Daniel+Perrine-Portfolio

[|Radio Waves 'See' Through Walls]


 * __Social Issues:__**
 * 1) Privacy is a big concern with this new IT developement. Knowing that there is this new technology out there that enables authorities to see through your walls is a huge invasion of our homes and lives. I wouldn't want authorities "spying" on my family, looking through our house, see what possessions we have and what we're doing. Authorities could possibly use this technology for detrimental reasons. They have the ability to use this technology to watch you while changing, taking a shower, or using the bathroom, etc. I'm not sure if I would really mind if someone saw a blob caused by a slight disturbance in radio waves caused by my nude body. It would probably be of more interest to burglars than voyeurs (is there a person in this house?). This technology isn't really strong enough to identify specific people or objects, as far as I can tell.
 * 2) This IT developement emerged through studies conducted by University of Utah engineers in the Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.
 * 3) The stakeholders are people using the technology, people being helped/rescued by the technology, and the people being tracked by the technology. The people using the technology include the fire fighters, police, and otheres who require the assistence of the technology. The people being resuced or helped by the technology include hostages, injured persons, trapped persons, etc. And the people being tracked by the technology include known/comfirmed criminals and possible suspects and witnesses.
 * 4) When there is a fire, hostage case, kidnapping, or any other emergency that requires a concentration on a certain area by the people sent to help, this will be the authoritiy's/fire fighter's best tool. The ability to see through walls will enable them to find where they need to be a lot faster, and will therefore probably result in possibly less fatalities and inuries, and quicker solutions to the emergency. A disadvantage is the possibility of the technology braking down or malfunctioning in which case the technology would be useless and time would be wasted trying to find where to concentrate their focuses. Also, probably if not eventually, people will find ways of working around this technology making not as useful and a need to upgrade.
 * 5) On epossible solution is to have special authorized operators of the technology who need to have special qualifications, and swear under an oath not to use this technology excpet for when needed. They must swear both verbally and written that they will only use this technology for work and nothing else. Used for anything else and thier jobposition may be taken away. They will need special passwords, ID cards, fingerprints, etc. to be able to access the equipment.
 * 6) With this new technology comes new responsibilities. Financial matters and privacy are an issue. This new technology is expensive and will require funding through taxes payed by the civilians. Now while this technology can be quite helpful, civilians will need to also give up some privacy; knowing that the government could be watching you, but also with the knowledge that they can only watch you if granted permission and are told to do so.
 * 7) With this new technology, locally, there should be less injuries and deaths, quicker aquisition of criminals, and an overall decline in crime and other emergencies. This technology could also be spread globally in which case there would possibly be similar results except now, they would be global and local, resulting in a "safer" world.
 * __Ethical Issues:__**
 * 1) An ethical issue tat comes with this new technology is: Is this right? Even though it is helpful in many ways, is it violating our civilian's rights? I this too much of an intrusion into their lives? Are we allowed to do this? This is definitely a huge privacy issue. But what about the positive side, as well? Can't we sacrifice a little bit of a person's privacy to save their life? The issue of who owns radio waves has also been a very big one (eg, should I have the right to listen to every radio wave passing through my body (legally, I don't)), so it seems to me that the question of whether or not people own the data from radio waves passed through their bodies or property is one that stems from it. We aren't allowed to protect the light waves that hit our bodies; however, the government isn't allowed to record light waves inside our house without a warrant (but then, the radio waves are outside the house when the data from them is gathered). As it is planned to be used in this article, is there anything to object to? After all, if your house is on fire, firemen are allowed to actually enter it, which seems a little more invasive to me than collecting vague radio wave imprints from it.
 * 2) The people responsible is basically everyone.They are responsible for using the technology the way it is suppossed to be used for, and that if people do't like the idea of being watched, they sould be extra careful at what they are doing and make sure they don't give the government any reason to watch them. So people are responsible for not giving the government any reason to watch them? If the government is watching in unethical invasive ways, then isn't that sort of like saying people are responsible for not giving theives any reason to rob them?
 * 3) Eveyone is also accountable. Each "side" is accountable for holding up thier end of the deal. The government is accountable for maintaining the technology and using it appropriatly, and the society is accountable for funding for the technology and if need be, cooperating with the technology.
 * 4) When using this technology, operators must adhere to strict regulations as to what they may and may not do with this technology. Any violation of these rules will result in severe repercussions. Society must also adhere to rules. Cooperate with the technology and it's users. If you are being watched, there is probably a good reason why. If not, do not lose composure. If you know you have nothing to hide, show it.
 * 5) Alternative options are to only use this technology in emergencies and not for observing. This way, there won't be the issue of privacy. Another option is to not use this technology at all.
 * 6) Consequences of using this technology souly for the use in emergencies means it will not be any easier to track people and possible stop them before they do anything else harmful to the community. Consequences of not using this technology at all are the fact that everything that would be effected will stay the same and very little if not nothing will change. This last sentence is entirely, entirely meaningless. You have to explicate this more.