Marriage Is A Union By Ann Walker - 1182 Words

Marriage is a union many Americans hope to enter in their life. While some marriages last a lifetime, some sadly end in divorce. I got the honor to interview a lovely couple who have been married twenty-five years and are still standing strong today. Ann walker age fifty and Nelson walker age 56 are two African American Macon residents who say they found love at first sight. At age twenty-one Ann meet Nelson in a downtown club called Grant’s Lounge in Macon and from there it was history. Four years later they got married on August 14th, 1991. The walker family consists of four boys and two girls. Ann and nelson had two boys together while married. The rest of the children came from previous relationships of both parents; one son from Ann and two sons and two daughters from Nelson. Ranging from age: The walker’s are a middle class family and now live together with just two of their sons now. Their marriage consist of an income-pooling marriage, they share all their exp enses and take care of all the bills together. You could say that they never have time apart, they are always together. Neither Ann nor Nelson work. Ann gets social security while Nelson gets unemployment because he got hurt on a job at an early age. When it comes to their parenting style of how they raised the kids Neither parent whoops the youngest child, they say they don’t believe in giving whippings but I guess that now only applies to the youngest child because they did indeed whoop the other kids. IShow MoreRelatedScott Walker Controversial 2011 Budget Proposal Eliminate Most Collective Rights For Wisconsin State Employees1240 Words   |  5 Pages Abstract Scott Walker controversial 2011 budget proposal eliminate most collective rights for Wisconsin state employees. He is the first governor to win a recall election. Scott walker was reelected the seat of Wisconsin State Assembly. Scott Walker: The Withdraw Tell about his life while he was young. Describe Scott Walker 2011 budget proposal. Information about the college he went to then tell how he became a governor and became a presidential candidate. Tell you about the why he withdrawnRead MoreA Black (And White) Wedding: Traditional Filipino and Spanish Marriage Ceremonies1315 Words   |  6 PagesA Black (And White) Wedding: Traditional Filipino and Spanish Marriage Ceremonies The concept of marriage has existed in nearly all human cultures throughout history, though its participants, basis, and goals have varied a great deal. Still, in almost all modern societies it is seen as a person’s most important relationship and the foundation of family. Therefore, it is not surprising that weddings, the celebration of marriage, are treated as important, milestone events in countries around theRead More Domestic Violence in Lesbian Relationships Essay4770 Words   |  20 Pagesand the changes taking place in the Soviet Union have happened too recently to predict whether the forces that move nations toward democracy will prevail. One third of the worlds nations practiced torture between 1980 and 1986. It is estimated that world military expenditures in 1986 were $850 billion (Harpers Index Book). The top three countries in the world in per capita percentage of their population in prison in 1985, and in order, are the Soviet Union, South Africa and the U.S. I n 1985, sixty-nineRead MoreStrategic Human Resource Management View.Pdf Uploaded Successfully133347 Words   |  534 Pagesproduction manager at sports gear maker K2 (No. 52), who gushes about the opportunity to work on as many as 25 projects at a time. â€Å"When you get used to a certain level of freedom and excitement, you don’t want to leave.† In fact, none of Williams’ three marriages has lasted as long as his 28-year career with the company. â€Å"One wife told me it was either K2 or me. And I said, ‘Well, I’m not leaving K2!’ †58 Page 36 STRATEGIC HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Section One Practices Providing Work Life Balance Read MoreHuman Resources Management150900 Words   |  604 Pagesother racial/ethnic groups. Seventy percent of all women with children under age six are in the workforce, and 60% of all women with children under age three are working. Both men and women are marrying at later ages, with the median age of first marriage for men about 27 and for women about 24. A majority of both men and women aged 18 to 24 still live with their parents or are considered dependents. The decline of the traditional family and the increasing numbers of dualcareer couples and workingRead MoreOne Significant Change That Has Occurred in the World Between 1900 and 2005. Explain the Impact This Change Has Made on Our Lives and Why It Is an Important Change.163893 Words   |  656 Pageswhat we choose to call centuries are almost invariably years of little significance. But there is little agreement over when the twentieth century c.e. arrived, and there were several points both before the year 2000 (the collapse of the Soviet Union, the reunification of Germany, the surge of globalization from the mid-1990s) and afterward (9/11, or the global recession of 2008) when one could quite plausibly argue that a new era had begun. A compelling case can be made for viewing the decadesRead MoreDuty of Care Essay33461 Words   |  134 PagesThis suggestion was taken by HoL in Anns v Merton London Borough, Lord Wilberforce said the matter should be approached in two stages , 1st whether there was