Get help from the best in academic writing.

Choose ONE of the following questions. 1. In all the cases in which it has arisen, how well has Essay

Choose ONE of the following questions.
1. In all the cases in which it has arisen, how well has the International Court of Justice
dealt with the issue of self-determination? In your view, what should the Court have
said in the Kosovo Advisory Opinion?
2. In a recent article in the Guardian,
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/aug/01/the-big-idea-do-nations-reallyneed-borders, James Crawford (not the late James Crawford, ICJ judge), argued that
international borders may no longer be necessary or appropriate. From an
international law perspective, do you think this is feasible or desirable?
4. In international discourse, and especially in the jurisprudence of the International Court
of Justice, the distinction between obligations erga omnes and obligations erga omnes
partes has been blurred, to put it mildly. Do you agree? Should there be a distinction,
and if so, how should it be clarified?

Social/Ethical/Professional Issues in Computer Science Case Study Here are three excerpts from

Social/Ethical/Professional Issues in Computer Science Case Study

Here are three excerpts from Canadian privacy regulations. They are a part of the case study that you will answer some questions about for your Case Study Exam. The other part of the case study is the imaginary proposal about how to change the law, which you can find below after the excerpts.

I have linked to the full pieces, but you do not need to read them. These excerpts contain the only required information for your assignment. You should read the excerpts in full.

The questions appear after the excerpts.

Below is an excerpt from the Joint investigation of Clearview AI, Inc. by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada, the Commission d’accès à l’information du Québec, the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia, and the Information Privacy Commissioner of Alberta.

“The Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC), the Commission d’accès à l’information du Québec (CAI), the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia (OIPC BC), and the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Alberta (OIPC AB), collectively referred to as “the Offices”, commenced a joint investigation to examine whether Clearview AI, Inc.’s (“Clearview”) collection, use and disclosure of the personal information by means of its facial recognition tool complied with federal and provincial privacy laws applicable to the private sector.

Specifically, the Offices sought to determine whether Clearview:

obtained requisite consent to collect, use and disclose personal information; and

collected, used and disclosed personal information for an appropriate purpose.

Additionally, the CAI sought to determine whether Clearview had:

Reported the creation of a database of biometric characteristics or measurements.

Clearview’s facial recognition tool functions in four key sequential steps – Clearview:

“scrapes” images of faces and associated data from publicly accessible online sources (including social media), and stores that information in its database;

creates biometric identifiers in the form of numerical representations for each image;

allows users to upload an image, which is then assessed against those biometric identifiers and matched to images in its database; and

provides a list of results, containing all matching images and metadata. If a user clicks on any of these results, they are directed to the original source page of the image.

Through this process, Clearview amassed a database of over three billion images of faces and corresponding biometric identifiers, including those of a vast number of individuals in Canada, including children. Clearview asserted that the tool is intended for use by law enforcement, for legitimate law enforcement and investigative purposes. A variety of organizations, including private sector entities, used this service via a free-trial service.

Biometric information is considered sensitive, in almost all circumstances, and facial recognition data is particularly sensitive. Furthermore, individuals who posted their images online, or whose images were posted by third party(ies), had no reasonable expectations that Clearview would collect, use and disclose their images for identification purposes. As such, express consent would generally be required. In Quebec, such use of biometric data requires express consent.

Clearview did not attempt to seek consent from the individuals whose information it collected. Clearview asserted that the information was “publicly available”, and thus exempt from consent requirements. Information collected from public websites, such as social media or professional profiles, and then used for an unrelated

purpose, does not fall under the “publicly available” exception of PIPEDA, PIPA

AB or PIPA BC. Nor is this information “public by law”, which would exempt it from Quebec’s Private Sector Law, and no exception of this nature exists for other biometric data under LCCJTI. Therefore, we found that Clearview was not exempt from the requirement to obtain consent.”

Below is an excerpt from “Interpretation Bulletin: Publicly Available Information”

Principle 4.3 of PIPEDA states that the knowledge and consent of the individual are required for the collection, use, or disclosure of personal information, except where inappropriate.

Section 7(1)(d) of PIPEDA states that for the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, an organization may collect personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual if the personal information is publicly available and is specified by the regulations.

Section 7(2)(c.1) of PIPEDA states that for the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, an organization may use personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual if the personal information is publicly available and is specified by the regulations.

