Under Armour E39, cybertechnology, and ethics

Under Armour and the NFL have teamed up to test drive a new workout shirt that registers heart rate, breathing rate, and skin temperature.  These shirts were worn by 300 athletes at the NFL combine in 2011, and provided live data.  As part of a paper for class, I wonder if this unrestricted access to scouts, coaches, and sports medicine staff is for the benefit of the athlete or if it could result in more problems.

Pro: Allows medical staff to monitor athlete's vital signs and prevent exertional conditions.  Provides data for athletes and coaches to fine-tune their training.  The ease of use allows more athletes access to biofeedback instead of little to no access to labs.

Cons: Future discrimination according to projected potential. Lack of supervision could result in negative consequences from competition and over exertion. Creates a privacy concern for athletes who do not want their information easily accessible.

I am not sure where I stand, but I'll have to figure it out soon so I can start writing.  Any thoughts?

Is it ethical rationalization, acknowledging reality, or just plain logical?

One of my summer school classes discusses the concept of ethics, technology, and education. This includes discussions regarding whether social networking sites should be held accountable to some degree for cyberstocking or removing inappropriate material. Other topics include liability/accountability for software "bugs" that unintentionally kill or harm its users, whether or not teachers should be able to gain access to students' criminal records (especially in the cases of violence, but in CA teachers are only notified if a student committed a violent crime but the teacher does not have access to other information), or if it is entrapment if a cop poses as a child on the Internet to intentionally draw out a sex offender.

Today's heated discussion was regarding the facial recognition (biometrics) software that was utilized at the NFL Superbowl venue in 2001. We formed logical arguments both for and against the use of biometrics at the event in order to search for criminals and terrorists. First, I wonder how we define a "criminal" that would be monitored or removed from the sporting event. Is it for outstanding warrants, those who committed violent crimes... or is that profiling and discrimination? As a society, if biometrics actually identifies and results in the apprehension of a known terrorist, does the potential prevention of a terrorist act justify the means? Do we honestly believe that the government doesn't have tools to already watch us and what we do?

So, you might be able to imagine how this resulted in some highly emotional and engaging conversations tonight. What do you believe in? 

As society evolves, what needs to be changed in order to keep up?

Everyone is always so quick to blame education and teachers, but it's not always that simple. Will we ever really "fix" education if all we think about are the things that are broken instead of focusing on how to create the most ideal and realist situation?

Welcome

If only my golfing skills could match the beautiful scenery...

Welcome to my blog about being a student in a doctoral program,
teaching undergraduate athletic training students, and other random bits I find interesting. I'll try to keep you filled in on my research interests, cooking adventures, and interesting reads!

As an educator and Certified Athletic Trainer, my research interests will hopefully merge at the intersection between sports and learning/education.  I am currently interested in researching the experiences of high school student-athletes when returning to the classroom after concussions.