sufficient degree of proximity of relationship or neighbourhood that it should be in D’s reasonable contemplation that his carelessness may cause harm to the C. 2ndly it is necessary to consider whether there are any other consideration which which ought to negative or reduce the duty. Commentary on ANNS: it is really appreciable that LordRead MoreManagement Course: Mba−10 General Management215330 Words   |  862 Pagessustaining profitability today. Pacesetter companies are increasingly moving to manage and lead their organizations in these terms. For example, consider the continuously strong performance of longterm business powerhouses as diverse as General Electric, Union Pacific, and Wal-Mart. Moreover, the successful confluence of this kind of management with technology sends a similar message when one gets equally deeply into highly fluctuating markets and businesses ranging from Intel to Feigenbaum−Feigenbaum:Read MoreDeveloping Management Skills404131 Words   |  1617 PagesAttempts 304 SKILL ANALYSIS 310 Case Involving Power and Influence 310 River Woods Plant Manager 310 SKILL PRACTICE 311 Exercise for Gaining Power 311 Repairing Power Failures in Management Circuits 311 Exercise for Using Influence Effectively 312 Ann Lyman’s Proposal 313 Exercises for Neutralizing Unwanted Influence Attempts 314 Cindy’s Fast Foods 314 9:00 to 7:30 315 x CONTENTS SKILL APPLICATION 317 Activities for Gaining Power and Influence Suggested Assignments 317 Application Plan and EvaluationRead MoreStephen P. Robbins Timothy A. Judge (2011) Organizational Behaviour 15th Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall393164 Words   |  1573 PagesClint Relyea, Arkansas State University Herbert Ricardo, Indian River Community College David Ritchey, University of Texas at Dallas Chris Roberts, University of Massachusetts Amherst Sherry Robinson, Pennsylvania State University Hazleton Christopher Ann Robinson-Easley, Governors State University Joe Rode, Miami University Bob Roller, LeTourneau University Andrea Roofe, Florida International University Craig Russell, University of Oklahoma at Norman Manjula Salimath, University of North Texas Mary

What can David do about his position in relation to the other partners Free Essays

Introduction In considering what rights David has in respect of the other partners, it will first need to be determined whether a partnership has actually been created. For a partnership to be created two or more persons must conduct business with a view to profit. Partnerships are defined under s. We will write a custom essay sample on What can David do about his position in relation to the other partners? or any similar topic only for you Order Now 1(1) Partnership Act (PA) 1890 as a â€Å"relation subsisting between persons carrying on business in common with a view of profit†. Since David, Clive and Jane have all started a business in advertising with a view to profit; it is evident that a partnership has been created. As a partnership agreement has not been created by the partners, the partnership will be governed by the PA 1890. David will thus be able to rely on the PA 1890 in order to establish his rights and duties. It is contained within s. 19 PA 1890 that â€Å"the mutual rights and duties of partners whether ascertained by agreement or defined by this Act may be varied by the consent of all of the partners, and such consent may be either express or inferred from a course of dealing†.[1] Therefore, the rights and duties of David will have been capable of being varied with the mutual consent of all the partners. As the partners do not have a partnership agreement in place, it is clear that they have not v aried the terms of their rights and duties that are contained under the Act. Given that a partnership is based upon the mutual trust of all the partners, they each owe a duty of good faith. This has been exemplified in the case of Const v Harris[2] when it was held by Lord Eldon that; â€Å"in all partnerships, whether it is expressed in the deed or not, the partners are bound to be true and faithful to each other†. Therefore, each partner must be required to act in the interests of the partnership as a whole and not in the interests of themselves. As Jane is a director of a company that runs corporate events, called Eventbright Ltd, which has been regularly used by the partners, it is questionable whether Jane is acting in the interests of the partnership. This is because Jane may only be using Eventbright Ltd in order to increase profits in her own company. This can be seen in Trimble v Goldberg[3] where it was made clear that all partners must act in good faith for the benefit of the partnership. There are three requirements that must be fulfilled by the partners when acting in good faith of the partnership. These are; 1) the duty to disclose information, 2) the duty to account for benefits received, and 3) the duty in respect of competing business.