Eye in the Sky

Based solely off of the information that was presented in this podcast, I do not understand why there was so much strong opposition against Project Angel Fire. As I was listening to the opinions presented from the opposing side-- that the surveillance camera was an invasion of privacy and that it gave the government too much power which discarded autonomy over oneself, I could not help but to form the opinion that those people were extremely selfish and privileged. Additionally, it sounded as though most of the opposition was coming from the potential of the technology, not what it was actually doing: "McNutt...(is) exasperated when his system is criticized not for what it does, but for its potential" (Reel). To start off, I believe that the time limit of 90 days to keep the photos and the fact that faces cannot be seen is enough privacy for everyone. Because in the right hands, this technology will only be used to catch criminals, I did not understand why some people were so opposed when they were not even the main target of the cameras. Bluntly speaking, I thought that the people who valued their "privacy" (written in quotes because the government possesses far more personal information on individuals such as social security numbers and etc.) more than stopping thousands of crimes from happening, such as with the incident in Mexico, were not only selfish but extremely privileged because it sounded as though they had never been affected by crime enough to want to put a sure end to it. This is of course, however, only if this technology is properly monitored and restricted for government use. Another point that angered me from the opposing side was that with this technology, people will no longer be able to make personal connections with police officers as authorities will no longer be as needed on the streets since criminals can be caught with a few clicks. I thought that this was a ridiculous statement because the only reason people may desire to develop personal relationships with police officers is in order to feel protected and in good hands. Because these cameras operated by authorities can do a far better job at protecting citizens than individual authorities on the streets, it makes more sense that this technology will improve police-citizen relationships than act as a detriment. Additionally, I thought once again that those who valued having a police officer friend over catching a kidnapper before any child is hurt were very privileged as crimes seem to have little effect on them. While I understand that this is a controversial issue, I believe that with the correct regulations and restrictions on these cameras, such as only being able to use them for incidents that were reported and have enough need to be examined, they will do more good than harm.

Reel Article: https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-baltimore-secret-surveillance/

"What Surveillance Will Look Like in the Future"
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/even-bugs-will-be-bugged/501113/

Ethical Decision Making and the Internet

Behind a screen, it seems as though there are no limits to what Internet users can say or post no matter how harsh the statement can be. Additionally, regardless of the inappropriateness of any meme or tweet, there will always be sides to who is right and who is wrong due to the vast range of races, backgrounds, gender, and age of the people on the Internet. As certain statements can simply poke fun at a person or event, other statements may cause more harm than good. As a result, even disguised behind a vague username, it is imperative that all Internet users understand and practice ethical decision making.
Looking at one recent example, upon Donald Trump's inauguration, Saturday Night Live writer Katie Rich posted a tweet saying, "Barron Trump will be America's first homeschool shooter."



In response, Melissa Earnest, a Trump supporter, posted on Facebook a long defense of Barron Trump, claiming that regardless if you agree with the Trump campaign or not, Barron is still a growing child who is "off limits." Since then, Katie Rich has been suspended from SNL and Earnest's post has been shared over two million times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/23/arts/television/katie-rich-snl-suspended-barron-trump-tweet.html?_r=0).
In this incident, it seems as though Earnest took a rights approach in her ethical decision making process to defend Barron Trump. As the reading states, the rights-approach in ethics advocates the protection of "the ethical rights of those who are affected by the action," emphasizing that "all humans have a right to dignity" and should be treated the same (Making Choices: A Framework for Making Ethical Decisions).
While I do not support Trump, I, as well as thousands of other non-Trump supporters, have shared this common agreement that the attack on Barron Trump was unnecessary and harmful. While some may defend Rich claiming that her intention was to simply make people laugh, it is clear that many did not take it as so. In this situation, because Earnest is by no means directly related to the Trumps, I believe that her defense of Barron was supererogatory. This is because though she is not responsible for the well-being of Barron, her defense was still helpful and "right to do" (Making Choices: A Framework for Making Ethical Decisions). However, as a country looking out for each neighbor, I believe that it was everyone's ethically obligatory duty to support this defense of Barron and set the correct example for others to treat innocent children as they should be treated. More specifically, it is our responsibility as a nation to put an end to bullying and online harassment, and it would be wrong not to do it.
For this reason, it is important for Internet users to develop more sensitivity to what they should or should not post in order to prevent incidents such as this one from happening again.

Fallout and Moral Decision Making

As someone whose interaction with video games only goes as far as playing Unblock Me on her iPhone once in a while, this article provided me with an interesting perspective on a form of digital media I know very little about. However, despite the compelling arguments brought up regarding video games as "one of the most promising tools for teaching moral-decision making," I was still curious as to whether or not there was actual concrete, measurable evidence that this was so (Schulzke). While at various points Schulzke glosses over the player's potential train of thought when making moral or immoral decisions amidst the different scenarios the game provides, he fails to prove his main argument that this moral-decision making in the virtual world positively translates over to the real world. Nonetheless, I do not disagree with the points Schulzke presents and became convinced that by simply encountering situations in which one can act morally or immorally, one's sensitivity to "real-world moral dilemmas" may grow (Schulzke). This point relates to a study led by Dr. Matthew Grizzard on immorality in video games and the feeling of guilt. His study, "Being Bad in a Video Game Can Make Us More Morally Sensitive" found that players who acted immorally in video games were subject to the feeling of guilt, which made them more sensitive to moral dilemmas (Donovan). As a result of this guilt, Grizzard suggests that players will be more likely to partake in "pro-social behavior" (Donovan). Once again, while it is difficult to measure the extent of such pro-social behavior as well as how much the moral decision making process within video games plays into the process of making real-world decisions, the point still stands that nuanced video games such as Fallout 3 can be a powerful tool in teaching players what it means to act morally or immorally as well as the consequences of such decisions.








http://www.buffalo.edu/news/releases/2014/06/037.html