Case#: 19 year old woman

DiseaseAssertion: Stargardt disease (STGD)

FamilyInfo: no family history of ocular disease

CasePresentingHPOs:HP:0025158

CaseHPOFreeText:20/25 in the right eye and 20/25-1 in the left eye, small irregular perifoveal lesions of both increased and decreased autofluorescence

CaseNotHPOs:na

CaseNotHPOFreeText:na

Genotyping Method: next gen sequencing

PreviouslyPublished: na

Variant: c.6079C > T, p.(Leu2027Phe) c.4139C > T, p.(Pro1380Leu)

ClinVar: not found not found

CAID: not found not found

SupplementalData: “black shadow” in the right eye after getting hit by a volley ball

Case#: 43 year old woman II:2

DiseaseAssertion: Stargardt disease (STGD1)

FamilyInfo: none of family had co-existing systemic disorders, father carried variant, probands affected suster did not

CasePresentingHPOs:HP:0000007

CaseHPOFreeText: loss of ellipsoid zone, mascular dystrophy with features of bull's eye maculopathy,

CaseNotHPOs: na

CaseNotHPOFreeText: na

Genotyping Method: sanger sequencing

PreviouslyPublished: n/a

Variant: c.4685 T > C, p.(I1562T)

ClinVar: not found

CAID: not found

SupplementalData: probands affected sister did not carry the ABAA4 variant, indicating ABCA4 was not relevant to mascular dystrophy in family, CRX variant was also found

Again, going back to utilitarianism, I think that if this software actually will help saves, which effect 100's of people, it should be implemented by the school as long as the students know about it. With those circumstances, I don't really see any negatives to the story, therefore providing great benefit for a lot of people.

I think that the students of the school definitely have the right to know that the school is monitoring their social media, especially if it is not on school grounds. They should be given the option on whether or not they let the school monitor them. If that is done then I am all for the school doing so in order to keep safety.

This to me is completely new news. I had no idea schools were doing this and I have thought about it for awhile now deciding if I think its ethical or not. When thinking of this I tend to think of utilitarianism, the greatest benefit for the greatest number. In doing so, I have came to the belief that if such a meaningless tracking device can potentially save lives, why wouldn't all schools be doing this because of the positive benefit for so many.

This is one example of why this idea might be good. As utilitarianism would say, the happiness of the majority outweighs the discomfort that being monitored may cause to this particular individual.

I think that education can make a big difference when it comes to how teenagers are using social media. Social media is a topic that already interests them, so I think that adding classes about it to teach them even more than they already know is a good investment.

I have very mixed feelings about how ethical it is for a school to monitor social media posts. I feel that people are entitled to their privacy, but at the same time social media posts are public and people are aware of that. However, this sentence really got me thinking about how many problems could be caused by the school watching everything the kids say on social media. We all know how kids can exaggerate a lot or not think before they act, so a simple social media post could become a huge problem if misinterpreted by the adults who tend to take those things more seriously.

My first reaction to this statement was surprised. I never thought about this but it's definitely an important factor to take into account. School administrators and/or officials could very easily misinterpret slang and terms used by the black youth and pay closer attention to them than they do to other students. The biggest concern this dilemma imposes is the fact that it could start a whole whirlwind of problems and accusations of discrimination or racism which is the last thing a school district wants to be labeled as.

Exactly, I mentioned in another annotations that this system is absolutely an invasion of privacy which can caused mixed emotions and feelings towards staff members depending on the student. Most of the time if an individual is going to participate in an activity known to include consequences if caught, they're not going to post it on social media. Youth slang and quotes can very easily be misread; for example song lyrics or famous movie lines can be interpreted as acts of violence or crime when in reality they aren't. Students can be escorted out of class to answer questions related to their posts which will take away time needed to obtain important information in class and complete assignments.

While this social media monitoring system may work, it's unethical in my opinion to impose on students social media accounts. Schools are only responsible for students for a slight portion of their day; once the leave the campus, it's not the school responsibility to monitor and/or protect them. I think this method is a little overboard and is sort of invading on the student's privacy in a way.#casestudy

It's a problem that haven't be resolved through using techniques. Also, the administrators won't always have similar thought with young generation because of generation gap, even they are looking at the same message and information. At this time, understanding this information will waste tons of time and even miss some important posts. And maybe we should create more connection between human and technologies to address this problem.

It's actually an excellent techniques to help and support people. This technique could automatically screen the posts that "contain language or images that may suggest conflict or violence,", it's very convenient and easy for administrators to get information from students and take actions. On the other hand, if students know about this situation, they may think their privacy are violated.

I thought the the back part of the sentence "I would do so with extreme caution" changed a little of my thought. I disagree to use this way to support people initially, but if the school administrators promise to students that they will pay attention to their manage manners and care about the advices from students, I thought most of the students will be easier to accept this way to support them.

Actually, in my opinion, share the information will help to protect the students in some ways. But at the same time, it will bring some inconvenience to students, and students may even feel uncomfortable because of being monitored. Also, I think this point could be connected with Rights ethics which mentioned in "ethical principals, reasoning, and decision making", since lots of students have rights to refuse to share information, if they thought their privacy are violated.