[4] Whether the latter two duties are being fulfilled by Jane is debatable. This is because Jane may be benefiting from using her company to which she is a director in order to gain profits (s. 29 PA 1890) and her company may be considered a competing business (s. 30 PA 1890). If this is the case, Jane will be required to disclose this information to the other partners and must account for and pay over to the firm all profits made by her. In respect of the restrictions Jane and Clive want to impose upon David’s work, it is likely that David will be able to assert his rights contained under s. 24 PA 1890. Here, it provided that; every partner may take part in the business (24(5)) and that decisions are to be taken by a majority but unanimity is required to change the nature of the business (24(8)). David may therefore take part in the business, yet because Jane and Clive have suggested he take a more administrative role, it is arguable whether this will be sufficient. This is because Clive and Jane will be capable of making a majority decision as to how the business is being run, although they cannot change the nature o f the business without David’s consent. In effect, David may not be able to oppose the decision that is being made by Clive and Jane as they will be able to take a majority vote as to how they think the business should be run. And, if they feel that it is in the best interests of the business, then David may not have any right to argue against this unless they acted in bad faith or attempted to change the nature of the business. If David is not happy with the new arrangements, he may be capable of bringing the partnership to an end. This can be done by giving notice to the other partners (s. 26 and 32 PA 1890). If David decides to bring the partnership to an end, any partner will have the right to publicly notify the dissolution (s. 37 PA 1890). After the partnership has been dissolved, each partner will be entitled to have the partnership property applied so that the debts and liabilities can be discharged. Once this has been done, any surplus will be distributed equally between the partners. Because not all property is partnership property, a distinction will have to be made between personal and partnership property as personal property will not be able to help meet partnership debts (s. 20 PA 1890). Overall, it seems as though David may not be able to oppose the decision of Clive and Jane to restrict his work to more clerical and administrative matters. If David is not happy with this decision he may be able to bring the partnership to an end by giving notice to the partners. Once this has been done, the partnership property will be distributed equally between all three partners. What is the partnership propertyWhy does it matter? The amount of money and property the partners have contributed to the partnership to use in the enterprise is known as partnership capital.[5] This represents the partner’s equity in the partnership and has noted in Reed v Young[6]; â€Å"The capital of a partnership is the aggregate of the contributions made by the partners. It is important to distinguish between the capital of a partnership, a fixed sum, on the one hand and its assets, which may vary from day to day and include everything belonging to the firm having any money value, on the other.† Partnership capital is thereby distinguished from partnership property which is the property that has been acquired by the partnership. This includes a transfer of property to; a) the partnership in its name, b) one of the partners in their capacity as partnership, or c) one of the partners indicating their capacity as a partner.[7] It is vital that partners indicate their intent as to whether the property is to be consider ed capital or property as this will determine who is entitled to the property once the partnership is dissolved. If the property is partnership capital, then the individuals will be entitled to take their share of the property.[8] If the property is partnership property, then the property will be distributed equally between the partners. As pointed out by Lord Andrews LCJ in McClelland v Hyde[9]; â€Å"the capital of a partnership is something different from its property or its assets†. 20(1) PA 1890 states that partnership property includes â€Å"property originally brought into the partnership stock or acquired for the purposes and in the course of the partnership business†. It is important for partners to specify what property belongs to whom in order to avoid any undesirable consequences. The original owners of the property may not be entitled to recover the property in the event that the partnership comes to an end.[10] On the insolvency or bankruptcy of a partnership, there are two sets of creditors; joint and separate. The partnerships assets are referred to as the â€Å"joint estate† in the Insolvency Act 1986 (as amended by the Insolvent Partnerships Order 1994 (SI 1994 2421)) and are used in the first instance to pay the partnerships creditors. If an asset increases in value, the increase will belong to the firm if the asset is partnership property. If the asset is owned by the individual partner, then the increase will belong to the individu al.