Data Protection Act impact on Security on Canada (IT Security) Essay

Data Protection Act impact on Security on Canada (IT Security) - Essay Example It is necessary to ensure that every organization’s foreign organization follows the same requirements that would apply for Canadian operations, if the information is being transferred for processing. This can be achieved by entering into a contract or legal agreement with the other party â€Å"and adherence to the agreement that the foreign organization must work by the requirements of the Act, the OECD is an instance of such agreements.† (http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/privacy/thridcountries/adequacy-faq_en.htm) Many members of the OECD in the European now have legislations in place, which apply the Privacy Protection Guidelines to the private and public sectors. As a result of this, the most recent OECD analysis on access and supply rights recognizes that: 1. Governments may have a right to block the transfer or broadcast of information between a supplier and potential customer(s) if the information may be considered to endanger national security or to conflict with societal norms on censorship or data protection 2. Third party individuals may require the right to block transfer or broadcast of information between a supplier and potential customer(s) if the information relates to the privacy of the individual. (OECD, 1990, pp. 47) Every organization considers its data pool and its information resources to be invaluable assets, and thus will apply the necessary security strategies in order to protect its information in a way to safeguard its interests. The data protection act helps in avoiding any breach of security that might affect data privacy. The Data protection act requires the implementation of standardized strategies for a secure data management. Every organization is required to assess its own security practices, because necessary security provisions might involve the development and implementation of security policies to protect private data and information. Thus, security