Section 7(3)(h.1) of PIPEDA states that for the purpose of clause 4.3 of Schedule 1, an organization may disclose personal information without the knowledge or consent of the individual if the personal information is publicly available and is specified by the regulations.

Below is an excerpt from “Regulations Specifying Publicly Available Information”

1 The following information and classes of information are specified for the purposes of paragraphs 7(1)(d), (2)(c.1) and (3)(h.1) of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act:

(a) personal information consisting of the name, address and telephone number of a subscriber that appears in a telephone directory that is available to the public, where the subscriber can refuse to have the personal information appear in the directory;

(b) personal information including the name, title, address and telephone number of an individual that appears in a professional or business directory, listing or notice, that is available to the public, where the collection, use and disclosure of the personal information relate directly to the purpose for which the information appears in the directory, listing or notice;

(c) personal information that appears in a registry collected under a statutory authority and to which a right of public access is authorized by law, where the collection, use and disclosure of the personal information relate directly to the purpose for which the information appears in the registry;

(d) personal information that appears in a record or document of a judicial or quasi-judicial body, that is available to the public, where the collection, use and disclosure of the personal information relate directly to the purpose for which the information appears in the record or document; and

(e) personal information that appears in a publication, including a magazine, book or newspaper, in printed or electronic form, that is available to the public, where the individual has provided the information.

An imaginary proposal to change the law

The questions below are about making a change to the last set of regulations which list various sources of “publicly available” information. Imagine the proposal to add the item below to the list found in “Regulations Specifying Publicly Available Information”. It is labelled (f) just because we are thinking about adding it to the end of the list, after (e), which deals with publications.

personal information that appears on social media and networking websites (like LinkedIn, Facebook, or Twitter), that is available to the public (in this context, we can understand this as “information that can be viewed without making a profile or logging in to the website”), where the individual has provided the information.

If this item were included in “Regulations Specifying Publicly Available Information”, then businesses would not need to get consent before using the personal information described in (f). So, for instance, they could store and use most Facebook profile pictures without the consent of the person who uploaded the picture. Thus, one of the main barriers to Clearview and similar companies operating in Canada would be removed.

Question One

Would changing the “Regulations Specifying Publicly Available Information” to include (f) be the right thing to do from a purely utilitarian perspective? That is, would making it easier for companies like Clearview to operate in Canada, and in the specific way I have proposed, do something that maximizes the pleasure/happiness in the world?

Explain your reasons for answering the way that you do. For instance, what are the likely ways in which this change would create some happiness, what are the likely ways in which this change would create some unhappiness, and what is your judgment about how those considerations add together? Would this change create more pleasure/happiness in the world than our current legal state of affairs?

Your answer should be about 250 words, plus or minus ten percent.

Question Two

Your analysis in Question One considers this imaginary proposal to change the law only from the perspective of how it would impact the net pleasure/happiness in the world. In this question, you will now make your analysis more complex through considering the consequences of this change to the law in terms of one (just one) other factor that seems morally significant in this case, and that we have discussed in this course (for instance privacy, or autonomy, or desire satisfaction).

Your answers to each of the three sub-questions below should be about 150 words each, for a total answer length of about 450 words, plus or minus ten percent.

Name and describe the additional morally significant factor that you are including in your analysis. You should aim to make your description comprehensible and informative to a university student who is not enrolled in

this course.

Describe the likely consequences of this potential legal change with this additional moral factor in mind. For instance, if you are discussing autonomy, do you think that this proposed change to the law would create more or less autonomy in the world than is created by our current legal situation? Explain your reasons for answering the way that you do.

Would changing the “Regulations Specifying Publicly Available Information” to include (f) be the right thing to do, keeping in mind both the consequences you think it will have on pleasure/happiness and the consequences on the additional moral factor that you have decided to discuss in this question? Explain your reasons for answering the way that you do.

(Note that a more complete evaluation of the situation would probably bring together more than just pleasure/happiness and one additional morally significant factor. But the point of this exercise is to do an analysis that is simpler than that more complete evaluation of this situation.)

Format & Writing Style

Clearly label your answers with the questions they respond to : Question 1, Question 2a, Question 2b, Question 2c.

Use 12-point fonts and double space.

You do not need to write an introduction or conclusion. But you should write in complete sentences, and use paragraph breaks to help organize your thoughts around different topics. You should explain concepts clearly, and explain why you believe what you believe.

