Emerging technology is quickly causing revolutionary changes across the world and Google Earth happens to be just one among many such technologies that can be used and have been used to illegally access rather private information. The case study Google Earth Versus Privacy in Riverhead, New York addresses a case where the local authorities used Google Earth to locate illegally constructed swimming pools in the town. The mission, which was led by Leroy Barnes, was grounded on the right footing in that it sought to ensure the safety of everyone within the covered area. The technology used is freely available to the public which means that per se, the authorities did not directly invade on the people's privacy. What was wrong about the whole issue is that Leroy Barnes' led operation was conducted irregularly under the law and is thus punishable. The police force in some regions considers using special vans to scan vehicles without the knowledge of the owners and without any search warrants but while the intentions are permissible, the technology will also allow the police to access information that they should not. Therefore, the authorities such as Leroy Barnes should be prosecute under the law governing privacy just as would be the case for the robbers using Google Earth to locate and steal exotic fish.
The case study Pennsylvania: Who is in Charge of Homeland Security?, the author assessed a scenario in which there was rather questionable collaboration between the private sector and the public sector officials and organizations in a matter that should rather be handled with utmost discretion. The case emerged at a time when the nation really considered the possibility of terrorist attacks on the United States soil and as was the case, it could be rather difficult for terrorists to a 9/11 kind of attack considering cases of increased surveillance and security screening. It was in order for the officers from Homeland Security to consider and monitor all possible loopholes as mentioned in the case study. However, I believe that there are more professional ways of handling such a situation other than the reckless contracting of the assignment to a private contractor of a questionable background and through a flawed process. In correcting the situation, the termination of the contract comes as the first step and secondly, the person in charge of the award of the contract to Institute of Terrorism Research and Response should be fired and charged in a court of law for not exercising due diligence in the award and supervision of the contract (United States, 2014).
In relation to the Crashing to Earth: Obama's Signature Health Insurance Program Stumbles, I am convinced that Obamacare problems in 2013 were as a result of serious overreach by the Obama administration and not because of the program's complexity. Obamacare was rolled out to the benefit of the people and holding all political differences constant, both sides of the faction, the republicans and the democrats, would want a program that is of benefit to the American people. However, the roll-out and administration of the program was a major bone of contention in the case and this resulted to the impasse that led to the month-long shut-down of the federal government in 2013. Obamacare was at some point compared to the Manhattan Project of 1940's based on its complexity but the real question was, what was the problem if at all it was able to function efficiently and effectively? In this regard, the Obama administration should have considered more dialogue with regard to the Affordable Care Act with regard to the roll out of the program. In addition, the administration should have considered further analysis of the legal and regulatory framework in relation to the program (Blackman, 2013).
Blackman, J. (2013). Unprecedented: The constitutional challenge to Obamacare.
Greenwald, G. (2014). No place to hide: Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the U.S. surveillance state. New York: Henry Holt and Company.
United States. (2014). Preventing waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in homeland security: A GAO high-risk list review : hearing before the Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, One Hundred Thirteenth Congress, second session, May 7, 2014.