In the essay “Do government policies and laws hinder Tech Advances” by Ian Paul, two different viewpoints are expressed towards government regulations and technologies. In the essay, the parties show their awareness s of the problem of government regulation. In the following paragraphs will discuss all aspects of this issue and if government policies really hinder technological advances or protect its people.
Believe it or not, there is an app out there that is able to tell you where police DUI checkpoint are located in real time. Some people like Senator Charles Schumer believe that such apps allow drunk drivers to break the law by helping them evade police checkpoints. The senator uses pathos when he states that the apps “provide drunk drivers the tools they need to go undetected, putting innocent families and children at risk.” As you can see that really persuades people as in nature, women and children are felt for the most. Schumer believes that the government needs to step in and shut down the service.
Geno Rose, creator of DUI Dodger, one of the “Outlaw Apps”, takes a different side saying that the app does nothing more than “support the free flow of public information. His use of pathos, isn’t very convincing at all. That’s an app that clearly breaks the law. How is it different that an app that shows a criminal on the run the best places to lay low or in other words, hide.
Another issue where the question about government regulation comes in is the social media. A bill is being considered that will force all social media networks like Twitter and Facebook just to name a few, to set users’ data private as a default. This idea really gets the parents’ support because as we all know, no parent would like their child’s private life out there. There is a given that many parents will struggle to help pass that law to protect their children.
On the other side, the social network companies are in protest in opposition to stop the law being in effect. Their argument is that the bill will “violate free-speech and also damage the internet commerce industry. The group’s claim isn’t as convincing matter fact it shows a little of how these companies are there just for the money and don’t care much about the people who use their services privacy. Their statements will make the audience view them differently in an opposing way.
Another government regulation that is facing scrutiny is France’s three strikes law which terminates a user’s internet access for up to a year if others submit three copyright infringement claims against the person. The law provides protection to original works which is why it is considered persuasion claim because of its ability to give the impression of the “law being on your side.” What this translates to is that people for example might conclude that the law is successful because it keeps pirates from stealing and using other work without permission
Of course, with every claim there will be one that disagrees. In this case, the United Nation condemned the Internet three strikes law, arguing that the “Law violates international treaties on human rights. This claim I’m afraid isn’t as successful in attracting people on its side because is weak in persuading. There are many people who will think of the law as a just punishment.
A result of the government not interfering and regulating is the use of untested medical equipment and or medical Implants on patients. Implants such as metal hips, lap bands, and surgical mesh have either been given a minimum testing or no testing at all. The patients were ones who suffer the consequences as a result of the pain that is caused by those dangerous products which kept getting worse every day. As doctor Stephen Tower explained, “The (device manufactures) took advantage of a loop hole in the law that allowed them to grandfather their products without any advance testing.” The makers of the dangerous products on the other side argue that the devices or implants are “substantially equivalent to the other” on the market. Their testimony isn’t believed by the people because there are all these people who used or are using the product complaining about their experience with the product and the complications it presented which is just enough to make the manufactures claim un- persuasive.
Dr. Stephen Tower draws another claim stating that “if you have a problem with a drug, you can stop taking it, but you can’t do that for a device implanted in your body.” His claim is really effective in persuading people. He uses a technique that that creates fear in the consumers-pathos. People will “stop taking the implant”, he concludes.
The manufacturers again deny the facts and as always make up excuses to convince the consumers that their products are safe. They draw claims such as, “this is made up. We haven’t any of this.” This kind of claim shows that companies are hiding and if they want to be on the public’s side, they should some kind of compensation and or at least a recall.
In conclusion, it is obvious that a problem exists when it comes to government regulations and the essays, the involved parties disagree with each other. Different situation are proposed. I believe that the proposition for a strong regulation is more effective compared to the party who oppose gov’t interference. The party who proposed that regulation is required showed that they care for the well-being of the people and not just make money. At the end, what we need is someone to step in and fight for the people in this free world.