Information Technology Acts Paper
Information Technology Acts Paper
John Don
BIS/220
February 11, 2013
Harry Porter
The two Acts discussed in this paper are the Video Privacy Protection Act (1988), and the Controlling the Assault of Non-solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act, (2003). These two acts were both enacted because along with the development of technology new issues arose in which no legal precedence had yet been established. These Acts were also both created nearly immediately after it was realized that there was a need for them. According to "Video Privacy Protection Act" (n.d.), “The origin of the VPPA was the ill-fated nomination hearings for Judge Robert Bork in 1988. Bork's Washington, DC-area video store gave Bork's rental records to a reporter for the Washington City Paper, a local newspaper. The paper published the records likely in an attempt to embarrass Bork, but succeeded more in scaring Congress into enacting protective legislation.” Clearly the precedence for the need of this Act was dependant on videocassette technology. Before then obviously there was no need to protect rental history data that did not exist. Without the protections provided by this act, you can see how rental history data, which is private and personal information, could be potentially embarrassing or even damaging to a person’s reputation. Ethically it is important that people’s privacy is protected from individuals whom seek to harm or profit from releasing such information publicly.
The Controlling the Assault of Non-solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act, (2003) was created because of complaints that people were being misled and deceived by emails and text messages that they were receiving from companies. In the past, there was no need for such a law because there was no such thing as email and text messaging. SPAM, which is unsolicited email and text message advertizing, was the main issue that caused people to see the need for such an Act. People felt that
John Don
BIS/220
February 11, 2013
Harry Porter
The two Acts discussed in this paper are the Video Privacy Protection Act (1988), and the Controlling the Assault of Non-solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act, (2003). These two acts were both enacted because along with the development of technology new issues arose in which no legal precedence had yet been established. These Acts were also both created nearly immediately after it was realized that there was a need for them. According to "Video Privacy Protection Act" (n.d.), “The origin of the VPPA was the ill-fated nomination hearings for Judge Robert Bork in 1988. Bork's Washington, DC-area video store gave Bork's rental records to a reporter for the Washington City Paper, a local newspaper. The paper published the records likely in an attempt to embarrass Bork, but succeeded more in scaring Congress into enacting protective legislation.” Clearly the precedence for the need of this Act was dependant on videocassette technology. Before then obviously there was no need to protect rental history data that did not exist. Without the protections provided by this act, you can see how rental history data, which is private and personal information, could be potentially embarrassing or even damaging to a person’s reputation. Ethically it is important that people’s privacy is protected from individuals whom seek to harm or profit from releasing such information publicly.
The Controlling the Assault of Non-solicited Pornography and Marketing (CAN-SPAM) Act, (2003) was created because of complaints that people were being misled and deceived by emails and text messages that they were receiving from companies. In the past, there was no need for such a law because there was no such thing as email and text messaging. SPAM, which is unsolicited email and text message advertizing, was the main issue that caused people to see the need for such an Act. People felt that