They are themselves operations of power” (Butler 2009:1). But this issue of framing is, as she affirms, an ontological problem, since it presents the question of “What is a life” (Butler, 2009:1). The unequal distribution of the vulnerability brought by injure or loss, takes us to “ask about the conditions under which it becomes possible to apprehend a life or set of lives as precarious, and those that make it less possible, or indeed impossible […] The epistemological capacity to apprehend a life is partially dependent on that life being produced according to norms that qualify it as a life or, indeed, as a part of life” (Butler, 2009:3). The issue of framing lives and the result of it is a “normative production of ontology”(Butler,
Confidentiality: is a key care value which protects the privacy of the informations of a service user , when dealing with records and other information concerning individuals who use service. Confidentiality is a protection to personal information of a service user that helps respect the privacy of the service user by not sharing the information with others to build up a trust between the client and the care worker.Dilemma;there are times when it is not easy to decide whether or not disclose information you have to given in confidence.The only time confidentiality may be broken is when: -If they intend to harm others,If someone has said they are going to harm themselves or the action harms the,If they plan or have being involved in a criminal offence.
Erich Hatala Matthes, professor of moral philosophy, says, “Cultural appropriation can often seem morally problematic. When the abstract schemas above are filled in with details from actual events, we often find misrepresentation, misuse, and theft of the stories, styles, and material heritage of people who have been historically dominated and remain socially marginalized” (Matthes 343). When dominating groups of people (i.e. white people) misuse and twist the history of other groups, it is harmful and offensive. The people who are being misrepresented are often those who have been discriminated against in history.
Without human factors, random passwords, system-selected passwords, and long passwords can be considered as secure as compared to passwords based on names, passwords selected by user, and long short passwords. In addition, the habit of forcing users to make changes to password frequently and requisition for users to have different passwords for different entries should be adequate in efforts to fighting unsecure access. However, human factor is an issue that cannot be ignored in the contemporary society. This is because when the above restrictions have been implemented on a system, the users are forced to write down their passwords in order to be able to retrieve them whenever they seem to forget. Either on yellow stickers pasted on stations, cheat slip in the user's upper drawer, or on a file in the hard disk, the users find it hard to resist the urge to write down the passwords thus exposing their systems further.
Setting file permissions is a form of DAC because it is the owner’s discretion. Configuring as many security layers as the user can will ensure the server will stay secure. Not all OS are 100% secure, but they can be configured to make it very hard for a hacker to
persons. They are the people the government tracks to see if anything suspicious comes in to the U.S.. The Obama administration said that “extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court, to ensure that only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about U.S. persons.”(citation). The government searching people without having a warrant. The government has many tools in looking into people's information but the government doesn't realize that it is violating the 4th amendment by using the resources they have in looking into suspected people and that's the reason why we cannot trust our information to be safe with the government either way.
One can deduce that we have the right to privacy but at the same time whether this right can overshadow the public interests involved in the use of DNA Profiling for solving tha cases. Striking the balance between the two must be adopted by the concerned authorities. So the first thing dealt in this project is what is privacy. Secondly, the establishment of the right of privacy per se as the right. The third part in this project focus on how use of DNA Profiling can be violative of someone’s right to privacy.
The most common is “Permutation: Do both the plan and the alt” where you argue that both can be done at the same time so there's no competitiveness. It is important to note that this does not necessarily mean you are advocating for the permutation, as there is a fairness argument to be made by the negative if you do. However, these arguments are effective in groups as it will take the negative much longer to answer than for you to say. Second is offense on the argument. There will be unique pieces of offense
In view of this, if the records do not belong to an organization, the information professionals should seek permission before reproducing the documents. On the other hand, if the organization reproduce their own work this is not considered as a breach since they have intellectual rights to do so. Digitization as it relates to copyright issues can be hampered if records are not intellectually owned. Records managers can run into law suits if they are not aware of the origin of the records before they are digitized. According to Kastellec, it is the responsibility of records managers to ascertain the origin of each record within their custody (30).
Although it can and is used to promote or perform illegal activities, we cannot choke the liberties of the American people in order to weed out the few wrongdoers. Observing internet activity is akin to the function of a police state, disrespecting the fundamental rights of Americans. If the internet is a reflection of our real lives, isn 't it obvious government monitoring is an invasion of our privacy? Although the Constitution does not explicitly state our right to privacy, the legal precedent (through several Supreme