Has the Army Gone to Far

Has the Army Gone to Far

        It has resonantly come to my attention that there was place called The Army Experience Center. In it
they had 19 X-box's, 60 computer (that one could play a pc game), a actual simulator (that took you through a possible army scenario) and much more. On top of all of that, all the games are free to play. Something sounds fishy, and everyone has heard the saying if it's too good to be true it probably is. Although the center has already been shut down, by protesters or by the military itself, there still might pop up more like this one around the United States.



It states, on the official homepage of the United States Army, the goal was "offer visitors the opportunity to virtually experience many aspects of Army life, while evaluating new marketing strategies." Later on the page it states that Hansen (part of Ignited Corporation who partnered with the Army on the project) "The center is an attraction tool. There is no recruiting mission here. Here it is more about changing perceptions." If there is no recruiting missions, then why are they evaluating new marketing strategies? What it seems like is they are trying to recruit people without explicitly saying that they are recruiting people. In a video that PBS published it is explained that you have to be 13 or older to enter and the employees (all apart of the Army) are not to try to recruit anyone under 17.
Although there are a lot of people against this Center, I will take the position of fore this time. Kid are already going to play most of these games, if they do actually have questions about how these games related to real life there is no one better then a branch of the military to explain to them the difference. With this in mind I can now say that according to professional ethics, it's not the person who uses the technology but the person who creates it. The Army is already going to try to recruit you, this just gives them a better way to do it. It's smart, and there will be plenty of people that use this centers services that will not join the army, it's not a contract. 
Lastly I just want to point out that although I myself am not in the military, they are a necessity for America. There is no debate there, we need a military in order to, at the very least, protect ourselves. Without the military finding new ways to recruit people it will end up dying out, or worse yet they will bring back a draft like system. 

Why Wikileaks Made a Bad Move For Donations

Why Wikileaks Made a Bad Move for Donations

As of Thursday October 11, 2012 Wikileaks will now require you to donate in order to view some, if not all, of it's documents. This move by Julian Assange and his team came about because Wikileaks has had a lack of funds recently, due to almost every type of payment method has put a ban on donating to them. This move has made some people a little angry though, one of the most recognizable ones would be Anonymous. Anonymous has been one of Wikileaks biggest supporters in the past. It was stated by Anonymous that  "We have been worried about the direction WikiLeaks is going for a while. In the recent month the focus moved away from actual leaks and the fight for freedom of information further and further while it concentrated more and more on Julian Assange.", adding that "awesome idea ruined by egos".

The legality of the Wikileaks site and of Julain's actions has been a thing of debate over the past few years, but the main purpose of the site was to  provide the public with information that would otherwise be kept secret by industries and governments. With this being said, it seems like a direct contradiction of what they were trying to do in the first place. It also seems like it's not ethical to make people donate in order to get information out that Wikileaks thinks the people ought to know. Of course the site need to get some money in order to keep the site up and running properly, but by using this way it doesn't seem like it will produce the most good for the people. In fact, in my opinion, it will make the site so uninviting that Wikileaks will lose most of the people that used to view the site.

Although I think I might be able to argue my point with most of the ethical theories, I'm going to do it with duty based. Since they preached at the beginning that they wanted to release information to the public that should have been in the first place, they should stick to their duty to do so. If they now make it so you have to donate before viewing their articles they are now not only limiting who can view their articles (poor people can no longer) but having people who already really want to read an article and support Wikileaks are going to read it. Well if they create this small circle in which people will/can view their information they have, then there is not real big difference between this and the government just holding onto the information. If this is the case then they shouldn't have the site because Wikileaks is no longer preforming its duties that it previously set up for itself.