The Tory governments in the period of 1822-30 Essay Example for Free

The Tory governments in the period of 1822-30 Essay How accurate is it to describe the Tory governments in the period of 1822-30 as liberal Tory. Some historians believe that in this period of history the Tory government were liberal as they intended on reforming some aspects of how the country was governed and run. While other believe that the Tory governments were not liberal at all and there was only a few liberal Tories while many didn’t want any such reform such as catholic emancipation or parliamentary reform. In 1822 Liverpools decided on a catholic reshuffle in government, this meant that new men were brought into the government to replace the ones who had either lost there jobs or died or who had received other jobs. The new men that came into the government who brought new ideas which could have been passed through the cabinet and there ideas could have led to them becoming more liberal. This is because people such as Peel came from rich middle class families in the city who wanted to see that industrialists could have more a say in the running of the government. The cabinet reshuffle was liberal as it was a clear change in personnel in government, suggesting a change in think and policies. Also the new men who were brought into were less aristocratic that the old, they weren’t lords who owned large amounts of land they were more upper middle class; a different background meant different views. Finally there views were more liberal for example Canning wanted more religious freedom while Robinson wanted free trade. However all of the new members of he cabinet were still part of Liverpools government before 1822 and supported repressive policies, supported anti-radical legislation. Also the new people were only brought in due to practical reasons. Liverpools felt that he had to bring Canning into government as he had many supporters. The ideas that were introduced during 1822 the ideas had already been spoken about before this time. Finally the government was really unpopular and they wanted to change there image, no clear movement in a liberal direction. Overall the cabinet reshuffle isn’t any proof of a move towards liberalism as it was only done for practical reasons and even if people such as Canning wanted change he would have been outvoted in the cabinet anyway. During the period of 1822 – 27 the country saw a strong economic growth, some people believe that this was a key reason why radical ideologies decreased during this time as they was better living standards and more jobs circulating in the economy. During this period the government undertook a number of important economic reforms which suggested that the government was moving away from protection and towards free trade. The Tories were moving more liberal as Liverpool himself was known to be a supporter of some of these ideas and in one speech admitted that there needed to be a reduce on tariffs and taxes on imports. One of the reforms that were introduced was the reduction of custom duties on imports, this encouraged demand and stimulated the economy. It benefited the new manufacturing industries and increased employment. Another reform was the introduction of the reciprocity of duties act 1823, this allowed trade agreements with individual countries. There was also changes to the navigation laws which also improved trade as it meant that Britain as the ban with Holland stopped. Most importantly there was a relaxing of the Corn Laws, this allowed foreign wheat to enter the country without any duty once the price of British wheat rose. On the other hand it could be argued that the implementation of these liberal reforms are more of an example of continuity of government policy rather than a clear break with the past, the government didn’t really embrace the idea of fair trade and they only saw it as a way of making more money for themselves. Even though the Corn Laws were changed they weren’t really amended to suit the poor. Overall I think that the Tories were liberal in there economic reform as it didn’t successfully increase trade and profit and reduced tariffs on many good, however they could of done much more and it seemed that many of the reforms that were introduced the ideas had already been spoken about before. Peel tried to reform the home office in this period, one of the ways in which he intended on doing this was reforming the penal system. The penal code was far too severe over 200 offences including minor ones like stealing a loaf of bread, damaging Westminster Bridge and impersonating a Chelsea pensioner were punishable by death. Another 400 were punishable by hard labour in the convict settlements of Australia. In practise the system broke down because the juries often refused to convict if it meant execution for a trivial offence and many criminals went unpunished. Peel seemed to be a liberal reformer as the death penalty was abolished for over 180 crimes and it was left for the judge to decide whether the death penalty should be imposed. Punishments for other offences were less severe. The barbaric practise of burying suicides crossroads with a stake through the heart was abolished. He was open about his motives and he understood the need for change. On the other hand Peel relied much on the work of Henry Hobhouse, the diligent and experienced under secretary he had inherited from Sidmouth. If Peel opened the way to the Whig reforms which reduced the number of capital crimes he did so unintentionally. Only noticeable change in the criminal law arrived only in the 1830’s under the Whig government. Another reform in the home office was the prison reform this was because the conditions in prisons were poor. They were overcrowded. Filthy, insanitary and disease ridden; child offenders were put with hardened criminals. The jailers were unpaid and were paid only by the prisoners themselves. The jails act removed some of the worst abuses of the prison system. Magistrates were to inspect prisons at least three times a quarter. However there was nothing liberal about this reform, Peel did little about the shortcomings in penal provision. Peel believed that evil should be punished and he supported the use of corporal punishments such as the whip and the treadmill. In other words, his aim was not to liberalise the prison regime. Rather, his aim was to make it work in a more uniform manner. Also, he was merely building on his experience as chief secretary of Ireland where in 1814 he had established an efficient police system. Gash points out that the 1823 jails act had been prepared by parliamentary committee and accepted by the government in 1821, he was simply implementing legislation that had been accepted by the government three years earlier. At first it seemed that the new reforms were very liberal as there seemed to be much change, however Peel was after more convictions and wanted to gain more control in certain aspects of the home office. Peel also wanted to amend the trade unions the combination laws got rid of the ban on trade unions; they had been banned since 1799 because it was felt that they posed a threat to the stability of the state, especially when unity was needed during the middle of the Napoleonic war. The amending act 1825 permitted trade unions to exist for the purpose of negotiating about wages and hours of work, but they were not allowed to molest or obstruct. It seemed that Peel was trying to be more liberal as he was going against traditional views by allowing trade unions and it gave workers many more rights and made there bosses give them a fair wage, suitable hours and acceptable living conditions. Conversely, the amending act was much less liberal than the previous act and certainly restricted such liberties so the Tories cannot be seen as liberal on this front. When this act was passed the government introduced a second committee which recommended the tightening of the law. Even though the act was passed the trade unions were still restricted of freedom of action. Also as soon as it became clear that workers would take advantage of the new legislation the government backtracked and passed the amending law. This suggests that the aim was to restrict rather than to encourage union activity. It was, in other words, an illiberal rather than liberal measure. During this period of history there was much discrimination against Roman catholics. Roman catholics in the UK were regarded as second calls subjects as they didnt have the same rights and freedoms of conformists. In Ireland all land and wealth was in the hands of a small group of Protestants. The wealth and status of the Anglican Church stood in stark contrast to the positions of the Catholic Church which relied on the contribution, of its congregations. Some Catholics could vote if they held enough land but they were prohibited from holding any public office, this meant that they could not change the existing situation. Catholic emancipation would be the government giving the same right stand freedom as conformists; this would mean that they would be able to become MPs or to work for the government. This would mean that they no longer were second class subjects and had the same rights as Protestants. On the face of it, it seemed that the some Tories supported it and it gave more rights and freedom to catholics. However, it was only passed to stop a civil war and even after the emancipation the Tory party split over it, which shows that all Tories were not liberal and they didn’t want change. There was growing demand for parliamentary reform in the 1820’s the new middle class wanted representation. As the old system was out of date and the distribution of seats did not reflect the population changes in the country. There was also no secret ballot which meant that the franchise was open to corruption and bribery. Some Tories were in favour of parliamentary reform, as people such as Canning were brought up from an industrial background and because of this wanted to see them areas get more of say in the running of the country. Surprisingly also some Ultra Tories eventually supported reform as they could see that there was no other way they were going to stay in power unless there was some slight reform. But some Tories were completely opposed to reform, and they opposed even the slightest amount of reform. Some Tories only supported reform as they wanted to bring down Wellingtons government because they thought it would produce a parliament opposed to catholic emancipation. Overall I believe that the Troy government during this period was not liberal. This is because that some of the reforms they did implement were for just practical reasons and they were just a continuity of ideas that had been mentioned in years before. There were no huge changes that could suggest that the Tories were liberal and also only some Tories supported reform while some didn’t want to see any change. But during this period there was slight change in the government and it could be seen that the Tories were gradually becoming more liberal and if they had won the next general election they could have pushed on with liberalism.

