“The Negatives of Rule 56” Rule 56 is rule which brings many benefits but in some cases can have negative consequences. These consequences can effect or impact our society in a dramatic way. This particular rule is a negative impact in times which the evidence of a film or a recording could be needed. The use of videotaping has helped cases to be solved and give justice to those that have been framed. Rule 56 affects everyone both in and out of school campus. Rule 56 consists of the use of camera or any other recording device to be used without the consent of any person that has been violated from their privacy. Anyone found guilty of this offense will receive a recommended expulsion. The Rule has negatives that could affect society and bring injustice to those who are framed unlawfully. The negatives of Rule 56 bring injustice to many people who end up becoming framed due to the lack of evidence or witnesses. With the use of cameras in our society cases has been successfully solved and true criminals have been stopped. There have been many cases in which Rule 56 has brought many benefits to our society. The rule has helped the stop those who only used cameras as a weapon of harm. These cases include the case of a college student posting …show more content…
The colored man suffered eight bullet impacts behind his back as he tried to run from the officer. Fortunately a man who was coming from work observed the struggle of the two men and decided to film the scene with his cell phone. The officer stated that the colored man tried to grab his tazer and that after the shots have been fired that he tried to revive the shot man with CPR. The officer’s testimony has been proved wrong with the evidence that the video shows. The video has led to the arrest of the police officer and the exculpation from his title. Many people ask themselves “what if the video never existed. Would have the poor man died
According to Cornelius Kerwin, "Rulemaking is the single most important function performed by agencies of government Rulemaking refines, and in some instances defines, the mission of every government agency. In so doing it provides direction and content from budgeting, program implementation, procurement, personnel management, dispute resolution, and other important government activities" (Preface XI). This is the foundation for the book, Rulemaking. The whole text primarily revolves around this statement. Throughout the book Kerwin's central theme is that rulemaking is the single most important function that any government agency has within its possession. Much like other admin law books he discusses how those agencies with their rulemaking powers interpret legislation and proceed forward with making policy.
There have been lots of modern technologies introduced in the United States of America to assist law enforcement agencies with crime prevention. But the use of body-worn cameras by police personnel brings about many unanswered questions and debate. Rising questions about the use of body cam are from concern citizens and law enforcement personnel. In this present day America, the use body cameras by all law enforcement personnel and agencies are one of the controversial topics being discussed on a daily base. Body worn cameras were adopted due to the alleged police brutality cases: for instance, the case of Michael Brown, an African-American who was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, on August 2014, Eric Garner died as a result of being put in a chokehold by a New York police officer, and John Crawford, shot and killed by a police officer at a Walmart in Beavercreek, Ohio.
Alfred Olango, a black defenceless man, was shot dead by El Cajon police near San Diego, California due to a unacceptable opened fire. This was partly due to his race. A reason for the occurrence of this incident is that Olango, as stated by his mother, was suffering a “mental breakdown”, regarding the death of his best friend. Due to Olango’s “mental breakdown” he had began to wander among the traffic. Olango’s sister had contacted the police several times, yet they responded an hour later. At the arrival of the officers, it took them a minute, at the most, to begin this shooting. After reviewing the video of this unfortunate incident, the weapon thought to be was a 4 inch vape pen (electronic cigarette).
Would you like to get a ticket in the mail for running a red light two weeks after the fact, when you know someone else was driving your car? Most people would be furious if they received a ticket for running a red light even though they were not even driving the car at the time. I would be furious getting a ticket even though it was someone else in my car, which implies having restriction on traffic light cameras is good because………….….…..………...
Jay Stanley is a senior policy analysis with the American Civil Liberties Union's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. He researches, writes and speaks about technology-related privacy and civil liberties issues and their future. The American Civil Liberties Union mainly “to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States." They achieve the right for anyone to have rights such equality and the right to have an abortion. His part in this non-partitioned organization gives him a strong ethical appeal with this topic. Stanley sets his aspect on public surveillance cameras and his tone by using word choice. In his argument, in the fourth paragraph,
Rivera, 445 Mass. 119, 833 N.E.2d 1113 (2005). In Rivera, a convenience store’s surveillance camera recorded a violent robbery. The victim refused to open the register despite several demands by two masked robbers. The robbers then left the store and the victim pursued them. One of the robbers then shot the victim and fled the scene. Id. at 1116. Similar to Rivera, Dr. Knowles’s camera was installed by a private party for security purpose, but the court held that the convenience store’s recording was not secretive because the surveillance camera was in plain view, where a person is likely to know they are being recorded. Id. Relying on this decision, the police department may distinguish their case by arguing that even if cameras are installed for security purposes, they are a violation of privacy if not apparent to the public. See also Commonwealth v. Jackson, 370 Mass. 502, 349 N.E.2d 227, 339 (1976) (“It is clear that the Legislature intended that the statutory restrictions be applicable…to the secret use of such devices”). The police may argue that the state-of-the-art eye equipment was not detectable. Since it is a webcam from a private investigation firm, it is meant to be undetected by the naked
An hierarchy system of who is to be allowed accessed to camera recordings would be implemented and a specific time frame would be created for the storage of recording data. A recording may be kept for a week and after it should be removed from the data servers. However, if a recording is flagged for any reason whether it is for an investigation, it must be kept for a substantial amount of time until its usage is no longer needed. In this case, it will free up space for storage and save money from purchasing data storage. As a result, if a police officer receive a complaint or a civilian may feel the need to file a complaint, there will be a recording available to show an objective encounter of an incident between the officer and civilian; therefore, there will not be any biased statements from either party. Wakefield Police Chief, Richard E. Smith stated that “Studies have shown that when body cameras are deployed, citizen complaints against officers drop measurably”. As a result, police officers can gain a sense of security on their
