csc170004 ethics results

Why?

facebook is more secure than myspace that argument she made a valid point. i forgot who this was though

I choose it because it was what I had to do. Also not only were my points stated clear and persistant but also Cristina's points were also very clear. Facebook should be illegal in universities, it only causes trouble.

The CON side of the argument was trying to say that Facebook in general is not safe because a person can stalk you, innappropriate pictures or text can be posted, and that you can potentially lose your job or not get hired because of these "unsafe things". If you are facing these problems on an internet website, then perhaps you aren't ready to face the real world. There is a word called responsibility, and if you think you can get away with innapropriate pictures and text, not being able to set privacy limits to who views your profile, communicate with friends about how you feel appropriately on walls and privately message anything otherwise, then you are clearly an idiot. The first thing you should do before going into the working world is to delete your Facebook profile, because at this point no one cares about it anymore and you have graduated and why would you use it anymore? The PRO side on the other hand highlighted the fun parts of Facebook but at the same time talked about how it should be used appropriately and it is just like conducting yourself in public.

I voted that way that I did partially because it was the topic I debated on but also because I believe that Adelphi should keep Facebook. I believe they should keep Facebook because it is a great way for people to get to know eachother and for students to communicate and get to know one another since talking face to face is not always a success. It is also may come in handy if you need to ask a professor a question about something in his or her class but may not be able to talk to them during their office hours or they aren't there. In this case you could ask someone in your class or someone taking that class on Facebook since Facebook allows you to see people who are in the same classes that you are in and maybe one of them could help you out and you wouldn't have to worrying about not getting in touch with the professor. Also Maurizio's arguement for Facebook is also a strong one because like he said only people that are in your network or people that you accept as your friends can access all your other information that you could keep private from others by going to privacy settings and making less available to other people. You could make it so that all the could see is your name if you really wanted to. It also much safer than myspace because myspace is a public internet site where you could just type in the webaddress and view peoples information. Whereas Facebook you have to be a memeber to and be someones friend to view everything.

I believe that the pro's won in this case because vaild points were proven about facebook and how it does not affect the credability of Adelphi and it's involvement in a network such as facebook.

The argument that it is a good way to see who will be in your class for the next semester. Help each other when a assignment is hard. And it is just another way of communicating about classes and homework. It makes it an easier way of learning about your friends. That is why I voted for Pro

I think that the PRO group won the debate because you can add privacy settings and you can be protected by that. Facebook allows people to communicate throughout colleges, so I think its a good idea.

Because I believe that facebook is and can be more beneficial for students. It makes getting in touch with poeple easier, and socializing better as well.

The argument that swayed my vote was by Kristen Karoff. I agree with her that is a good way to communicate with classmates and find out information from a class that you may have missed. It is also a good way to meet people in your classes before they start so you dont walk in the frist day without knowing who will be there.

I was on the con side of this debate.

I feel this way because facebook is a good way for the students at Adelphi to meet other students and to also communicate with other student much better.

PRO won - arguing that downloading music from peer to peer networks (like Kazaa) should be made legal

Why

It is not helping the artist, or music industry, financially. Legal websites are still hurting artists because people are not buying CDs. Music companies and record labels are not making any money on the music. They made me believe that it really should stay legal and that is why I voted CON.

Becuase People are going to find ways to do it anyway. It is also easier for new artists to get their new music out to the public.

Although there were not to may comments about this topic. I had to go with James Serventi's arguement against downloading music. This is because he is the only one you really came up with a logical opinion. There are many artists out their struggling to get a record deal or make it big and are spending all their own money in hopes that they will make it all back when they come out with a hit album or make it "BIG" as they would say. Lately illegally downloading has been becoming more and more popular and in the past couple years CD sales have dropped drastically which is not only hurting the record stores but the artists also because where they money used to come from, is no longer their and they have to find other ways to sell their CD's since it is so easy to download much. In the long run it is hurting the artists source of income.

