Facebook is a public site with very few limitations regarding the access of information, especially on open groups and pages. On the one hand, elections are expected to be personal in that there must be some level of secrecy on peoples choices to make it free and fair. Facebook, on the other hand, publishes the identity of its users, thus implying that the ballots would not be secret at all. It should be noted that the reasoning behind a secret ballot is that the voter is not being judged and, thus, they can vote for the person that they really believe in, as opposed to a public vote where everyone is passing judgment based on ones political choice. The first law that will apply here will be on confidentiality, whereby whoever will be counting the votes will not be allowed to reveal the individual choices of the Electoral College.
Place New Order
Another law that would apply in Facebook elections would be with respect to the Electoral College meetings, which may be considered unnecessary. The challenge will, however, be with respect to certifying, sealing and signing the results of the electors before sending them off to congress. They can no longer be verified and certified, given that they are posted online and the Congress can only check them out in real time or have the final tallies sent to them after the election is complete.
Facebook must be able to secure the information provided in their website and prevent any possible hackings and invasions of privacy, as previously witnessed in multiple accounts belonging to individuals and businesses alike. For this to happen, they must, first of all, allow the electors to disable cookies on their browsers, so that they can only be identified by their online profiles and not by their emails and other private information. This will ensure that the electors are safe from invasion in terms of their location, email and other personal details.
Another component of the terms and conditions would be about publishing the information. In line with the secret ballot ideology, it may be necessary to lock the ballot castings until the end of the election time in order to keep the electors from being condemned or intimidated. While the electors often vote along party lines, it may be prudent to keep their votes personal, in order to avoid intimidation among other possible outcomes in the event that some people do not agree with their choices. Facebook must be able to keep the ballots private until they are ready to be released.
In relation to the terms and conditions, it should be considered that Facebook is a technology tool that may not be fully secured, given the existence of numerous professional hackers. They must be able to put up new security measures that will ensure high security levels to protect the information from being altered or leaked before their time.
The first assumption here is that all the electors are computer literate and tech savvy and, thus, have a personal online presence. This is the only way that it can be ascertained that whoever has voted is actually an elector and not a member of staff or a malicious third party seeking to play the electors role. Another assumption would be that Facebook is able to assure the public that they can keep the hackers away, such that the results presented after each election are truly representative of the electors opinions. This may take some time to accomplish, but it is possible and can be promised if the organization invests in the websites security.
- Our custom writing services includes:
- Custom essay writing for the best grades;
- CV, resume and cover letters which would
make you successful
- Thesis and dissertations writing by academic
The first law that applies to Googles intentions is privacy. Organizations, be they business oriented or otherwise, are not allowed to sell personal information to any other entity under any circumstances. They are only allowed to use this information in their marketing practices, with respect to tailoring suitable communication tools and messages but not to share the information with other organizations or entities.
Another law is with respect to illegal drugs and substances. Carrying out business transactions that deal with the exchange of illegal substances is prohibited and can result in severe penalties that range from a few decades to an entire lifetime in jail. The idea that Google, as a corporation, can get away with transporting these illegal substances across national and state borders is simply implausible, especially considering the security checks that they are likely to encounter.
In addition, knowingly indulging in business with known criminals is being an accomplice. This means that Google will be obstructing justice when they aid and abet the cyber criminals and drug dealers. This company, despite being a corporation with its own identity, can be easily charged for all these offenses with the management taking on the full responsibility for its activities.
The first assumption is that Google is a registered corporation with its own identity and can, thus, be held responsible for its own crimes, rather than having the management in custody for the same. However, if they break federal laws, the companys management is likely to be charged with the offenses and imprisoned for a very long time. The second assumption is that the company is planning to transport these drugs and illegal substances across national and state boundaries. In such cases, airport security checks are mandatory and must be strictly enforced, unless Google is planning to purchase airports and manage local governments. In the absence of airport and local government control, it may not be easy for Google to operate. Another significant assumption here is that the government is fully capable of fighting crime within its jurisdiction. Google may be a wealthy organization with the financial muscle and global presence. However, under the United States law, Google incorporation is just another business that is vulnerable and can be negatively affected by the government through numerous legal channels. If the company is allowed to continue with such operations, it would mean that the government is willing to look the other way for whatever reason. The assumption here is that the government is a part of Googles strategy in as far as the illegal business is concerned.