[11] As a partnership does not have its own separate legal entity, partnerships cannot own property in its own name. Instead, partnership property will be held in the names of the individual partners who will be deemed to be holding the property in their names as agents for the purposes of, and as trustees for, the partnership as shown in Burdick v Garrick[12] where property held on trust for the partners was considered partnership property. There is also a presumption, unless expressly stated otherwise, that partnership property is held by partners as tenants’ in common and not as joint tenants (except for land; s. 39(4) Law of Property Act 1925). This was evidenced in Bathhurst v Scarborough[14] when it was noted that the general rule is that property bought with partnership money belongs to the partnership and will be held by the partners as tenants in common. The accounts of the partnership will usually make it clear which assets are to be considered partnership property and which assets are merely individual property that is to be used by the partnership as in Barton v Morris[15] where it was clear from the partnership’s accounts which assets were to be treated as partnership and individual property. In the instant scenario it would appear as though the office equipment and stationary is partnership property, whilst the rest of the partner’s assets are personal property. However, because there i s no partnership agreement in place that specifies which separates the assets between ‘partnership property’ and ‘partnership capital’ it seems as though s. 20(1) PA 1890 will apply. This means that all of the property that has been brought into the partnership stock will also be called partnership property. This has been recognised by Deards who stated that; â€Å"property brought into the partnership stock will cover property brought in as capital by a partner†.[16] Nevertheless, because s.21 of PA 1890 provides that property brought with the partnership’s money is presumed to have been brought for the partnership, any property that is itemised in the partnerships accounts will be deemed partnership property. This suggests that if the property is not itemised in the partnerships accounts and is merely being used by the partnership, then in the absence of any agreement by the partners, the use of any property by the partners will not be regar ded as partnership property.[17] Consequently, if any of the assets are not itemised in the partnerships accounts it cannot be said that they will be classed as partnership property. In Waterer v Waterer[18], however, the use of land was considered partnership property because of the nature of the partnership. In effect, unless David’s assets are itemised in the partnerships accounts, they will not be considered partnership property. The premises by which the company operates will most likely be considered partnership property in light of the Waterer v Waterer[19] case, whilst the use of Eventbright Ltd will not be. Any assets that are considered partnership property will be shared equally between the partners. Bibliography Books E Deards., Practice Notes on Partnership Law, (Cavendish Publishing, Business Economics, 1999). E MacIntyre., Business Law, (Essex: Pearson, 6th Edition, 2012). R Mann., Essentials of Business Law and the Legal Environment, (London: Cengage Learning, Business Economics, 2009). Journals K Killington., ‘Partnerships – All Are Equal?’ (2008) Tax Journal, Issue 916, 14-16. P Beasang., ‘Partnerships: Legal Issues’ (2008) Tax Journal, Issue 916, 13-14. T M Lewin., ‘What is Partnership Property?’ (2011) http://www.icaew.com/en/technical/farming-and-rural-business/general/what-is-partnership-property [25 July, 2014]. Legislation Partnership Act 1890 Case Law Barton v Morris [1985] 1 WLR 1257 Bathhurst v Scarborough [2004] EWCA Civ 411 Brown v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1965] AC 244 Burdick v Garrick (1869-1870) LR 5 Ch App 233 Const v Harris (1924) Turn R 496 McClelland v Hyde [1997] 3 All ER 800, CA Reed v Young [1984] STC 38, 57-58 Trimble v Goldberg [1906] AC 494, PC Waterer v Waterer (1872-73) 15 LR Eq 402 How to cite What can David do about his position in relation to the other partners?, Essay examples

Internet Argumentative Essay Example For Students

Internet Argumentative Essay Computer Science Government Intervention of the Internet During the past decade, our society has become based solely on the ability to move large amounts of information across large distances quickly. Computerization has influenced everyones life. The natural evolution of computers and this need for ultra-fast communications has caused a global network of interconnected computers to develop. This global net allows a person to send E-mail across the world in mere fractions of a second, and enables even the common person to access information world-wide. With advances such as software that allows users with a sound card to use the Internet as a carrier for long distance voice calls and video conferencing, this network is key to the future of the knowledge society. At present, this net is the epitome of the first amendment: free speech. It is a place where people can speak their mind without being reprimanded for what they say, or how they choose to say it. The key to the world-wide suc cess of the Internet is its protection of free speech, not only in America, but in other countries where free speech is not protected by a constitution. To be found on the Internet is a huge collection of obscene graphics, Anarchists cookbooks and countless other things that offend some people. With over 30 million Internet users in the U.S. alone (only 3 million of which surf the net from home), everything is bound to offend someone. The newest wave of laws floating through law making bodies around the world threatens to stifle this area of spontaneity. Recently, Congress has been considering passing laws that will make it a crime punishable by jail to send vulgar language over the net, and to export encryption software. No matter how small, any attempt at government intervention in the Internet will stifle the greatest communication innovation of this century. The government wants to maintain control over this new form of communication, and