Justice people would say this is very unfair because you cant just flag black youth for slang because it might nit mean exactly what it literally says or they might not be meaning it to be used in the way it seems.

Utilitarianism people would say that people social medias should be checked because the peoples good intentions behind it outweighs violating peoples privacy.

I think that In some ways administration should be able to do this to prevent violence to come or other bad things that could happen from this. I wouldn't see a problem with it because the world sees it anyways so whats wrong with someone else looking at it.

In my opinion, this ties out to the Utilitarian approach. The reason I think this is because the Superintendant is recognizing that these methods are not perfect, and they may make errors, but it is doing the greatest good for the greatest number because when it is right, it is saving many innocent lives. I think he makes a good point that you need to make some sacrafices to keep the safety of the school as high as possible.

I beleive this coment touches very heavily on the Justice part of ethics. Since many algorithms have built in racial bias, I think there is a violation of justice ethics, because certain races will be flagged more often than others. This is a violation because it is not treating each child equally. I think this bias should be ironed out before further implementation.

I personally beleive public information should be used to help the safety of the school and the students, but there is a fine line between personal data, and data relevant to the school. I agree that if the information is related to the school, they should act, but I beleive it is outside of the school's jurisdiction to monitor things in students lives that is not taking place at the school. By extracting information by software and algorithms, it worries me that these will significantly reduce the student's privacy.

I think that this is something important to highlight as well. There are a lot of people that are looking at a district from online. If people are posting wrong or offensive things about the district, this could create potential problems for people who are looking at the district. I think the true image of the district should be able to be reflected, and not false allegations or posts from kids on social media. Therefore, monitoring the public posts per the districts own well being is important.

I think that administration viewing students public posts has no harm. They are choosing to make these posts public. This means anyone that views their page has the ability to see it. If they wanted something to be private I do not think that they should be sharing that publicly. I think the fact of this being "okay" has a lot to do with cultural relativism. This is relevant for the school community and with recent events happening in schools they want to make sure schools are safe, this is one way precautions can be taken.

This allows me to wonder if they are omitting this information from the students, so that way they do share more, or have more public privacy settings. If they are educating them on privacy settings, why not inform them of aspects that are unaware of like this service and how they are being monitored. I think that they the administration is thinking in terms of duty ethics. They have the duty to correct past wrongs involving protection of schools. They also have the duty to keep commitments which includes ensuring students are safe at their school.

Today's young generation has a lot of social media issue. Recently, the technology keeps improving. Although, it can be good and bad. First, it can be good because we can use the technologies for checking how students dress up through cameras. We can also keep an eye on the students' internet access or tweets using specific software that people are making. It can be a useful tool to control student's behavior on social media. However, the weakness of technology is getting too much access to others. Most of the time too much access is a reason people get in trouble on social media and poor connection with others in their real life.

I think that controlling kids by using new technologies is really good idea. If it works, it is helping a staff who is working with those high school and middle school students. However, I would say there is a limitation of controlling them by the new system. The essence of this problem is more about humans' emotions, such as what they think and feel and how they hurt. It is hard to see emotion from the words that they post on internet. There are the two different parts that technology can do and what only people can do. Which is empathy. I feel we need to recognize what the machines or software can accurately find as a resource and information. We need to understand how to incorporate this technology.

The concerns being raised in the article is putting a stop to violence before it happens. Lakeview highschool in Battle Creek Michigan states that each morning that they receive around twenty emails regarding sensitive language and Instagram post on social media. The reason that they are taking the action to monitoring social media is because they want to stop the violence before it happens in school. IF the schools sees material that needs attention they often call the parents or in some cases contact the police. With the schools monitoring system this could be for the kids an invasion of their privacy and could make the kids feel uncomfortable in a way and make them feel like they do not have a freedom of speech because everything that they post is being monitored.

Duty Ethics states that “Rather an action should be thought through according to one's duty, or according to one's duty, or according to the universal maxim for doing good. This means that they are going to sacrifice the freedom of a social media to ultimately prevent mass shootings in schools.

My personal reaction to this is that I believe that it is reasonable for the school to monitor their kids' social media. I think that this is a great way to reduce crime in their school before it happens. I believe if the kids have social media they should know that anything that they post can be seen by anyone and once they tweet,post or comment it could be out there forever.The article mentions the Florida mass shooting that left 17 people dead and also mentioned beforehand that they boy that did the shooting was posting on his Instagram how he was planning this whole thing. I believe if this High School was doing the same as Lakeview this problem could have been prevented. I think that it is appropriate for all High schools to have a monitoring system on they kids attending the school not only would this reduce bullying but on a larger scale stop mass shootings from happening.

From an aspect that controlling people, this article brought me about the issue of justice ethics. The main idea of it is based on everyone needs to be treated equal. In this case my point is, the machine cannot determine truly what people think. Everyone has a right to ask for help to the others not machine. In the article, there is a point that author talked about, the technology cannot see or find out the social issue specific to ethnic youth because of the language that they use. If it happens, we cannot accomplish the equal treatment to everyone.

mey vann