Ever since the incident at Virginia Tech, everyone has been on guard to prevent something like it from happening again. Nobody wants to hear about or experience another shooting. On one hand, the university and its students are entitled to safety and security, but on the other hand, Deanna is entitled to her privacy. The constitution provides for the right of life and protection, certainly, but it also provides for the privacy of an individual. The problem is that one person’s desire to have their personal problems remain secret does not outweigh the lives of ten thousand other people. The right to privacy does not trump everyone else’s right to protection. It is not even as though a large group of people would need to know her mental-health history. A small section of the staff would need to know, not everyone enrolled or working in the university.
The university is more than within its rights to ask an applicant for any information it may need, especially information that will help protect other people. Requiring everyone to relinquish their mental health history to certain staff members to ensure the survival of the students and staff is completely reasonable. Since the guidance counselor has concerns about how she will adjust to the new environment, a definite metaphorical red flag comes up. If she might have trouble becoming accustomed to a hectic, large university atmosphere, the necessary employees should be informed. Deanna is obligated to share as much information as the university needs, as long as she is not treated differently (being placed in a separate dormitory/other students are informed). If CU needs something to make sure its students remain living, it should by all means be able to acquire it.
Deanna’s guidance counselor has no right, however, to share any information with anyone without her consent. It is not as though the counselor has the power of attorney over her, or anything. If the guidance...
...The PrivacyRights of IndividualsPrivacy can be defined in many ways, depending on one’s perspective, including the right to be left alone, free from intrusion or disturbance in one’s private life. Although everyone agrees that this is an important right that should be protected by governmental laws, the extent of one’s right to privacy has often been a matter of debate in the court system of the United States. There is vast disagreement concerning how far the government should go to protect an individual’s right to privacy. The United States is a large melting pot of cultures, races and ideas, which often lead to a differing of opinions in term of what should be the norm due to ethical and moral difference between individuals. This paper will present court cases that deal with the privacyrights of individuals as they relate to the areas of homosexuality, drug testing, birth control and the right to die.
An individual’s right to sexual privacy, including homosexuality, is an issue that has been brought before the courts repeatedly. Bowers v. Hardwick is a landmark case fought in 1986 that tested the boundaries of sexual rights. Hardwick was charged with committing consensual sodomy in the...
...IndividualPrivacyvs. National Security
ENG 122 English Compositions 2
Instructor: Sarah McDonald
January 16, 2012
IndividualPrivacyvs. National Security
Individualprivacy is basically the exposure of a person’s limitations to the open public. There are different perspectives in different scenarios on a person’s individualprivacy. Every human has a right to their own privacy. Some people scream more than others on how much privacy they actually have. In a perfect world, privacy for every human would be fulfilled to their likings. The problem is we don’t live in a perfect world, only one that is full of hate, crime and violence. It is the nation’s job to keep our country safe and reduce the number of mishaps. This is where the line of conflict comes into play.
Citizens who say our country is too hard with national security are only viewing our country and its safety through the positive sides and upcomings. This also depends on where a person lives, what is the crime rate in their area, and their personal or close by experiences. A person from a upper class neighborhood may feel that national security is good and that they have all the privacy they need. The reason why is because they don’t witness much crime and wrong...
...IndividualPrivacyvs. National Security
Cevin S. woods
ENG: English Composition II
Nov, 14, 2012
On September, 11, 2001, the united states where under attacked my terrorist that have been living in America for many years. They went to flight school and were trained by Americans, so they needed a new way to strike so that puts the wars of the past into new category then from the wars of years past. So the government went into action on the USA Patriot act to take down terrorism in those countries that have weapons of mass destruction. This act gave the government the power to spy on American to see every and anything from Cell phone records and electronic financial to see it you if you were send money to those countries that do acts of terrorism.
Different newspaper organization were put out there that president order the NSA to secretly spy on American citizens on their privacy. There was a need to look at the basics on what the government was spy on so there are many points cell phone record, financial and email. There different people have different takes on the government position on why it need to be done but understand is why not tell the American people it does violate are right to privacy under the law.
The only way to give a clear view of populace stance on both side of the spectrum is too give the opinions and writing of other forms of the...
...INDIVIDUALPRIVACYVS. NATIONAL SECURITY
Donald R. Baker Jr.
