Question No. 1 Several Super Markets, Hyper Stores, Shops or Grocery Stores char

Question

Question No. 1

Several Super Markets, Hyper Stores, Shops or Grocery Stores charge customers with different prices for the same product. For example, a customer who has a “loyalty card” pays a lower price; while the one who does not have a card pays a higher price for the same item.

a. Would it be fair for any Store or Shop to charge customers with no “Loyalty Cards” more for the same item? Explain your reasoning. Also, give your opinion about how these “Loyalty Programs/Cards” should be designed for the customers.

b. Some customers share their personal information (ex. Cell phone numbers) when they apply for loyalty cards. Is this wrong? Why or why not? Give reasons for both “why” and “why not.” Question No. 2:

What are the privacy and its benefits?

Question No. 3:

There are four different ways in which individuals and organizations protect their intellectual property, list them and explain in details each one

Explanation / Answer

QUESTION 2:

To analysis, "arrangements" and "scientific classifications." separating security into six sorts (which he notes "regularly cover"). These six are less regulating or recommended explanatory classifications as they are ones generally utilized as a part of protection examination:

the privilege to be let alone–Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis' celebrated detailing of the privilege to protection;

constrained access to the self–the capacity to shield oneself from undesirable access by others;

secrecy–the disguise of specific matters from others;

control over individual information–the capacity to practice control over data around oneself;

personhood–the assurance of one's identity, distinction, and respect; and

intimacy–control over, or constrained access to, one's personal connections or parts of life.

1. The Right to Be Let Alone

This profoundly persuasive class originates from Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis' 1890 law survey article, "The Right to Privacy," and "perspectives protection as a kind of insusceptibility or segregation" . Warren and Brandeis were reacting to the development of an undeniably obtrusive and quick moving press by trying to exhibit how conventional precedent-based law torts could be judiciously reached out to cover this new circumstance, without presenting any drastically new ideas.

In spite of the fact that it appears to stress strategic distance, it entirely comprises "of a case for state impedance as lawful insurance against different people" . In many regards, particularly as verbalized to manage the circumstance of intrusive news coverage, it keeps running into potential First Amendment clashes that require, at any rate, adjusting.

2. Restricted Access to the Self

The purpose of this perspective of privacy–closely identified with the previous–is to permit "each man to hush up about his undertakings" and "perceives the individual's craving for camouflage and for being separated from others," yet it "is not proportional to isolation [nor] of withdrawal from different people" . Adroitly, one defect with this view is that it gives little direction "with regards to the level of get to important to constitute a security infringement". It likewise does not obviously show who chooses: is it about me choosing what get to others have to my self? On the other hand is there a kind of total or widespread standard that can be brought into play

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse Q
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.