東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Does the Supreme Court Know What's B...

Baker, Denise.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Does the Supreme Court Know What's Best For Us? Potential Mediators of Public Support for Three Surveillance Techniques.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Does the Supreme Court Know What's Best For Us? Potential Mediators of Public Support for Three Surveillance Techniques./
作者:	Baker, Denise.
面頁冊數:	50 p.
附註:	Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 51-02.
Contained By:	Masters Abstracts International51-02(E).
標題:	Psychology, Cognitive. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=1518263
ISBN:	9781267594921

Does the Supreme Court Know What's Best For Us? Potential Mediators of Public Support for Three Surveillance Techniques.
Baker, Denise.

Does the Supreme Court Know What's Best For Us? Potential Mediators of Public Support for Three Surveillance Techniques. - 50 p.

Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 51-02.

Thesis (M.S.)--Arizona State University, 2012.

Very little experimental work has been done to investigate the psychological underpinnings of perceptions of privacy. This issue is especially pressing with the advent of powerful and inexpensive technologies that allow access to all but our most private thoughts---and these too are at risk (Farah, Smith, Gawuga, Lindsell, & Foster, 2009). Recently the Supreme Court ruled that the use of a global positioning system (GPS) device to covertly follow a criminal suspect, without first obtaining a search warrant, is a violation of a suspect's fourth amendment right to protection from unlawful search and seizure (United States v. Jones, 2012). However, the Court has also ruled in the past that a law enforcement officer can covertly follow a suspect's vehicle and collect the same information without a search warrant and this is not considered a violation of the suspect's rights (Katz v. United States). In the case of GPS surveillance the Supreme Court Justices did not agree on whether the GPS device constituted a trespassing violation because it was placed on the suspect's vehicle (the majority) or if it violated a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. This incongruence is an example of how the absence of a clear and predictable model of privacy makes it difficult for even the country's highest moral authority to articulate when and why privacy has been violated. This research investigated whether public perceptions of support for the use of each surveillance technique also vary across different monitoring types that collect the same information and whether these differences are mediated by similar factors as argued by the Supreme Court. Results suggest that under some circumstances participants do demonstrate differential support and this is mediated by a general privacy concern. However, under other circumstances differential support is the result of an interaction between the type of monitoring and its cost to employ---not simply type; this differential support was mediated by both perceived violations of private-space and general privacy. Results are discussed in terms of how these findings might contribute to understanding the psychological foundation of perceived privacy violations and how they might inform policy decision.

ISBN: 9781267594921Subjects--Topical Terms:

1017810
Psychology, Cognitive.

Does the Supreme Court Know What's Best For Us? Potential Mediators of Public Support for Three Surveillance Techniques.
LDR:03185nam a2200289 4500 001 1964318
005 20141010092009.5
008 150210s2012 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781267594921
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI1518263
035 $a AAI1518263
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Baker, Denise. $3 2100743
245 1 0 $a Does the Supreme Court Know What's Best For Us? Potential Mediators of Public Support for Three Surveillance Techniques.
300 $a 50 p.
500 $a Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 51-02.
500 $a Adviser: Nicholas J. Schweitzer.
502 $a Thesis (M.S.)--Arizona State University, 2012.
520 $a Very little experimental work has been done to investigate the psychological underpinnings of perceptions of privacy. This issue is especially pressing with the advent of powerful and inexpensive technologies that allow access to all but our most private thoughts---and these too are at risk (Farah, Smith, Gawuga, Lindsell, & Foster, 2009). Recently the Supreme Court ruled that the use of a global positioning system (GPS) device to covertly follow a criminal suspect, without first obtaining a search warrant, is a violation of a suspect's fourth amendment right to protection from unlawful search and seizure (United States v. Jones, 2012). However, the Court has also ruled in the past that a law enforcement officer can covertly follow a suspect's vehicle and collect the same information without a search warrant and this is not considered a violation of the suspect's rights (Katz v. United States). In the case of GPS surveillance the Supreme Court Justices did not agree on whether the GPS device constituted a trespassing violation because it was placed on the suspect's vehicle (the majority) or if it violated a person's reasonable expectation of privacy. This incongruence is an example of how the absence of a clear and predictable model of privacy makes it difficult for even the country's highest moral authority to articulate when and why privacy has been violated. This research investigated whether public perceptions of support for the use of each surveillance technique also vary across different monitoring types that collect the same information and whether these differences are mediated by similar factors as argued by the Supreme Court. Results suggest that under some circumstances participants do demonstrate differential support and this is mediated by a general privacy concern. However, under other circumstances differential support is the result of an interaction between the type of monitoring and its cost to employ---not simply type; this differential support was mediated by both perceived violations of private-space and general privacy. Results are discussed in terms of how these findings might contribute to understanding the psychological foundation of perceived privacy violations and how they might inform policy decision.
590 $a School code: 0010.
650 4 $a Psychology, Cognitive. $3 1017810
650 4 $a Law. $3 600858
650 4 $a Legal Studies. $3 1669774
690 $a 0633
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0553
710 2 $a Arizona State University. $b Psychology. $3 1677434
773 0 $t Masters Abstracts International $g 51-02(E).
790 $a 0010
791 $a M.S.
792 $a 2012
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=1518263