Critical Thinking, Ethics, and Civic Responsibility

One scenario of software theft is called "softlifting." This is where someone buys an application with a cd key and shares it with all his friends despite the terms on the license. This is illegal because the friends would receive a free copy of the application. Another scenario of software theft is called "software counterfeit." This is where someone would make copies of an application and sell them as if they were legitimate.

Softlifting happens to businesses a lot because they will often pass out more copies of an application than their license has agreed to. If they get caught for this they could get in some trouble because most software is protected by federal copyright laws. To ensure that a business never gets caught for this they should keep a log for when they purchase new software, educate their employees, and record when employees ask for software.

Software counterfeiting is normally done when someone takes a real copy of the software and puts it in a cd burner creating illegal copies of the software. If you get caught doing this you can face jail time and huge fines. Individuals can face up to $93,000 in fines and up to five years of jail time.

In the end its nearly impossible to get caught for most types of software theft, but when someone does get caught the punishment can be severe. In my opinion software punishment should be the same as if someone was getting caught for shoplifting. If someone steals a copy of windows and shares it with someone that should be the same as someone stealing $300 worth of goods from a store. In reality the punishment for software theft is a lot more severe.

"Counterfeit Software." Webopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. .

"Types of Software Piracy." | SafeNet. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. .

"Are You €˜softlifting?€™." Business Management Daily RSS. N.p., 26 Nov. 2012. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. .

Critical Thinking, Ethics, and Civic Responsibility

Overcrowding in prisons and jails is a problem that the United States and other countries have been working on for awhile. Operating budgets have been cut as well so jails and prisons receive less money than they used to. Each year incarcerated people cost the tax payers approximately 27.5 billion dollars a year.

To reduce California's jail and prison population they created a bill that reduced the sentence for low level drug offenses. Now instead of going to a state prison for up to three years the person getting charged would have to spend up to a year in a county jail.

Another idea that has been put out there is to privatize jails and prisons. By doing this the government would save a lot of money while private companies make money. The downside to this is that security may not be the best since it may not be up to government standards. It would be hard to see what happens inside a private prison since the inmates could be treated unfairly, and it may not be as safe from escapes and hostage situations.

"Jail Overcrowding." Jail Overcrowding. N.p., n.d. Web. .

"A Simple Solution to the Serious Problem of Prison Overcrowding." Ella Baker Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. .

"Criminal Justice: Pros & Cons of Prison Privatization: Ashworth College Community." Recent Posts. N.p., n.d. Web. 26 Nov. 2012. .

Critical thinking, Ethics, and Civic Responsibility

Is monitoring in public locations a problem? Since the events of 9/11 the surveillance of public spaces has taken on a greater importance and urgency. Some large cities have integrated complex networks of cameras on almost ever street corner, public transit, classroom, and even businesses. On one hand the surveillance cameras would be a huge deterrent for crime, but they have no way to actually stop crimes and the cameras may be considered invading one's privacy.

The University of Minnesota website shows that it is for monitoring in public areas. Students from the school actually set up cameras across a bus stop and found that criminals doing illegal activities were likely to show up to the scene of the crime on future days. Having cameras up in public areas is a huge deterrent to crime and I believe that it is not an invasion to privacy because it's in a public place (UMN.)

On the debate website the people who are against monitoring in public areas mainly say it is because it is an invasion of the privacy of law-abiding citizens. They also say that who ever is controlling the cameras could abuse the system. The cameras that are installed are also not very good cameras and the pictures turn out very blurry (Debate.)

I am for monitoring in public areas because the good things outweigh the bad ones. Crime can be very bad in certain parts of the cities and having a camera there would not only catch the criminals but also keep the streets safer. It is true that most people are law abiding and do not need to be watched on cameras but I personally do not think it is a big deal and choose safety over privacy.

Sources:
"Publications:." Monitoring Activity in Public Places. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2012. .

"Public Surveillance Pros and Cons." Yahoo! Contributor Network. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2012. .

"Society Opinions." Are Video Surveillance Cameras in Public Places a Good Idea? – Debate.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 Nov. 2012. .