they are trying to use the protection of children as a smoke screen to pass laws that will allow them to regulate and censor the Internet, while banning techniques that could eliminate the need for regulation. Censorship of the Internet threatens to destroy its freelance atmosphere, while wide spread encryption could help prevent the need for government intervention. The current body of laws existing today in America does not apply well to the Internet. Is the Internet like a bookstore, where servers cannot be expected to review every title? Is it like a phone company who must ignore what it carries because of privacy? Is it like a broadcasting medium, where the government monitors what is broadcast? The trouble is that the Internet can be all or none of these things depending on how its used. The Internet cannot be viewed as one type of transfer medium under current broadcast definitions. The Internet differs from broadcasting media in that one cannot just happen upon a vulgar site without first entering a complicated ad dress, or following a link from another source. The Internet is much more like going into a book store and choosing to look at adult magazines. (Miller 75). Jim Exon, a democratic senator from Nebraska, wants to pass a decency bill regulating the Internet. If the bill passes, certain commercial servers that post pictures of unclad beings, like those run by Penthouse or Playboy, would of course be shut down immediately or risk prosecution. The same goes for any amateur web site that features nudity, sex talk, or rough language. Posting any dirty words in a Usenet discussion group, which occurs routinely, could make one liable for a $50,000 fine and six months in jail. Even worse, if a magazine that commonly runs some of those nasty words in its pages, The New Yorker for instance, decided to post its contents on-line, its leaders would be held responsible for a $100,000 fine and two years in jail. Why does it suddenly become illegal to post something that has been legal for years in p rint? Exons bill apparently would also criminalize private mail, I can call my brother on the phone and say anythingbut if I say it on the Internet, its illegal (Levy 53). Congress, in their pursuit of regulations, seems to have overlooked the fact that the majority of the adult material on the Internet comes from overseas. Although many U.S. government sources helped fund Arpanet, the predecessor to the Internet, they no longer control it. Many of the new Internet technologies, including the World Wide Web, have come from overseas. There is no clear boundary between information held in the U.S. and information stored in other countries. Data held in foreign computers is just as accessible as data in America, all it takes is the click of a mouse to access. Even if our government tried to regulate the Internet, we have no control over what is posted in other countries, and we have no practical way to stop it. The Internets predecessor was originally designed to uphold communications after a nuclear attack by rerouting data to compensate for destroyed telephone lines and servers. Todays Internet still works on a similar design. The very nature this design allows the Internet to overcome any kind of barriers put in its way. If a major line between two servers, say in two countries, is cut, then the Internet users will find another way around this obstacle. This obstacle avoidance makes it virtually impossible to separate an entire nation from indecent information in other countries. If it was physically possible to isolate Americas computers from the rest of the world, it would be devastating to our economy. Recently, a major university attempted to regulate what types of Internet access its students had, with results reminiscent of a 1960s protest. A research associate at Carnegie Mellon University conducted a study of pornography on the schools computer networks. Martin Rimm put together quite a large picture collection (917,410 images) and he also tracked how often each image had been downloaded (a total of 6.4 million). Pictures of similar content had recently been declared obscene by a local court, and the school feared they might be held responsible for the content of its network. The school administration quickly removed access to all these pictures, and to the newsgroups where most of this obscenity is suspected to come from. A total of 80 newsgroups were removed, causing a large disturbance among the student body, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, all of whom felt this was unconstitutional. After only half a week, the college had backed down, and restored the newsgroups. This is a tiny example of what may happen if the government tries to impose censorship (Elmer-Dewitt 102). Currently, there is software being released that promises to block childrens access to known X-rated Internet newsgroups and sites. However, since most adults rely on their computer literate children to setup these pr ograms, the children will be able to find ways around them. This mimics real life, where these children would surely be able to get their hands on an adult magazine. Regardless of what types of software or safeguards are used to protect the children of the Information age, there will be ways around them. This necessitates the education of the children to deal with reality. Altered views of an electronic world translate easily into altered views of the real world. When it comes to our