| Papers [1-15] of 100 :: [Page 1 of 7] | | Go to page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 —> | Search results on "PRIVACY RIGHTS": |
|
|
Email Privacy Rights, 2005.
An examination of email privacy rights as they relate to employees, employers, and the workplace.
1,125 words (approx. 4.5 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 39.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper explores email privacy rights concerning employees, employers, and the workplace. The paper explains employer vs employee rights. The paper also includes the invasion of privacy lawsuits.
From the Paper
"The growing number of employees with desktop computers and work-provided laptop computers has increased management concerns for balancing potential liability and loss of productivity issues against the employees' rights to privacy."
| |
|
Censorship and Privacy Rights, 2003.
A persuasive essay that analyzes the social problems of censorship and violations of privacy rights and persuades American citizens to take a stance against government manipulation.
2,126 words (approx. 8.5 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 66.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper carefully describes the sociopolitical problems of censorship and privacy rights and presents a proposal of possible solutions to these problems. It explores various modern government manipulations that have been increased since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and includes an analysis of various new legislation such as the Patriot Act.
From the Paper
"Every purchase you make with a credit card, every magazine subscription you buy and medical prescription you fill, every website you visit and e-mail you send or receive, every academic grade you receive, every bank deposit you make, every trip you book and every event you attend?all these transactions and communications will go into what the Defense Department describes as ?a virtual centralized grand database??. To this computerized dossier on your private life from commercial sources, add every piece of information that [the] government has about you?passport application, driver?s license and bridge toll records, judicial and divorce records, complaints from noisy neighbors to the FBI?your lifetime paper trail plus the latest hidden camera surveillance?and you have the supersnoop?s dream: a ?Total Information Awareness? about every US citizen? (Krigg 2) This serves as just one example of the many acts that were passed due to an increased desire for national security."
| |
|
The Privacy Rights of Individuals, 2005.
This paper discusses court cases, which deal with the privacy rights of individuals in the areas of homosexuality, drug testing, birth control and the right to die.
1,270 words (approx. 5.1 pages), 13 sources, APA, $ 43.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, although everyone agrees that privacy rights of individuals should be protected by governmental laws, the extent of one's right to privacy has often been a matter of vast disagreement in the court system of the United States. The author points out that an individual's right to sexual privacy, including homosexuality, is an issue that has been brought before the courts repeatedly; "Bowers v. Hardwick" is a landmark case fought in 1986, which tested these boundaries. The paper relates that the United States Supreme Court has established that, to some extent, an individual does have a limited right to die: by citing "Griswold v. Connecticut" and even "Roe v. Wade", the court stated that, if the right to privacy is broad enough to include a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy, it also provides a basis for the right to die.
From the Paper
"Drug testing is another issue that has been fiercely debated in the courts. With the increase of illegal drug use across the United States, many institutions have tried to institute a policy of random testing in order to combat the problem. Opponents of this policy claim that these random drug tests are an invasion of privacy rights and violate the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches. A group of parents challenged the Oklahoma school district's policy of random drug testing in front of the Supreme Court. The school district established a policy of random urine tests for students who want to join the marching band, academic team or any competitive extracurricular activity. In previous cases, the court had ruled that general urine testing required a warrant or some evidence of drug use. However, in a school setting, there is a lower expectation to privacy and in Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton in 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that drug testing for student athletes did not violate their privacy rights, since these students were the most at risk and could choose whether or not to participate in sporting activities."
| |
|
Privacy Rights, 2005.
A research paper on different aspects of current privacy rights and the acceptance of their violation by the U.S. government, such as the Patriot Act and surveillance issues.
824 words (approx. 3.3 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 29.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains privacy rights as they relate to anti-utopian literature, such as "Brave New World" or "1984". It also describes current violations of these rights as they relate to technological advances and military operations.
From the Paper
"Privacy can be considered one of the most valued rights of a civilized society. The framers of the constitution had this in mind when they developed search and seizure laws to protect the citizens' privacy from British soldiers. The American Civil Liberties Union predicts, "The United States is at risk of turning into a full-fledged surveillance society" (ACLU). The invasion of privacy has long been evident in anti-utopian literature, and now it is becoming more common, openly available, and more accepted by our government."
| |
|
Privacy Rights and the Internet, 2003.
This paper discusses the ease of obtaining personal information on the internet and the lack of privacy rights including for inmates.