“Packet sniffing is legal so long as you filter out data after the 48th (or 96th or 128th byte)”
Currently there are no adequate laws regulating the use of such cameras, and it is
Ever since day one, people have been developing and creating all sorts of new methods and machines to help better everyday life in one way or another. Who can forget the invention of the ever-wondrous telephone? And we can’t forget how innovative and life-changing computers have been. However, while all machines have their positive uses, there can also be many negatives depending on how one uses said machines, wiretapping in on phone conversations, using spyware to quietly survey every keystroke and click one makes, and many other methods of unwanted snooping have arisen. As a result, laws have been made to make sure these negative uses are not taken advantage of by anyone. But because of how often technology changes, how can it be known that the laws made so long ago can still uphold proper justice? With the laws that are in place now, it’s a constant struggle to balance security with privacy. Privacy laws should be revised completely in order to create a better happy medium between security and privacy. A common misconception of most is that a happy medium of privacy and security is impossible to achieve. However, as well-said by Daniel Solove, “Protecting privacy doesn’t need to mean scuttling a security measure. Most people concerned about the privacy implications of government surveillance aren’t arguing for no[sic] surveillance and absolute privacy. They’d be fine giving up some privacy as long as appropriate controls, limitations, oversight and accountability mechanisms were in place.”(“5 Myths about Privacy”)
Cameras in the court room have been a recent phenomenon starting in the US at the end of the last century and has only recently been used in UK courts, although not as much as in the US (Lambert.) Looking back at all the research and understanding that having cameras in courtrooms could not only effect someone as a victim, but as a suspect as well. It can cause a person whether a victim or a suspect to an unfair trial. The Human Right Act applies to everyone and a person’s right should be respected at all times, but mainly cameras in courtrooms will effect a person’s security, privacy and a right to a fair trial. This relates to Article 5 and Article 6 of the Human Rights Act (Gov.uk 2014). Having cameras in courtrooms could also make the victims and suspects feel unsafe as they are being recorded, and also could make not only the victims and suspects feel nervous but also the people inside the courtrooms. The positives of having cameras in the courtroom will mean that, everything is recorded and used as evidence and can as well be used for media coverage. The media can also influence the coverage in courtrooms. Another positive factor for cameras in courtrooms is the judges and lawyers have proof if any unfair decision is made within the trial. The history of
According to police officer Young of West Chester, Ohio that the police body-worn camera help strengthens trust within the community because all police activities are recorded. Therefore, Law enforcement officers are accountable for their actions if they will misbehave while on duty. The camera will help the superiors to monitor cop’s activities while on duty. Also, if citizens are aware of what the device can do, they will not be afraid if being approached by officers because they know the conversation is recorded. People will behave as well as the officers. As a result, it will lessen police officer’s issues. Los Angeles Police Department tested the body-worn camera and they got a positive response. To their surprise, people behaved when they told them that they are wearing cameras, even those people who are intoxicated by alcohol. During the testing period, they got a lesser rate of police officer’s complaints. Moreover, the body-worn camera will prevent aggressive confrontational situations. A situation where people tend to be violent and defensive. As a result, it will create conflict between law enforcement officers and civilians. If civilians and officers are aware of the recordings, they will be on their best behavior because they know that they are being
As the Internet has become more widely recognized and used by people all over the world, it has brought a new medium in which information can very easily be broadcast to everyone with access to it. In 1995 there was a projected 26 million Internet users, which has grown to almost 300 million today. One major problem with this is that everyone represents different countries and provinces which have different outtakes on certain types of freedom of speech as well as different laws about it. This proposes a new type of law that would need to be written in order to determine whether or not something is illegal on the Internet. A person in one country can express what they want to, but that expression may be illegal in another country and in this situation whose laws are to be followed? What I propose to do accomplish in this paper is to discuss the freedom of speech laws of the United States of America and those of France, China, and Canada. I will examine what about them is similar and what about them is different. The bringing of the Internet has brought many new types of businesses as well as ways in order to communicate with the world, but as with each new endeavor or invention, there needs to be a way in order to govern its use and policies. There must also be ways in order to punish those not following the new laws and policies of use, since that the country that the person is in may allow what they did, but it may not be allowed on the Internet or in a different country. In other words, there is the need for international laws governing the Internet.
... should soon come to a halt but instead this law is not enforced as well because with the privacy software on the internet, finding who is responsible for the start of a website or even streaming of a movie is very difficult.
In the beginning of safety within the sport of hockey, it is adequate to understand the issues with the backbone of safety, the rules. This general understanding of the rules can be misleading, with each rule being directed to a certain infraction or move, but still, some of these actions can go unnoticed. With the rules such as Rule 41, 43, and 46 (Boarding, checking from behind, and Fighting respectively) they have their own subsections within each set of rules that can be damaging to a player depending on the severity of the incident. For example, if a player is caught fighting, which is officially defined as “When at least one player punches or attempts to punch an opponent repeatedly or when two players wrestle in such a manner as to make it difficult for the