children, censorship is a far less important issue than good parenting. We must teach our kids that the Internet is a extension and a reflection of the real world, and we have to show them how to enjoy the good things and avoid the bad things. This isnt the governments responsibility. Its ours (Miller 76). Not all restrictions on electronic speech are bad. Most of the major on-line communication companies have restrictions on what their users can say. They must respect their customers privacy, however. Private E-mail content is off limits to them, but they may act swiftly upon anyone who spouts obscenities in a public forum. Self regulation by users and servers is the key to avoiding government imposed intervention. Many on-line sites such as Playboy and Penthouse have started to regulated themselves. Both post clear warnings that adult content lies ahead and lists the countries where this is illegal. The film and videogame industries subject themselves to ratings, and if Internet users want to avoid government imposed regulations, then it is time they begin to regulate themselves. It all boils down to protecting children from adult material, while protecting the first amendment right to free speech between adults. Government attempts to regulate the Internet are not just limited to obscenity and vulgar language, it also reaches into other areas, such as data encryption. By nature, the Internet is an insecure method of transferring data. A single E-mail packet may pass through hun dreds of computers from its source to destination. At each computer, there is the chance that the data will be archived and someone may intercept that data. Credit card numbers are a frequent target of hackers. Encryption is a means of encoding data so that only someone with the proper key can decode it. Why do you need PGP (encryption)? Its personal. Its private. And its no ones business but yours. You may be planning a political campaign, discussing our taxes, or having an illicit affair. Or you may be doing something that you feel shouldnt be illegal, but is. Whatever it is, you dont want your private electronic mail (E-mail) or confidential documents read by anyone else. Theres nothing wrong with asserting your privacy. Privacy is as apple-pie as the Constitution. Perhaps you think your E-mail is legitimate enough that encryption is unwarranted. If you really are a law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide, then why dont you always send your paper mail on postcards? Why not submi t to drug testing on demand? Why require a warrant for police searches of your house? Are you trying to hide something? You must be a subversive or a drug dealer if you hide your mail inside envelopes. Or maybe a paranoid nut. Do law-abiding citizens have any need to encrypt their E-mail? What if everyone believed that law-abiding citizens should use postcards for their mail? If some brave soul tried to assert his privacy by using an envelope for his mail, it would draw suspicion. Perhaps the authorities would open his mail to see what hes hiding. Fortunately, we dont live in that kind of world, because everyone protects most of their mail with envelopes. So no one draws suspicion by asserting their privacy with an envelope. Theres safety in numbers. Analogously, it would be nice if everyone routinely used encryption for all their E-mail, innocent or not, so that no one drew suspicion by asserting their E-mail privacy with encryption. Think of it as a form of solidarity (Zimmerman). Until the development of the Internet, the U.S. government controlled most new encryption techniques. With the development of faster home computers and a worldwide web, they no longer hold control over encryption. New algorithms have been discovered that are reportedly uncrackable even by the FBI and the NSA. This is a major concern to the government because they want to maintain the ability to conduct wiretaps, and other forms of electronic surveillance into the digital age. To stop the spread of data encryption software, the U.S. government has imposed very strict laws on its exportation. One very well known example of this is the PGP (Pretty Good Privacy) scandal. PGP was written by Phil Zimmerman, and is based on public key encryption. This system uses complex algorithms to produce two codes, one for encoding and one for decoding. To send an encoded message to someone, a copy of that persons public key is needed. The sender uses this public key to encrypt the data, and the reci pient uses their private key to decode the message. As Zimmerman was finishing his program, he heard about a proposed Senate bill to ban cryptography. This prompted him to release his program for free, hoping that it would become so popular that its use could not be stopped. One of the original users of PGP posted it to an Internet site, where anyone from any country could download it, causing a federal investigator to begin investigating Phil for violation of this new law. As with any new technology, this program has allegedly been used for illegal purposes, and the FBI and NSA are believed to be unable to crack this code. When told about the illegal uses of him programs, Zimmerman replies: If I had invented an automobile, and was told that criminals used it to rob banks, I would feel bad, too. But most people agree the benefits to society that come from automobiles taking the kids to school, grocery shopping and such outweigh their drawbacks. (Levy 56). Currently, PGP can