995 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper explains that, although a prisoner has limited rights, there are certain protections provided to prisoners under the law, which brings up questions in terms of the rights and protections offered prisoners with regards to their personal privacy and information, which can be easily found on the internet. The author points out that, at present, there are no laws regarding internet privacy and reviews the United States' long history of struggling with privacy issues using the cases "Roe V. Wade" (1977), "Olmstead vs. United States 277 U.S. 438" (1928) and "Katz vs. United States, 389 U.S. 347" (1967). The paper states that, because there currently are no laws concerning privacy on the internet, there should be no problem with using VeriSign as a company to introduce e-commerce to the inmates as this company's policy considers the protection of an individual's privacy of the utmost importance.
From the Paper
"There are also more complex searches that a person can perform on the internet. For a fee, several companies will offer a complete profile of a person. For example, a company called, US Search, will find anybody and offers services such as background checks, locators, criminal search, sex offender search, and department of corrections search. They also offer other information like marriage and divorce certificates. There are many of these sites. They work by compiling databases, similar to the ones that law enforcement uses to find people by social security number or license number. Another site compiles scientific data as well. Abika.com offers background searches, psychological profiles, DNA profiling, etc. In short, if it is part of the public record, it can be compiled in a database for businesses to sell."
| |
|
Privacy Rights in the Workplace, 2006.
A look at the issues concerning ethics in the workplace.
996 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 3 sources, MLA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to introduce, discuss and analyze business ethics in the workplace. Specifically, it identifies a basic physical privacy right issue at Harrah's casino in Reno, Nevada. In July 2001, a Reno bartender filed suit against Harrah's, Inc., the worldwide casino gaming corporation, after she was fired from her bartending job. Darlene Jespersen had worked for Harrah's for twenty-one years as a bartender and in other areas of the casino for not complying to new dress rules. It discusses how the Jespersen case is a clear physical privacy rights issue and contends that individual should not give up the rights and ethics they believe in just so they can be employed.
From the Paper
"Jespersen's position is based on the deontological considerations that a business should take into consideration regarding employee rights. Morally, it is wrong to force an employee to do something they morally or ethically disagree with, especially after the company hired the employee. If a policy changes, there should be consideration for employees who have been employed for years and may not "fit" with the current policy. As Jespersen emotionally noted, the company could have grandfathered her non-adherence to the program before they took the step of firing her. That would have been the moral and ethical thing to do for a long-time employee. However, that was not an option, and it points to the rigidity of the corporation and its rules."
| |
|
Privacy Rights - A Supreme Court Authority, 2005.
Questions whether the Supreme Court of the US has the power to limit President Bush in his advocacy.
737 words (approx. 2.9 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 26.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
There is much conflict over the issue of privacy in the US government today. Though much of the conflict revolves around the right to an abortion without parental or spousal notification, the right certainly applies to other aspects, like the Patriot Act and Civil Rights movement, in the lives of its constituents. Through the use of various amendments, cases and other resources, this essay examines these aspects and proves that a right to privacy exists in the Constitution, although not stated explicitly, and argues for the Supreme Court authority to undermine the Congress.
From the Paper
"The right against unsanctioned intrusion of the government in the lives of its constituents is a fundamental, unalienable right of human beings to privacy. However, governments often create law enforcement agencies specifically designed to override this right in order to maintain security within the country. Civil rights libertarians strongly criticize such intervention, arguing, with proof, that such designs allow governments to become repressive regimes and prosecute people for political dissent. The issue does not concern whether a right to privacy is important, which it undoubtedly is, but whether the Supreme Court has been granted enough authority by the US Constitution to enforce this right."
| |
|
The Rights to Access and Privacy, 2005.
This article discusses the legal limitations on photojournalists.
1,328 words (approx. 5.3 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 44.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This article reflects the legal limitations faced by photojournalists in their work. The writer maintains that the area of law which applies to photojournalists is quite complex and constantly changes in order to meet the changing needs of society. The writer notes that as a general guide, the most common of these legal restrictions can be divided into five categories: access, privacy, libel, procedure and copyright. However, a photojournalist's ability to take newsworthy photographs most specifically depends on the limitations in the rights to access and to privacy. The writer discusses the law on this matter and the paper mentions different cases regarding photographs in journalism.
Contents:
Introduction
Part I: Right to Access
Part II: Right to Privacy
Conclusion
From the Paper
"However, like Gabriel Tait, photojournalists, despite any status as members of the press, can be arrested if they are believed to be interfering with an emergency or a government operation. Courts have long since established that journalists have limited access to certain areas, which can generally be divided into the two categories of public and private property.