Mise en Scene in the Film Yellow Earth :: Movie Film Essays

Mise en Scene in the Film Yellow Earth The Film Yellow Earth uses its own unique style of editing within the frame to portray its aesthetic qualities, which is known as mise en scene. The scene where father is plowing the land with Gu by his side is the best example of mise en scene. This scene is important because of its possession of a unique camera angle, loose framing, and deeper hidden meaning, which contribute to the overall effect of the movie. First and foremost, this scene uses a low angle shot. In the shot the camera tilts the camera upwards while getting a whole shot of father and Gu in the frame while also getting the yellowish hills and sky in it as well. The director uses a low angle shot in order to convey the meaning of how important the land was to the people. If he would of chosen to do a high angle shot it would have denied the reader of viewing the yellowish hills in the background. Those hills are symbolic of the trapping qualities of both fates, nature and society, the core principle of the movie. It was the spectator’s figurative position that was closely tied to the views of father and Gu. Next, Yellow Earth uses editing in the movement through its use of loose framing. In the scene, the characters had full motion. The director used this full motion of father and Gu in order for the viewer to get a glimpse of the actual work that took place. This strenuous manual labor would be grueling for any man. This work showed the viewer that the family was trapped in a life chained to the fields of rural China, a fate that young Cuiqiao wished to escape. Lastly, this scene does a great job by creating a symbolic, underlying meaning of what father actually believed in.

Compensation and Benefits Essay

This assignment compared and contrasted compensation programs of McDonald’s and Walmart Canada. It look at the Philosophy, Base pay, Short term and Long Term cash incentives, indirect compensation benefits and Recognition programs. The Philosophy of McDonald’s is â€Å"Pay for performance† while Walmart promises a lot of career opportunities. McDonald’s compensation program is more suited to encourage young high performance culture. While Walmart rewards more stable employees that will stay with the company for a long term. Compensation System comparison of McDonald’s Restaurant and Wall-Mart’s (Canada) Compensation Items McDonald’s Restaurant Wall-Mart(Canada) Pay and Rewards Philosophy Pay for performance philosophy. The better your results, the greater your pay opportunities. Culture rewards us. Anything is possible. Career opportunities. Base Pay Competitive wages. The average starting hourly pay $9.97 Annual salary for Managers and wages for the crew. Competitive wages. The average starting hourly pay $10.55 Annual salary for Managers and wages for the sales associate. Short Terms Cash Incentives Bonuses based on annual performance review and company strategic performance. Target Incentives Pay. Bonuses based on annual performance review and company strategic performance. They always paid bonuses since 1997 even there is a recession. The Comparison Analysis The Philosophy of McDonald’s is† Pay for Performance†; it means that if your performance is better you will get a higher compensation. In contrast, Walmart’s slogan is †Anything is possible†, meaning a lot of career opportunities are available to Walmart employees. McDonald’s is encouraging high performance culture (but that is likely suited for shorter term employees) while Walmart is more suited for people who look for long term career in a company and more opportunities to grow. Both companies offer competitive base pay. The entry level the crew or sales associates get hourly wages but the senior employees/Managers get base salary pay. Both companies offer short term cash incentives – variable bonus pay based on company performance and employee performance review. The Walmart boasts that they pay bonuses even recessions. For long term cash incentives, both companies offer profit sharing plan. However, the Walmart has Group RRSP. Whereas, the McDonald’s has a savings plan. The Walmart offers the long term disability coverage, maternity leaves top up, while the McDonald’s offers more financial assistance programs and retirement benefits which is limited to severance package. For indirect compensation/benefits, McDonald’s rewards top performers with a car program, while Walmart gives 10% discount on everything purchased in their stores. Recognition program at McDonald’s is more intensive and includes awards like employee of the month, while at Walmart it is yearly â€Å"Star of the Year† award. Conclusion The compensation program of Walmart Canada is more tailored for long term  stable employees; while the program at McDonald’s is better suited for younger, likely temporary employees and encourages high performance culture.