be dow nloaded from MIT. They have a very complicated system that changes the location on the software to be sure that they are protected. All that needs to be done is click YES to four questions dealing with exportation and use of the program, and it is there for the taking. This seems to be a lot of trouble to protect a program from spreading that is already world wide. The government wants to protect their ability to legally wiretap, but what good does it do them to stop encryption in foreign countries? They cannot legally wiretap someone in another country, and they sure cannot ban encryption in the U.S. The government has not been totally blind to the need for encryption. For nearly two decades, a government sponsored algorithm, Data Encryption Standard (DES), has been used primarily by banks. The government always maintained the ability to decipher this code with their powerful supercomputers. Now that new forms of encryption have been devised that the government cant decipher, they are proposing a new standard to replace DES. This new standard is called Clipper, and is based on the public key algorithms. Instead of software, Clipper is a microchip that can be incorporated into just about anything (Television, Telephones, etc.). This algorithm uses a much longer key that is 16 million times more powerful than DES. It is estimated that todays fastest computers would take 400 billion years to break this code using every possible key. (Lehrer 378). The catch: At the time of manufacture, each Clipper chip will be loaded with its own unique key, and the Government gets to keep a copy, placed in escrow. Not to worry, though the Government promises that they will use these keys to read your traffic only when duly authorized by law. Of course, to make Clipper completely effective, the next logical step would be to outlaw other forms of cryptography (Zimmerman). If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws will have privacy. Intelligence agencies have access to good cryptograph ic technology. So do the big arms and drug traffickers. So do defense contractors, oil companies, and other corporate giants. But ordinary people and grassroots political organizations mostly have not had access to affordable military grade public-key cryptographic technology. Until now. PGP empowers people to take their privacy into their own hands. Theres a growing social need for it. Thats why I wrote it (Zimmerman). The most important benefits of encryption have been conveniently overlooked by the government. If everyone used encryption, there would be absolutely no way that an innocent bystander could happen upon something they choose not to see. Only the intended receiver of the data could decrypt it (using public key cryptography, not even the sender can decrypt it) and view its contents. Each coded message also has an encrypted signature verifying the senders identity. The senders secret key can be used to encrypt an enclosed signature message, thereby signing it. This creat es a digital signature of a message, which the recipient (or anyone else) can check by using the senders public key to decrypt it. This proves that the sender was the true originator of the message, and that the message has not been subsequently altered by anyone else, because the sender alone possesses the secret key that made that signature. Forgery of a signed message is infeasible, and the sender cannot later disavow his signature(Zimmerman). Gone would be the hate mail that causes many problems, and gone would be the ability to forge a document with someone elses address. The government, if it did not have alterior motives, should mandate encryption, not outlaw it. As the Internet continues to grow throughout the world, more governments may try to impose their views onto the rest of the world through regulations and censorship. It will be a sad day when the world must adjust its views to conform to that of the most prudish regulatory government. If too many regulations are inac ted, then the Internet as a tool will become nearly useless, and the Internet as a mass communication device and a place for freedom of mind and thoughts, will become non existent. The users, servers, and parents of the world must regulate themselves, so as not to force government regulations that may stifle the best communication instrument in history. If encryption catches on and becomes as widespread as Zimmerman predicts it will, then there will no longer be a need for the government to meddle in the Internet, and the biggest problem will work itself out. The government should rethink its approach to the censorship and encryption issues, allowing the Internet to continue to grow and mature. Works Cited Emler-Dewitt, Philip. Censoring Cyberspace: Carnegie Mellons Attempt to Ban Sex from its Campus Computer Network Sends A Chill Along the Info Highway. Time 21 Nov. 1994; 102-105. Lehrer, Dan. The Secret Sharers: Clipper Chips and Cypherpunks. The Nation 10 Oct. 1994; 376-379. Let the Internet Backlash Begin. Advertising Age 7 Nov. 1994; 24. Levy, Steven. The Encryption Wars: is Privacy Good or Bad? Newsweek 24 Apr. 1995; 55-57. Miller, Michael. Cybersex Shock. PC Magazine 10 Oct. 1995; 75-76. Wilson, David. The Internet goes Crackers. Education Digest May 1995; 33-36. Zimmerman, Phil. (1995). Pretty Good Privacy v2.62, Online. Available Ftp: net-dist.mit.edu Directory: pub/pgp/dist File: Pgp262dc.zip Words/ Pages : 3,044 / 24 What is Art? Argumentative Essay