstances that they might prefer not to be public. (you can see a few examples here) Many people felt that this was a privacy violation. How did Google address potential privacy concerns? Do you feel that their response was adequate?
When Google put StreetView online, they had clearly done their research. As far as US law is concerned, you can photograph anyone as long as you are taking the photo from public property, and as the Google vans never left the city streets, all the photos they used for the service are legal pictures. Before the service went online, Google contacted select organizations to see if they wanted to opt-out of the mass public photography. These organizations included (but are not necessarily limited to) shelters for abused women. Google has also put into place a system that will allow anyone whose picture or residence was taken to ask for that picture to be removed from the Street View system. I believe this is an adaquate approach by Google to allow people to keep the privacy they have become used to, however I know many others would object. Personally, I do not have a problem with StreetView, but I might feel differently if my picture had been taken walking in front of an adult books store or walking out of a strip clup (these are actual photos that have been taken of innocent bystanders. I think that different generations of people living in the US might have different opinions of this issue, for example, students in college today have gotten used to the idea of Facebook and Myspace, and how they allow people to 'catalog' your life through photographs, while most people older than that would be slightly disturbed by that idea. The debate could go on for years, but ultimately if the law is on the side of Google, people will get used to the idea.
2. Service Learning. Please read Chapter 1 of Learning Through Serving. One theme that's addressed in the book in the concept of educating students to be responsible citizens. What do you think this means? (You may find exercise 1.2 helpful in thinking about this.) Do you think it is reasonable and appropriate for colleges to educate their students about engaged citizenship, or should college focus solely on academics?
Learning through Serving is trying to emphasize the point that being a citizen is more than just being born in the United States. Being a citizen is being aware of those in less fortunate situations than your own and empathizing with them. This empathy with the situations in our community will not only bring a social problem to greater community awareness, but will also motivate people to help change society to bring about a better world for everyone in it. The book makes the point that unless we have firsthand knowledge of the situations that the disadvantaged in our community face, we can never know how we can help change the situation in whatever field we go into. I believe that we have a responsibility to humanity, and if there is something that is within our power to change a social problem, it should be changed. If colleges just educated people in academics, they might never be exposed to the social issues around them, and would never even know about the disparity between the social classes and how greatly people are affected by it.
No comments:
Post a Comment