These are two separate discussion posts. Must be APA format, answer thoroughly, must have at least two verifiable legitimate sources, per each discussion post. 250+ words need both Due by Friday @ 9 pm August 30, 2019. By 4PM EST. 18 hours.

Discussion #1

As efforts are made to keep our citizens safe, a debate of privacy rights versus the overall safety of society is important.

Instructions: Read the following while considering the ethical implications of the three areas delineated in the narrative. The question is safety but the true question is ‘safety at what cost’. Now, we are not looking for legal analysis. This is not about rights, the law or politics. Look at this from your personal perspective and share your thoughts. An important perspective building tool: ‘When an event is personalized, the event becomes personal’. Adhering to this principle will prove to be a very valuable filter to run any ethical challenge you encounter through your career in the public safety arena.

Narrative and Discussion Topic: As ‘we the people’ work through the question ‘privacy or safety’ (and to what extent is one sacrificed for the other) a series of public concerns about use of bio-metrics has driven the debate. These ethical concerns cover a wide range of issues as citizens see how widespread use of such technology in the interest of public security is deployed. One concern that the public has with regards to bio-metrics has to do with physical privacy, specifically physical harm (as public has a misconception that bio-metrics might not be safe such as use of retinal scans for example), stigmatization (use of biometrics is perceived by public as usually associated with criminal behavior), and sanitation (public concern that use of biometrics on multitude of people can somehow transmit diseases and viruses from person to person) Another concern that public has with use of biometrics is information security which falls into three categories:

1) Function creep (concern by public that bio-metrics data collected on them will be used for purposes other than those stated at time of collection),

2) Identity theft (use of their data to “steal” identity which is hard to regain since personal biometric data is permanent unlike a SSN which can be replaced), and

3) Tracking of individual’s activities. Some parts of the public have also voiced religious objections to use of biometrics because they view them as an anti-religious form of “function creep” where biometrics data is collected from citizens by evil forces in order to segregate Christian populace from general population as a means to oppress them. Anti-Government and Militia groups have also objected to use of bio-metrics because it would interfere with their attempt to lead anonymous lives, free from the government and its “contracts” – these groups view giving their bio-metrics information as entering into “contract” with government of which they wish to have no part of.

So? Any ethical concerns with this?

Discussion #2

A discussion on CULTURAL RELATIVISM: the view that ethical and social standards reflect the cultural context from which they are derived and how this construct if relevant to the various subcultures within the arena of public safety.

D2.2 will bring us in contact with cultural relativism at the local level. You may not initially see the connection but as we move through this discussion, I will post my comments and I am confident that you will see cultural relativism at work. Mayor Keegan served the city that I worked for. This scenario impacted me in a couple of profound ways. I will share those impacts as we move through the discussion.

Instructions:

1) Put on the hat of the City Manager and or City Council Members

2) Has a breach of ethics occurred in this situation?

3) If so, what was the breach? If not, why not?

4) In your capacity of City Manager/City Council Member, what actions would you recommend?

5) Take off the official hat and tell us your personal reaction.

Case Study Article: Wednesday, July 17, 2002- Section B

Headline: “Keegan copies article’s words, uses as his own”

By Chip Scutari-The Arizona Republic

Congressional candidate John Keegan cut and pasted several paragraphs from an article on the Heritage Foundation Web site and used it as his own answer in a newspaper questionnaire that is used to help make recommendations in statewide elections.

Most of Keegan’s answer about Social Security is taken verbatim from an article written by David C John for the popular conservative think tank. The Peoria mayor was responding to questions that The Arizona Republic asks every congressional candidate. Keegan, a Republican, is running in the 2nd Congressional District, which covers much of the West Valley, northwestern Arizona and the Hopi Reservation in northeastern Arizona.

The first paragraph of Keegan’s answer and John’s article both read: “Social Security reform will not affect today’s senior citizens. The program has more than enough resources to pay them full benefits for the rest of their lives.”

There is no attribution contained in his answer. The third and fourth paragraphs also are lifted word-for-word from the same article on the Heritage Foundation Web site. Near the end of his questionnaire, Keegan includes a line that says:

“In preparing these answers, I drew on a variety of sources; some were think tanks that I admire such as the Hoover Institution, Empower America and Heritage Foundation.”

Keegan said that he’s comfortable with that attribution.

“I like the stuff they write.” Keegan said. “I like their stuff on things that I don’t have a personal background on.

Since 1994, the Heritage Foundation has written a ‘candidates briefing book to guide lawmakers on crucial election issues. Keegan said he leans on that book for advice on different topics.

In addition to questions about Social Security, the survey asks the West Valley congressional candidates about national security, taxes, immigration and Luke Air Force Base. The answers along with research and candidate interviews help The Arizona Republic editorial board make its recommendations

Not first controversy

This isn’t the first time Keegan has been embroiled in a campaign controversy. In 1994, it was found that he had more than 20 forged signatures on his nominating petitions that he sent to the Secretary of State’s Office. He eventually quit that legislative race, which then political newcomer Scott Bundgaard eventually won.

Bundgaard, who has battled Keegan in the past, said he’d let voters decide about Keegan’s ‘problem’.

“We’ve got more serious issues facing this country, like cutting taxes, improving education and making health care accessible,” Bundgaard said. These issues are more important than whether a candidate is copying someone else’s homework. I trust the voters to decide whether this problem is important to them.

Bundgaard, a state senator, and Keegan are locked in a seven-way GOP primary to fill Bob Stump’s seat in Congress. Stump has issued a ringing endorsement of Lisa Atkins, his chief aide of 26 years, to succeed him. Former state legislator and children’s advocate Trent Franks is also running.

The Atkins campaign didn’t want to comment.

The three other Republicans running in the 2nd Congressional District are Dick Hensley, Dusko Jovicic and Mike Schaefer.

Keegan’s wife Lisa was Arizona’s superintendent of public instruction from 1994 to 2001, when she left to work for a think tank in Washington, DC.

In the summer of 1994, Keegan acknowledged that the signatures might have been forged as he tried to run for the statehouse.

At the time, he said he had hired a college student know to him only as “Bob” to collect signatures. But when “Bob” was never found, Keegan bowed out of the race.