Excel Experience

Before starting Essential Information Technology I thought that Excel would be the most difficult for me to understand. Almost everything we have gone over in class has either been new information or a needed refresher. I could not remember how to perform most tasks on Excel. Going over it in class has made me understand the program basics well. I have not had any difficultly as I imagined I might. There are many classes that use Excel for various projects so being knowledgeable about Excel will be helpful to complete projects in the future. I am not sure that I will be using Excel in "real-life", however, I would like to know how to do certain things in case the occasion arises. I love the intelligence of the program. Its capabilities are impressive and it can perform complex functions, which is very helpful. The complexities of the program can cause a struggle. One quality of Excel that can be frustrating is if data or a formula is mistyped in one place it can ruin the entire spreadsheet.

Photograph Manipulation

This photography of Oprah Winfrey was displayed on the cover of TV Guide in 1989. I chose to discuss this picture because it shows how media relates fame and wealth to attractiveness and glamor. The editors took a picture of Oprah and placed her head on the body of actress Ann-Margret from a publicity shot in 1979. Neither Oprah nor Ann-Margret gave permission for this to be done. It appears that they did not believe that Winfrey's body fit the ideal. Because they believed "the richest woman on TV" should not only be wealthy, but also attractive, they placed her face on a more ideal figure. I do not know that anyone was harmed by this particular photo, but it is still a lie. It gives people the wrong idea about how people actually look. We are tricked by the images of celebrities shown in the media into thinking that is how people are supposed to look when in reality, many of the photographs are photoshopped to make these stars appear as close to perfect as possible.

This video is a bit longer than suggested, but it explains the retouched celebrity photographs.

Ethics of Employers Searching Online Profiles

          With new Internet technologies developing employers searching online social networking profiles of potential employees is becoming more common. It is increasingly important to assure that ones online profile is kept clear of any incriminating photographs or evidence. It is a controversial debate whether or not it is ethical for employers to look into the lives of their prospects and base hiring decisions partly off of online profiles. People in search of a new job must be aware that there is a chance that employers are checking online and take necessary precautions to make sure that there is nothing online that will prevent them from being chosen for a job.

          In the discussed case, a recent college graduate was not hired at a law firm because of pictures posted on Facebook, that he was unaware of, taken his junior year at a fraternity party. Though it is legal for employers to perform these kind of investigations, I do not believe it is necessarily ethical, or reasonable at that. The graduate was confident that his interview was successful and believed that the employers thought he would be a quality person to hire. The interviews should have focused more on what they found out about the man applying for the job in the interview rather than the picture they found online. There are a large number of college students who attend parties during their college experience. I would even say it is probably a majority of students. One picture taken at a party does not mean anything about the students’ work ethic, responsibility, or competency in a career.

          In an article by Greg Fish on the business week website, he states, “With a few pictures and a strategic paragraph, a shy and quiet intern-to-be can easily make himself look like a party-hopping raver.” This is true. There is a chance that this was the only party that the potential employee attended during classes. If his resume showed that he was qualified for the job because of involvement in the school, other experience, and the grades he received, then that is what the employees should consider. Not a single photo online.

          I do believe that the man was responsible for this photo, however. It was his job to assure that his profile did not have photographs that could get him into trouble. His profile should have been set on a private setting. The friend who posted the photo is not at fault because it was not his responsibility to assure that there were not photographs of his friends. Though, it would be a good idea for him to take these pictures down because assumptions can be made about him as well. It was not necessarily ethical for him to post the pictures online in the first place. I would suggest that in the future, he set his profile so that other people who are not his “friends” cannot view it. He should also assure that no photos could be attached to him that shows him participating in illegal activity. He should ask his friend to take the pictures off of Facebook so that it will not cause future problems.

          Greg Fish also reminds us “job seekers already have to contend with background screens, drug tests, credit checks, and verification of employment history, education, and income.” If the person trying to get the job can pass these tests, a picture from the past should not have an influence on whether or not a person should get a job. He was obviously qualified and likely could have performed the job well. He missed his chance because of a photo online and that is not fair to the young man searching for a job. I do not believe that employers should base their decisions of whom they will hire off of online profiles. These are often times not representative of the person and there are more ethical and appropriate ways to discover who the person is and how they will perform in a career.

Copyright

   Today, Jason Hardin came to our EIT class to discuss copyright laws, fair use, creative commons, etc. I learned that copyright is the governments assurance to creators that we can control distribution of our work and profit from it. Some people associate copyright with plagiarism. However, copyright and plagiarism are not the same thing. Copyright deals with unauthorized copies and distribution and is a feral crime. Plagiarism is unethical and deals with taking someone else's work as your own and can only get you in academic trouble. United States copyright laws date back to 1790 and precede the Bill of Rights.
   Copyright is important to society because it encourages innovation. People have a reason to create because they do not have to worry about the security of their work with copyright laws. A copyright lasts through the authors life plus seventy years and their heirs can benefit from the author's work. A document can be called copyrighted as soon as it is in a fixed, tangible medium.
   Every computer has a unique IP address that can be traced so you are never anonymous on the internet. At Trinity students receive take down noticed when they are caught downloading or sharing any files illegally. Once you receive a take down notice you should immediately delete file sharing software and and illegal downloads.
   The technology of LimeWire, BitTorrent, Kaza, etc. is not illegal. It is the downloading and sharing that becomes a legal issue. When on YouTube you are generally safe if you are only watching streaming videos. However, when you are uploading, you must be sure that you are uploading your own content and not someone else's. When you are downloading videos from YouTube you must be careful also.
   Four things determine when usage of content is considered "fair use". Purpose of reproduction, nature of the reproduced work, amount of the reproduction, and effect on the market for the work are all involved.
   Jason Hardin also told us about Creative Commons. Creative Commons is a non-profit agency that has developed alternative copyright licenses. People can use this to copyright their material the way the want it copyrighted rather than using the inflexible Title 17.
   The case of Harper v. Maverick was also discussed. A San Antonio student, Whitney Harper, downloaded thirty seven songs illegally off of the Internet when she was seventeen. She was sued for $27,750 dollars. $750.00 per song that was illegally downloaded. She tried to claim that she was an "innocent infringer" which would have reduced her fine to $250.00 per song. However, the Supreme Court and the fifth circuit court of appeals did not let her claim this. They believed that she should have assumed copyright laws on the songs.
   I disagree with the courts decision to fine her for such a large amount of money. I do realize that Harper was in the wrong, however, it was only 37 songs and I believe this is too large of a sum to pay for a few songs. Whitney Harper was not trying to make money from the illegally downloaded songs by selling them and was not purposefully trying to do any damage to the industry. Her punishment was far to harsh for the crime.



Copyright by Alison Buck is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.