Using the word “I” is fine in philosophical writing. It’s the right thing to do when are

explaining what you believe and why you believe it.

If you are just making reference to definitions and facts that are given in my course materials (slides, in-class handouts), you do not need to list these materials in a list of works cited, or use in-text citations that cite the specific lectures in which I defined the concepts.

But if you do decide to cite something not in the course materials – some news article, philosophy article, something that was said to you in conversation, or anything else that is not an idea of your own – then you must use in-text citations to indicate when you are making use of the ideas from your sources, and list them in a list of works cited at the end of your answers. You do not need to cite sources external to the course to succeed at this assignment, nor does doing so make it likelier that you will succeed at this assignment. If you do cite sources external to the course cite them in either MLA or APA.

Page 1 of 6

Required Assignments: Article Review Description: Keeping current by evaluating resources such as

Choose ONE of the following questions. 1. In all the cases in which it has arisen, how well has Essay Law Assignment Help Required Assignments:

Article Review

Description: Keeping current by evaluating resources such as journals and articles enhances you as a professional. You will read, analyze, and reflect on a data-informed research article written about assessment and its use in improving instruction and student achievement.

Directions: Select a peer reviewed journal article published within the last five years that discusses a cultural, linguistic, or socioeconomic issue in the field of testing and assessment. The article should consist of a minimum of three pages. The article must be approved by your instructor.

Write a summary of the article.

Write a reflection, which includes your opinion of the author’s viewpoint and how the data- informed research can be utilized in improving instruction and student achievement. Include how the article relates to our readings and class discussion in EDF4430. Support your opinion statements with citations from the article and our course text. All citations must be written in APA format.

Provide complete bibliographic information on the article written in APA format.

Attach a copy of the article with your review.

No Evidence (0 pt)

Emerging (1 pt)

Developing (2 pts)

Mastery (3 pts)

Article

Insufficient

Selecting an

Selecting an

Selecting an

Selection

evidence to

article that is not

article that is

article that is

(10%)

evaluate

relevant to

relevant to

relevant to

coursework

coursework and

coursework,

and/or not

is not published

published within

published within

within the past

the last five (5)

the past five

five years and/or

years, and has

years and/or has

has not been

been approved

not been

approved by the

by the instructor.

approved by the

instructor.

instructor.

Summary

Insufficient

Providing a

Providing a

Providing a

(30%)

evidence to

summary report

summary report

summary report

evaluate

at least one (1) –

at least two (2) –

at least two (2) –

two (2)

three (3)

three (3)

paragraphs in

paragraphs in

paragraphs in

length which

length which

length which

identify at

contains at

identify -the

minimum two of

minimum three

audience, the

the four sections

of the four

related historical

– the audience,

sections – the

and/or

the related

audience, the

foundational

historical and/or

related historical

facts which

foundational

and/or

assist with

facts which

foundational

framing the

assist with

facts which

argument, clear

framing the

assist with

statement of

argument, clear

framing the

issue/controvers

statement of issue/controvers y, and recommended resolutions by author.

argument, clear statement of issue/controvers y, and recommended resolutions by

author.

y, and recommended resolutions by author.

Reflection

Insufficient

Providing a

Providing a

Providing a

(30%)

evidence to

reflection

reflection

reflection

evaluate

statement at

statement at

statement at

least one (1)

least one and a

least one and a

paragraph which

half (1 ½) to two

half (1 ½) to two

contains at

(2) paragraphs

(2) paragraphs

minimum one of

in length which

in length which

the following –

contain at

examine and

examines and

minimum one of

critique both the

critiques both

the following –

strengths and

the strengths

examines and

weaknesses of

and weaknesses

critiques both

the article’s

of the article’s

the strengths

argument and

argument or

and weaknesses

explains how the

explains how the

of the article’s

information

information

argument or

gained will be

gained will be

explains how the

used to enhance

used to enhance

information

instruction and

instruction and

gained will be

professional

professional

used to enhance

development.

development.

instruction and

professional

development.

Supporting In-

Insufficient

Utilizes at

Utilizes at

Utilizes at

text Citations

evidence to

minimum four

minimum five (5)

minimum six (6)

(10%)

evaluate

(4) in-text

in-text citations

in-text citations

citations to

to support

to support

support

conclusions in

conclusions in

conclusions in

both the

both the

both the

summary and

summary and

summary and

reflection

reflection

reflection

sections of the

sections of the

sections of the

report.

report.

report.