I like the arguement that states that the artists should make websites with safe files for fans to download.

PRO won because it is clear that downloading clients such as Kazaa act as a 21st century radio that you have control over. People are not going to buy a cd that costs $10-$15 because they don't have the money or there isn't a better incentive other than the sound quality of the music. If you didn't already know, for every blank cd that is purchased, 25 cents per CD is given to the RIAA and its beloved artists. If the artist is was so deserving of their album, then a person would find a way to fork up the extra dough to get it. Instead of complaining about how they aren't getting paid and if they really wanted to not get ripped off, the would simply hire a dedicated computer programmer who would copyright protect the CD in such a way that there is no way to rip or burn the CD. However, the only reason we are allowed to duplicate CDs in the first place is because of the argument of personal backup in case the original cd is lost.

I feel that it should be illegal because of the fact that the artists who make this music are not making any money on the music that have worked so hard on.

I believe that in this case downloading music should remain illegal. I read a few arguments that involved artists not being given their right to their music and their profits were not going to be the same if everyone were to download illegally without paying for the program or the music. I also believe another argument that swayed me was that using free programs such as kazza or limewire causes to many problems from the users. The users are exposed to many viruses and setbacks. I do believe that users should be able to download music BUT should either pay for the songs or the program.

I agree with the PRO group because I think that music should be allowed to be downloaded but to a certain extent (Stephanie Madden's post). It should be legal so that people can see if they like a certain group or song before they buy it.

I think that it should be legalized because it gives new artists exposure and more people may become interested in the groups music. Although this was my topic and i was on the other side i feel that it should be legalized. If people are familiar with the music, they may be more inclined to see them in concert. David brought up this point.

I was a part of this topic so I still agree with all of our arguments.

It should become legal because it is less that people have to worry about. When you download from itunes its only $1 per song. It really isn't that expensive and you also dont have to worry about any legal issues. James Serventi made a great points and that swayed me to vote this way.

Why
It should be illegal because it is an invasion of someone's privacy. Companies should not do this to there employee's. If they hired these people to work for them then they should know that they are able to trust these people without snooping through there personal emails. Sean Cowan help sway me to vote this way.
I don't have an answer for this one. I agree with the pro con that said it is an invasion of privacy, but I also think that if it is not done, too many employees will be distracted by their e-mail during the work day.
I agree with Sean saying that people should trust their workers and it is an invasion of privacy.
i agree with Sean Cowman that the e-mail should be kept private
Its your email, and you have the right to have privacy, if companies want to see what your talking about, let them not issue email accounts.
Invasion of privacy, invades a person's rights and it invades their sense of privacy. Personal information can be spread.
I chose that companies should be able to leggaly monitor e-mails although I am still kind of torn between the two. I believe that companies should be able monitor e-mails but only to an extent. I agree with Dana Armstead to an extent. That yes when people are at work their main focus should be their work not on having conversations with other people. Then I also agree with Ashley Chieco that it is an invasion of privacy. I believe that companies should only look at the companies e-mails to other clients and such to monitor progress or to make sure they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. I don't believe that they should look at their personal e-mails if they give their company e-mail address out to family and friends. But a way of avoiding that is leaving your company e-mail for business purposes and having another e-mail for you personal use which would eliminate the invasion of privacy factor on a personal level.
Companies monitoring email within a company should be illegal. First of all, that goes against the constitution and takes away a persons rights of privacy. Secondly, many of the arguments introduced were good points that monitoring email can make the company look as if it not a good company. Also, the company itself hired its employees so instead of monitoring email they should look into getting better employees that do their job. They should pay attention to other security issues rather than email.
Con won because a company should not have the right to monitor an employees e-mail. If an employer sees slower performance over time because of excessive time spent on a computer, or if an issue arises in a workplace through an e-mail received, then the issue should be dealt with.
I feel that it should be illegal because of the fact that email is a person's own privacy.
I think that the CON group won this debate because e-mail should be like normal mail. It should be private and your business should trust that you will do your job well, without having to monitor your personal life. If they hired you for the job that means that you should do your job well and that they trust you.

