Counter Argumentative Essay

comes to outline section eight which states, “everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure” (Ruddell, 2017, pp.91). The counter argument comes to be, why is it are rights protect at certain times and violated by the search of technology at other time, however, the court may rule that it is not the violation.

Overall, there is an expansion of technology that allowed for the lives of citizens of Canada to be altered. This is because the expansion of the technology “made it easier for the police to place people under surveillance” (Steeves & Pinero, 2008, pp.263). This debate come to express why a photo that used to be shelf at home, turned into a click of a button of a cellphone to upload to the internet or the social

The ability of the use of technology is formulate by how the people use and understand technology. Thus, technology is norms and value to modern society since it is linked commonly by the community. They place an importance who is using technology since the selection impact the reaction (Condon & Sanders, 2017, pp 238). This article is important since it explains the use of technology in good hands, like police, can help to seek for the bad offenders in the community. It takes place in 2017 which helps to reflect the types of technology available the community and the police. As a result, “technologies involved in crime analysis and their effectiveness for crime reduction and control” (Condon & Sanders, 2017, pp.239). The article has it own weakness since it does not consider the improper use of technology by the offenders to commit crime. It mainly considers the use of technology by the police and their effectiveness. There is a lack of the understanding of how to let police search offender’s technology without warrants. As a result, making this topic need of further research because increase use of technology has altered the way police use their technology. It is expressed Supreme Court can rule section 8 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, for the protection of the law against privacy invasion (Austin, 2007, pp.499). This comes to show police