Public property such as public schools, fire departments, and post offices are under the control of government agencies. Photography in areas such as these is prohibited unless permission is expressly granted to the photojournalist. In courtrooms, however, while under government authority, the limitations on press coverage of court proceedings is varied from state to state. The choice was given to each individual state's higher court to "promulgate standards and guidelines regulating radio, television, and other photographic coverage of court proceedings" in 1982 by the American Bar Association."
| |
|
ABC Widget Company: Employee Handbook Privacy Section, 2005.
A look at how the ABC Widget Company has addressed the issue of employee privacy rights in the work place.
1,005 words (approx. 4.0 pages), 4 sources, APA, $ 35.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper presents the ABC Widget Company's handbook on employee privacy rights. The privacy rights issues addressed in the handbook include the following: The rights of workers to personal privacy in the workplace, information technology and email privacy, and expectations and requirements of ABC for its employees in the exercise of their duties and responsibilities in the workplace.
From the Paper
"In the Age of Information, there are increasing concerns being voiced about what can legitimately be expected to be kept private, and how these issues affect employees' rights in the workplace. According to Hayden, Hendricks and Novak (1990, most adults spend approximately one-half of their waking hours in the workplace today, and it is therefore not surprising that employment practices affect a broad range of privacy rights. With the sole exception of polygraph ("lie-detector") testing, there are not many areas of workplace activities that are addressed by the U.S. Constitution or national privacy laws. As a result, employers in the United States have a great deal of flexibility in collecting data on their employees, regulating their access to personnel files, and disclosing the contents of employee files to those outside the organization. Besides the issue of personnel files, workplace privacy involves such practices as polygraph testing, drug testing, computer and telephone monitoring, and interference with personal lifestyle (Hayden et al., 1990)."
| |
|
Privacy After September 11, 2003.
An overview of how the September 11th tragedy affected the way the American government deals with personal privacy rights.
5,084 words (approx. 20.3 pages), 11 sources, MLA, $ 127.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper looks at the history of privacy rights, such as the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Wiretap Acts, government computer surveillance systems such as Carnivore and ECHELON, the Patriot Act, terrorist uses of the Internet, and the effects of interest groups.
From the Paper
"It is obvious that the September 11th attacks on America have reshaped the lives of the American people. These attacks shook up the American system and altered the lives of our people and the priorities of our government. As we watched the towers fall and the war on terrorism begin, the right to personal privacy was the last thing on the minds of American citizens, lost in a deluge of right, white, and blue patriotism. As time goes by and the impact of these events has begun to lessen, the concern over privacy and other rights has made a resurgence. Many Americans fear that in the months following the attacks we may have lost rights in the name of protecting our nation. Meanwhile, the government and a great number of American citizens fear that a second attack of similar proportions, or greater, could cause far worse problems for our nation. With this in mind, the government has taken an extremely aggressive stance on terrorism issues since the attacks. Following September 11th, the government has pushed anti-terrorism legislation through congress at an impressive pace. The piece of legislation with the greatest impact on America thus far is the Patriot Act of 2001. Prompted by fears of sleeper cells and terrorists living and operating amongst us, this act has changed the way the government is allowed to operate and what it is allowed to do in the name of protecting its people, but is all this really necessary? As this piece of legislation was quickly pushed through congress, many people fear that their rights may have been violated and innocent people have become subject of investigation in the name of stopping terrorists. There has been much talk of Americans living in fear of terrorism, but now that more than two years have gone by without another attack, is it our own loss of rights and privacy that we should be afraid of?"
| |
|
Privacy Invasion, 2007.
This paper explores the complex issue of employer infringement of employee privacy rights.
1,425 words (approx. 5.7 pages), 4 sources, MLA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses how the nature of the workplace is progressing, with new and increasingly controversial ways in which employers can possibly impinge upon an employee's physical privacy. The paper illustrates how the legal and ethical ramifications of these tools remain complex and multi-faceted. The paper explores the major ways in which employers might possibly violate the privacy rights of any one of their employees through physical means; drug testing, genetic testing and electronic surveillance. The paper bemoans that legal precedents regarding these issues have made relatively little progress towards reaching a widespread consensus on how to handle such cases.
From the Paper
"Possibly the most interesting and contentious of the ways in which employers might infringe upon personal privacy is through genetic testing. The way in which the genetic information obtained might be used, however, often varies: "Genetic testing includes both genetic screening and genetic monitoring. In genetic screening workers are tested for genetic predispositions for example to chemically caused disease. In genetic monitoring, workers are tested for genetic damage caused e.g. by exposure to chemicals in the workplace," (Persson 2). The main concern of the business in relation to employee predisposition or incurred damage is not, primarily, the employee's health; instead, genetic testing reflects a concern for legal liability on the part of certain companies that expose employees to potentially hazardous environments."
| |
|
Privacy on the Internet, 2002.