Why

It should be illegal because it is an invasion of someone's privacy. Companies should not do this to there employee's. If they hired these people to work for them then they should know that they are able to trust these people without snooping through there personal emails. Sean Cowan help sway me to vote this way.

I don't have an answer for this one. I agree with the pro con that said it is an invasion of privacy, but I also think that if it is not done, too many employees will be distracted by their e-mail during the work day.

I agree with Sean saying that people should trust their workers and it is an invasion of privacy.

i agree with Sean Cowman that the e-mail should be kept private

Its your email, and you have the right to have privacy, if companies want to see what your talking about, let them not issue email accounts.

Invasion of privacy, invades a person's rights and it invades their sense of privacy. Personal information can be spread.

I chose that companies should be able to leggaly monitor e-mails although I am still kind of torn between the two. I believe that companies should be able monitor e-mails but only to an extent. I agree with Dana Armstead to an extent. That yes when people are at work their main focus should be their work not on having conversations with other people. Then I also agree with Ashley Chieco that it is an invasion of privacy. I believe that companies should only look at the companies e-mails to other clients and such to monitor progress or to make sure they are doing what they are supposed to be doing. I don't believe that they should look at their personal e-mails if they give their company e-mail address out to family and friends. But a way of avoiding that is leaving your company e-mail for business purposes and having another e-mail for you personal use which would eliminate the invasion of privacy factor on a personal level.

Companies monitoring email within a company should be illegal. First of all, that goes against the constitution and takes away a persons rights of privacy. Secondly, many of the arguments introduced were good points that monitoring email can make the company look as if it not a good company. Also, the company itself hired its employees so instead of monitoring email they should look into getting better employees that do their job. They should pay attention to other security issues rather than email.

Con won because a company should not have the right to monitor an employees e-mail. If an employer sees slower performance over time because of excessive time spent on a computer, or if an issue arises in a workplace through an e-mail received, then the issue should be dealt with.

I feel that it should be illegal because of the fact that email is a person's own privacy.

I think that the CON group won this debate because e-mail should be like normal mail. It should be private and your business should trust that you will do your job well, without having to monitor your personal life. If they hired you for the job that means that you should do your job well and that they trust you.

Why
I think in this case both groups clarrified the situation of the good and bad things that myspace offers. Myspace is a place that many teenagers would want to be a part of and that it is also a great place for networking and keeping in touch with friends but on the other hand myspace, like every other website, has loopholes that contains scenary that YOUNG children should not be a part of. Myspace has many uncensored material and uncensored sites within the network that does involve sexualy content that should not be shown. Sexual predators also roam myspace looking for innocent young lil naive girls and boys that will talk to them. In other words, myspace should be availiable to a certain age group and hsould have better security.
Con won because Myspace is a tool for kids around the world to get to know one another and possibly become a little more worldly in that sense. Just like anything else, some safety precautions should be taken into consideration and this is where parents need to discuss with their kids about it.
I agree with Amanda saying that there are enough settings to keep your page realatively private. Also you have the option to be friends with only people you know. I personally believe that myspace should be restricted for only teenagers.
i believe that Myspace should always have its limits on what is posted and what isn't. This goes along with what Georgia states in the argument.
I think that the CON group won because they gave better arguments such as that kids shouldn't lie about their age to get on myspace. If they are then you can't blame myspace for this problem, but the parents for not teaching their kids the right way.
I agree with this pro group.. I think myspace is unsafe for most teenagers unless it is monitored by their parents, which it is most often not.
I believe that parents should not allow their children to use myspace or if they do they should atleast know about it and have access to it. I chose this view because my space is open to the public and anyone and eveyone is able to see it as long as they know your web address or they could even search you on google and I know this because I myself do not have myspace but I wanted to see one of my friends and I googled her and it came up. This is extremely dangerous and leaves you very vulnerable to sexual predators or crazy people. Georgia Gournas' post helped me on my decision. She says that everything goes and their are no limits to what can be posted and what cannot. Which can lead to mature content, and myspace allows anyone to be on it as long a you know how to work a computer. Which can leave children having access to things that they should not have access to. Or at least could be avoided if parents do not allow their children to use myspace.
Parents should definently strict there children from using myspace because it can be extremely dangerous. You really never know who the other person is that you associate with because there isn't much truth. Everyone can say that they are a certain age and it most likely isn't there age. Bad things have happened with the association of myspace like sexual preditors meeting with under age children. Jonathan Henry's points were very clear and helped sway me to vote this way.
I feel that if kids are old enough to use and know how to use myspace, than they should know what and what not to do on myspace.
I was on this case and I was a CON stating that teenagers should not be able to use myspace because of all the reasons I listed but the only thing I am questioning is I was a CON that was against Parents allowing children to use my space but your question is saying that Pro is for restriction and CON is against restriction but I was a CON an we were against teenagers or any children using Myspace
Although you can keep, controls up, there is no way to be certain who is on the other side, who the other person really is.

