Conclusion Introduction There are no precise, reliable statistics on the amount of computer crime and the economic loss to victims, partly because many of these crimes are apparently not detected by victims, many of these crimes are never reported to authorities, and partly because the losses are often difficult to calculate. Nevertheless, there is a consensus among both law enforcement personnel and computer scientists who specialize in security that both the number of computer crime incidents and the sophistication of computer criminals is increasing rapidly. Experts in computer security, who are not attorneys, speak of "information warfare". While such "information warfare" is just another name for computer crime, the word "warfare" does fairly denote the amount of damage inflicted on society.
For permission to reproduce and distribute this article for Justification report essay use, visit the web site http: I Everyone knows that something has gone wrong, in the United States, with the conventions of privacy.
Along with a vastly increased tolerance for variation in sexual life we have seen a sharp increase in prurient and censorious attention to the sexual lives of public figures and famous persons, past and present. The culture seems to be growing more tolerant and more intolerant at the same time, though perhaps different parts of it are involved in the two movements.
Sexual taboos in the fairly recent past were also taboos against saying much about sex in public, and this had the salutary side-effect of protecting persons in the public eye from invasions of privacy by the main-stream media. It meant that the sex lives of politicians were rightly treated as irrelevant to the assessment of their qualifications, and that one learned only in rough outline, if at all, about the sexual conduct of prominent creative thinkers and artists of the past.
Now, instead, there is open season on all this material. The public, followed sanctimoniously by the media, feels entitled to know the most intimate details of the life of any public figure, as if it were part of the price of fame that you exposed everything about yourself to view, and not just the achievement or performance that has brought you to public attention.
Because of the way life is, this results in real damage to the condition of the public sphere: Many people cannot take that kind of exposure, and many are discredited or tarnished in ways that have nothing to do with their real qualifications or achievements.
One might think, in a utopian vein, that we could carry our toleration a bit further, and instead of trying to reinstitute the protection of privacy, cease to regard all this personal information as important. Then pornographic films of presidential candidates could be available in video stores and it wouldn't matter.
But it isn't as simple as that. These boundaries between what is publicly exposed and what is not exist for a reason. We will never reach a point at which nothing that anyone does disgusts anyone else. We can expect to remain in a sexual world deeply divided by various lines of imaginative incomprehension and disapproval.
So conventions of reticence and privacy serve a valuable function in keeping us out of each other's faces. Yet that is only part of the story. We don't want to expose ourselves completely to strangers even if we don't fear their disapproval, hostility, or disgust.
Naked exposure itself, whether or not it arouses disapproval, is disqualifying. The boundary between what we reveal and what we do not, and some control over that boundary, are among the most important attributes of our humanity.
Someone who for special reasons becomes a public or famous figure should not have to give it up. This particular problem is part of a larger topic, namely the importance of concealment as a condition of civilization.
Concealment includes not only secrecy and deception, but also reticence and nonacknowledgment. There is much more going on inside us all the time than we are willing to express, and civilization would be impossible if we could all read each other's minds. Apart from everything else there is the sheer chaotic tropical luxuriance of the inner life.
We also have to learn, especially in adolescence, not to be overwhelmed by a consciousness of other people's awareness of and reaction to ourselves -- so that our inner lives can be carried on under the protection of an exposed public self over which we have enough control to be able to identify with it, at least in part.
There is an analogy between the familiar problem that liberalism addresses in political theory, of how to join together individuals with conflicting interests and a plurality of values, under a common system of law that serves their collective interests equitably without destroying their autonomy -- and the purely social problem of defining conventions of reticence and privacy that allow people to interact peacefully in public without exposing themselves in ways that would be emotionally traumatic or would inhibit the free operation of personal feeling, fantasy, imagination, and thought.
It is only an analogy: One can be a political liberal without being a social individualist, as liberals never tire of pointing out. But I think there is a natural way in which a more comprehensive liberal respect for individual autonomy would express itself through social conventions, as opposed to legal rules.
In both cases a delicate balance has to be struck, and it is possible in both cases to err in the direction of too much or too little restraint. I believe that in the social domain, the restraints that protect privacy are not in good shape. They are weakest where privacy impinges on the political domain, but the problem is broader than that.
The grasp of the public sphere and public norms has come to include too much. That is the claim I want to defend in this essay -- in a sense it is a defense of the element of restraint in a liberal social order.
Practically, it is hard to know what to do about a problem like this. Once a convention of privacy loses its grip, there is a race to the bottom by competing media of publicity. What I would like to do here is to say something about the broader phenomenon of boundaries, and to consider more particularly what would be a functional form of restraint in a culture like ours, where the general level of tolerance is high, and the portrayal of sex and other intimate matters in general terms is widely accepted -- in movies, magazines, and literature.
Knowing all that we do, what reason is there still to be reticent?I present this research report documenting the methodology and process of our endeavor towards finding a solution for our maternal health problem of high child and. Example of Justification Report.
Home / Free Essays / GET EVEN A BETTER ESSAY WE WILL WRITE A CUSTOM ESSAY SAMPLE ON Example of Justification Report TOPICS SPECIFICALLY FOR YOU.
Order now. Also, in one of its issues in by Shum and Yam, they suggest a new model that is rapidly growing called Corporate .
Introduction The conventional wisdom, including statements by the U.S. Supreme Court, has academic freedom as a legal right, derived from the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Does the necessity of self-defense leave ‘no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation’?
A home for the millions.
In the mids, NASA began to give grants to a Princeton physics professor named Gerard O’Neill. O’Neill was convinced that building colonies that orbited the Earth was the best way to harvest the mineral riches of asteroids and provide a home for the burgeoning millions of Earth.
Foundationalism. Epistemic foundationalism is a view about the proper structure of one’s knowledge or justified beliefs. Some beliefs are known or justifiably believed only because some other beliefs are known or justifiably believed.