APA

Insufficient

Including

Including

Including

(10%)

evidence to

citations, but

citations with

citations that use

evaluate

they are not

some errors in

proper APA style

APA styled and

APA style and

and formatting.

formatted.

formatting.

Grammar, Spelling, and Mechanics

Insufficient evidence to evaluate

Providing sentences that show errors of

Providing effective and varied

Providing effective sentence

(10%)

structure and

sentences;

structure; rich,

little or no

some errors in

well-chosen

variety; four or

sentence

variety of

more errors of

construction; no

sentence styles

punctuation,

more than two –

and lengths;

spelling, and/or

three errors in

without

capitalization;

punctuation,

punctuation,

errors interfere

spelling, and/or

spelling, and

with meaning in

capitalization.

capitalization

places.

errors.

AM med week 6 posts ND Willrich points out in his book,

AM med week 6 posts

ND

Willrich points out in his book, Pox: An American History, the xenophobic and curtailed civil liberties stance taken by “medical authorities” in earlier America toward “marginalized” groups, including newly arived immigrants, and the socially vulnerable, e.g., the poor and particularly people of color, when it came to the spreading of “dangerous” diseases—smallpox, or as an added example that Willrich briefly touches upon, the outbreak of typhoid (the Irish and Typhoid Mary analogue of the “spreader.”) Obviously, this smacks of class/race bias at its perigee. The real impact of Willrich’s book, I believe, is his addressing this “unfair” medical arrangement, of how it is contextualized, by the immese power of the establishment, toward peripheral groups.  His commentary on local history within the book’s main themes, Kentucky, (Middlesboro) and Lincoln County (my home county), was especially engaging for me. His  “targeted” people of poor, the powerless and other fringe groups who lacked  substantive political power, highlights the social inequalities faced by people who were not only marginalized, but who had the misfortune of acquiring the virus of smallpox, for instance, and were at the mercy of the State’s paternalistic oversight. His book brilliantly delivers on this crucial point, and his explantion of how these indviduals had their role of “patient,” if not fully and “legally” suspended, then radically altered (violated)…something today that is, thank goodness, entirely constructed differently for people aware of their civil liberties and “dangerous” disease status.

     As is often seen, the State’s bureaucracy was more than suspect in how it dealt with a “medical emergency” within the confines of “minority comunnites.” I was ,very much so, struck by the government’s authoritative encroachment on not only “infected” but possibly infected individuals lives with the implementing of a cordon sanitaire.” Examples ranged from the “colony” of Puerto Rico, to the territory of the Philippines… to, of all places, the Eastern Kentucky mountains. Was the strategy more as a containment of the disease or was it more a subtle form of racial/class bias at play? Or was it a combination in some degree of both? My position is that is was a combination of both.

    Forced vaccination on Puerto Ricans through military coordination,through a military directive known as General Order No. 7, became a strategy for combatting the disease, at least outside of the confines of the Untied States. One of the Army’s doctors in charge of overseeing this “qusai-military” vaccination operation, a Major Ames, was given the government’s authority to begin forced vaccinations, and summed up the position toward ethnic Puerto Ricans, in general, when he refers to them as being “mostly ignorant” and “unused to sanitary conditions.” (145) Willrich remarks the same sentiment was also applied to the folk of Eastern Kentucky at the turn of the century. Even Middleboro, Kentucky was encolsed in a cordon sanitaire, as it remained within “an armed quaratine for weeks.” (69)

     Even the names themselves chosen to denote the dreaded smallpox infection complicates the separation of the disease from a purely medical context to a social one. As the public sentiment toward the ones who acquired the disease was often based in derogatory comments, reduced to a racial, ethnic, and even country of orgin epithet: such as “‘Cuban itch,’ Manila scab,’ ‘Nigger Itch,’ ‘Italian Itch,” [or] ‘Manila scab.'” (41) Smallpox (as well as eventually typhoid would become to be known) was viewed as a “filth disease–dangerous to all but spread chiefly by the lower orders…more common among the colred races” (26) and within the newly arrived immigrants communities.  Disease became quickly conflated, regrettably,with social status.