Why

I think in this case both groups clarrified the situation of the good and bad things that myspace offers. Myspace is a place that many teenagers would want to be a part of and that it is also a great place for networking and keeping in touch with friends but on the other hand myspace, like every other website, has loopholes that contains scenary that YOUNG children should not be a part of. Myspace has many uncensored material and uncensored sites within the network that does involve sexualy content that should not be shown. Sexual predators also roam myspace looking for innocent young lil naive girls and boys that will talk to them. In other words, myspace should be availiable to a certain age group and hsould have better security.

Con won because Myspace is a tool for kids around the world to get to know one another and possibly become a little more worldly in that sense. Just like anything else, some safety precautions should be taken into consideration and this is where parents need to discuss with their kids about it.

I agree with Amanda saying that there are enough settings to keep your page realatively private. Also you have the option to be friends with only people you know. I personally believe that myspace should be restricted for only teenagers.

i believe that Myspace should always have its limits on what is posted and what isn't. This goes along with what Georgia states in the argument.

I think that the CON group won because they gave better arguments such as that kids shouldn't lie about their age to get on myspace. If they are then you can't blame myspace for this problem, but the parents for not teaching their kids the right way.

I agree with this pro group.. I think myspace is unsafe for most teenagers unless it is monitored by their parents, which it is most often not.

I believe that parents should not allow their children to use myspace or if they do they should atleast know about it and have access to it. I chose this view because my space is open to the public and anyone and eveyone is able to see it as long as they know your web address or they could even search you on google and I know this because I myself do not have myspace but I wanted to see one of my friends and I googled her and it came up. This is extremely dangerous and leaves you very vulnerable to sexual predators or crazy people. Georgia Gournas' post helped me on my decision. She says that everything goes and their are no limits to what can be posted and what cannot. Which can lead to mature content, and myspace allows anyone to be on it as long a you know how to work a computer. Which can leave children having access to things that they should not have access to. Or at least could be avoided if parents do not allow their children to use myspace.

Parents should definently strict there children from using myspace because it can be extremely dangerous. You really never know who the other person is that you associate with because there isn't much truth. Everyone can say that they are a certain age and it most likely isn't there age. Bad things have happened with the association of myspace like sexual preditors meeting with under age children. Jonathan Henry's points were very clear and helped sway me to vote this way.

I feel that if kids are old enough to use and know how to use myspace, than they should know what and what not to do on myspace.

I was on this case and I was a CON stating that teenagers should not be able to use myspace because of all the reasons I listed but the only thing I am questioning is I was a CON that was against Parents allowing children to use my space but your question is saying that Pro is for restriction and CON is against restriction but I was a CON an we were against teenagers or any children using Myspace

Although you can keep, controls up, there is no way to be certain who is on the other side, who the other person really is.