An examination of both sides of the Internet privacy issue, focusing on the effect of specific court rulings and recent laws regarding privacy rights on the Internet.
946 words (approx. 3.8 pages), 5 sources, MLA, $ 33.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper discusses how Internet and information technology have given rise to new techniques of investigation and new forms of surveillance and how law enforcement officials view these as powerful tools in the fight against terrorism and cybercrime. It looks at how government and corporate interests have successfully increased surveillance powers over the Internet and cyberspace and the implications of these new powers for privacy rights.
Outline
Security and Corporate Interests
Big Brother
Common Ground
From the Paper
"For privacy advocates, these laws expanding law enforcement authority and court rulings regarding piracy and copyright have dealt tremendous blows to individual civil liberties regarding online and Internet activities. The EFF argues, for example that the Patriot Act "expands surveillance while reducing checks and balances." As a result, the government may spy on innocuous activities such as web surfing, even on Americans who are not specific targets of investigation. In addition, the Patriot Act's provisions regarding reciprocity allow foreign intelligence agencies to spy on American people's activities online (EFF 2001)."
| |
|
Privacy in Intelligence Agencies, 2008.
This paper discusses the privacy rights of civilians and employees of intelligence organizations.
883 words (approx. 3.5 pages), 2 sources, APA, $ 31.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
The paper discusses the use of electronic surveillance, notably email surveillance, that is of fundamental importance within counterintelligence investigations. The paper points out the need for an explicit mention in the employer/employee contract that these sorts of measures and intrusions into personal privacy will occur routinely and without warning. The paper discusses how intelligence agencies can not maintain national security if no personal privacy is surrendered, but stresses that this privacy can only be surrendered voluntarily and under contract by intelligence officers. The paper contrasts this to ordinary civilians who must be protected by the law and investigated only when necessary.
From the Paper
"Counterintelligence, by its very nature, is designed to be intrusive. This means that, very often, it steps outside the bounds of what ordinary Americans consider to be their right to personal privacy. Essentially, when intelligence officers seek to recruit moles in foreign intelligence agencies and, to a greater extent, when individuals attempt to acquire jobs within U.S. intelligence agencies, they become subject to an intense level of scrutiny--ideally, from the perspective of the agency, the maximum amount of scrutiny they are capable of. "
| |
|
The Decline of Privacy in the Workplace, 2002.
An exploration of the invasion of privacy in the workplace, which is carried out by monitoring, testing, and investigating the employee, and the laws that protect employee privacy rights.
1,602 words (approx. 6.4 pages), 10 sources, MLA, $ 52.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper briefly examines the increasing invasion of privacy in the workplace as a result of technology advancement and employers? efforts to keep responsible, honest, and professional employees. It discusses Fourth Amendment rights and employers? practices in telephone, computer and email monitoring, polygraph and drug testing, and background investigations.
From the Paper
"The Fourth Amendment of the Constitution?s Bill of Rights protects people against unreasonable searches of their persons or homes and seizures of their personal possessions. Although the Constitution does not mention the word ?Privacy?, it was thought that the Bill of Rights covered certain privacy rights. The invasion of privacy can be thought of on two levels. The first level involves events that can be seen and observed. The second level includes information that generates permanent records and can therefore be searched. When the Bill of Rights was written in 1791, it was during a time when people learned about each other from what they observed in public. Permanent records consisted mainly of private letters and journals. The protection offered by the Fourth Amendment seemed adequate at the time."
| |
|
Employee Privacy, 2005.
This paper addresses the issue of privacy for employees.
1,350 words (approx. 5.4 pages), 7 sources, APA, $ 47.95
»
Click here to show/hide summary
Abstract
This paper describes the four legal sources of privacy rights, which an employee has in the workplace. The author points out the way competition between the employee and employer impact the issue of privacy rights. The paper discusses the inclusion of privacy rights in employee handbooks.
From the Paper
"Employers are increasingly concerned with issues related to employee privacy. Mark Lies noted that an employee generally has four sources of privacy rights within the workplace: Constitutional statutes, state, common law and contract. Within every workplace, there is a constant competition between the interests of the employer and the employee, which directly impacts these privacy rights. Lies notes that conflict between employers and employees over issues related to privacy often focus on the use of personal information regarding the employee observation and regulation of employee conduct."
|
|
|