     Instead of positioning the virus within an epidemiological realm, something that comtemporary medicine does, and which is where smallpox should have been stationed concerning its’s causation, “marginalized groups” in earlier America became the go-to scapegoats to be ultimately abused, in one form or another, especially as it concerned their civil liberites. For example, the isolation of patients who had contracted the disease, and were from a lower SES grouping, were forcibly put within the infamous pesthouse. While more advantaged individuals, not suprisingly, were”allowed” to be housed during their illness within their family’s home.This point disturbes the conscience.

     The Progressive Era saw a remarkable change  in direction in the issue of the public’s health, as medical professionals began to take on a more pro-active, authoritarian role in overseeing individuals’ and society’s health as a whole, as the previous era of voluntary vaccination to forestall the spread of “dangerous” diseases, i.e., smallpox, was severly stunted, and madatory vaccination raced to the forefront to take its place. This “forced” health decisions to be made, with or without personal consent, obviously put the political dynamic into play, as  the “public health” ideal was thrust into tremedous conflict with the “public reality” of those who felt violated. This tension was seismic as “No public health measure inspired more ill will than compulsory vaccination.” (91) Resistance to this logic and authority of the “medical profession” was summed up as that the anti-vaxxers had difficulty understanding ther consequences of refusing to be vaccinated…that they were just too ignorant. As Willrich informs, this conflict between the pro-vaxxers and the anti-vaxxers produced violent, and even deadly confrontations. On the other side from the government, “Many antivaccination texts featured photographs of children–defomred, disabled, or lying dead in their coffins–identified by their captions as ‘Victims of Vaccination.'” (267) This “war” between the two groups would last…and is still present today.

KB

I thoroughly enjoyed this week’s journey through history in relation to smallpox. Where most of our readings up to this point have focused on using the events of a very short time frame to prompt discussion of the way those events shaped the future, Michael Willrich’s Pox widens the lens significantly. The clear exception to this was Bellevue, which approached many events over a longer period, allowing readers to understand the full impact of the events as an ongoing narrative rather than a conclusion being reached by the author. Willrich takes a similar approach here, detailing the dichotomous relationship between social change and history, but rather than arguing the impact of smallpox on history he approaches his work in terms of how social climates and context influenced the response of society to smallpox.

In detailing the response to several outbreaks over a century, Willrich provides a glimpse into how changing values and attitudes can change our reactions to encounters with disease and the issues surrounding it. In analyzing patterns of blame and scapegoating, vaccine/anti-vaccine sentiment, and attitudes of trust or mistrust toward medical professionals we are provided with the necessary details to recognize how seemingly small pieces of information fit into the larger narrative.

Beginning with the concept of “patient zero” Willrich introduces the human desire to be able to explain and rationalize how and why bad things happen (18-20). He even mentions an Alabama health officer’s preoccupation with finding someone to blame, going to the extreme of tracing an outbreak’s roots as far back as Genesis 3:15 (18). This preoccupation with rationalizations circles back to a theme that we have encountered throughout our readings—that of placing blame on those determined to be “unclean” or somehow “inferior” in society. Willrich details how blame was shifted over time from black transient laborers (19) to “filthy” Cubans, Puerto Ricans, and Filipinos during the Spanish-American war (132-133), to other immigrants entering the United States (222-223) and back again. Regardless of which group is being targeted at different points in time, though, the rationalization remains the same and can be simplified to one thing: racism. While we’ve heard this narrative many times, it is still jarring to hear the crude descriptions of minority groups in reference to our conceptualization of disease and its’ spread. I was especially disappointed to see such specific examples coming from Kentucky in particular, which is why Willrich’s work is so important. I know the history of race relations in this country and state, but these uncomfortable reminders are necessary to maintain awareness of this history and recognize the errors in these past ways of thinking.

These anti-minority sentiments have resulted in long-term consequences that we are all familiar with, but I was also very interested in the short-term effects. Most specifically, the resulting mistrust of not only medical professionals but also government and virtually all social institutions on the part of minority groups. The stereotypical and prejudicial comments being made in public ways regarding African Americans (101) were especially noteworthy. Because the white power structure perpetuated these ideas, members of the black community were left with nowhere to turn for safety. Their schools and churches were targeted for quarantine, removing all the community’s resources and humanizing features. Combine that with the prevalence of negative vaccine side effects (which notably was one of the few things that crossed the “color line”) and institutionalized racism begins to become clearer from our position in the future of the historical narrative.