ENG122 English Composition
June 18, 2012
There are always two sides to this battle. Which is more important, is the individualprivacy more important than our national security as a whole? This is a sensitive subject, and it will get many different thoughts in this battle. Yes, individualprivacy is one of the many rights we have as Americans. Yes we are protected to an extent, if you would like to keep your privacy, I think you need to do that. But it seems in the world today, that people use their privacy in many different ways and think that they are protected. But as we all know this isn’t true. As you are looking through the social networks looking for friends and foes, you see so much drama on all the networks. When it comes to the individual’s privacy, these are the people which are upset in many different ways, because people feel as if they are being taken advantage of. If you look at these people they are posting whatever they want and saying whatever they want. It’s really annoying, because people are talking so much mess about the government and presidents how much they can’t people. You see different military branches personnel talking about how much they can’t stand there units or whatever they are complaining...
...IndividualPrivacyvs. National Security
IndividualPrivacyvs. National Security is something that many people have argued for years. Many people have forgotten what a disturbance September 11, 2001 was to everyone in America. This was the day that 2,992 lives were stolen in the attacks by the Taliban on U.S. soil. Due to this attack the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) along with the Federal Government has put in place many new security regulations. Many people have lost touch with why these regulations were put in place. As well, many people have lost touch with why TSA is using full body scanners and other security devices.
On September 11, 2001 19 members of a global terrorism network called al-Qaeda in a planned and coordinated effort used bladed weapons and fake bombs to hijack four commercial passenger airplanes simultaneously. Two planes were purposely crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center Complex in New York City, a third plane was purposely crashed into the Pentagon building in Washington, D.C. and a fourth plane crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, when passengers alerted to the other hijackings and crashes tried to regain control of their aircraft from the terrorists. It is believed that terrorists intended to crash that plane into the Capital building. The attacks resulted in the deaths of 2,977 people, mostly civilians,...
National Security Agency eavesdropping versus privacyrights
Southwestern Adventist University
The United States government should not have the right to eavesdrop and target U.S citizens because of matter of national security. However if we have nothing to hide from the government, then why we should be afraid of the government eavesdropping on U.S citizens because of a national security reason, if according to the government it is to benefit and protect us? Should we give our privacyrights away for security? “Once you've lost your privacy, you realize you've lost an extremely valuable thing.” (Graham B. 1958).
In this essay I will talk about the National Security Agency eavesdropping versus privacyrights. I will also discuss whether the National security agency should have or not the right to take U.S citizens digital privacy away in exchange of security. I will also share my opinion on which side I stand and the reasons why I believe so, supported by veridical facts that are known and have been exposed to the light from the United States government. However I will also emphasize the government’s point of view. Last after having both sides perspectives and facts, I will conclude explaining on which side I stand and the reasons why, based on the research that I will provide to the reader...
...military conflict, national security ought to supercede conflicting claims of individualrights. My value for the round is Human Dignity, or what can be defined as a respect for the individual and his or her rights and virtues. John Stuart Mill states that "Everyone who receive the protection of society owes a return for the benefit... but not to the point that it violates constituted rights." Thus thoserights which are the fundamentals of human dignity must be maintained. No fundamental goal should ever undermine this fundamental goal. The criteria which must consistently achieve is the maintenance of a legitimate government, or a govt. that maximizes the rights of its citizens
My sole contention proves that a government's legitimacy is contingent upon its preservation of individualrights. According to Charles Ogletree, Professor of Law at Harvard University, "The U.S. has not been a fertile breeding ground for terrorism... diversity, religious and ethnic tolerance, a reliance on legal proceedings open to public scrutiny... are all values make it hard to nurture in the U.S. the ethnic or religious hatred that fuels much terrorism." Unfortunately, sacrificing such virtues for temporary security would undermine these values. The impact is clear, that a removal of individualrights, such as freedom of...
...and Disadvantages of IndividualRightsvs. Public Order.
There are advantages and disadvantages to just about everything you can think of in this world. Two topics that can be very controversial to have an advantages and disadvantages discussion on are our individualrights and public order. We hold our individualrights very close to us and pride ourselves on the freedoms that theserights provide. We also see the devastation that can occur when the rights and freedoms we are given land in the hands of the wrong people. People that abuse their individualrights tend to disrupt public order and this is when we catch that glimpse and sometimes horror of one of the big disadvantages of individualrights verses public order. We are well aware of what individualrights are and how they apply to us, so we will come back to that, but what about public order? What exactly is that?
Public order is in place to keep society as a whole safe from misdeeds. Public order is also a system in place that restricts some freedoms that people may want. Freedoms are the ideals in life that everyone can take advantage of no matter who they are. Public order is refraining from any acts of involvement that may lead to violence, which may be disrupting, while...