Of Mice and Men Main Question Essay

The question we are focussing on throughout the whole essay, which is the main theme, is whether Curley’s wife is a victim in the story or a tramp. The two different sides of Curley’s wife are hard to determine in Steinbeck’s ‘Mice and Men’, as she tends to swap roles from time to time. At points in the story we have reason to believe that that she is a victim, from the way she feels about Curley and her unattained future, which I will explore further on in the essay. I will also put across my points on how she can be a corrupting tramp by exploring her physical appearance, body language and other characters opinions of her. From Steinbeck’s letter we can see that she couldn’t really trust anyone from a young age because every time she trusted in anyone she got hurt. This shows her innocent side. There are not many points in Steinbeck’s letter that show that she is a corrupting tramp as he tends to mainly focus on her innocent side and he goes through all the times she got hurt and why she got hurt. I will now go on to explain my points in further detail. In this section I will explain how Curley’s wife could be an innocent victim in her life and in the eyes of others. She is the victim of the ‘American Dream’, her desire to go to Hollywood and be an actress, which was a dream that she could not fulfil because of her mother denying her to leave at such a young age. On page 125 she proves that she really could have been an actress by the text stated ‘She made a small grand gesture with her arm and hand to show that she could act. The fingers trailed after her leading wrist, and her little finger stuck out grandly from the rest’. This small quote shows how talented she could have been and it makes you feel heartbroken that she couldn’t fulfil her dream. From then on she has been crestfallen and cannot trust anyone, this shows her innocent side. She was told by a man that he could put her in the movies; she was thrilled as she wanted to be a famous actress and be sexy like Jean Harlow and Marilyn Monroe but when her mother said she couldn’t go she opted for an easier option to get out of where she was by marrying Curley. She says in the text on page 125 ‘I don’t like curley, he aint a nice fella’ which proves that she was forced to get married to him as it was the last option. Because Curley was the easiest and possibly the last option, he didn’t actually love her and just wanted to use her. She knew this and even though he treated her badly, she couldn’t leave him as she did love him. Even if she didn’t she had nowhere else to go so she was basically trapped in her own home. Her life with Curley is miserable which makes her even more upset about not being able to fulfil her dream and have freedom. In the story she confesses to Lennie the one thing that she’s never confessed to anyone, that she doesn’t actually like Curley and that she can’t escape for fear of what might happen. You can see from this that she just needs someone to talk to as she is so lonely and can’t really confide or talk to Curley about anything. The people on the ranch give her the same amount of respect that Curley does. When they call her or see her around the ranch they don’t associate her with her own name, to them she’s just Curley’s wife and they call her ‘Jailbait’ and ‘Good looking’. You can tell she gets frustrated by having no one to talk to when she gets angry on page 123 and says ‘What’s the matter with me? Aint I got a right to talk to nobody? Whatta they think I am anyways?’ In the story we don’t even find out what her name is which shows how much attention she gets for her looks instead of her personality which is where she wants most attention. From this we can see that she just wants someone to talk to. On the other hand there are main features we can see in the text that describe her to seem like a corrupting tramp. Looking at the way Steinbeck describes her physical appearance we can see how at first impressions she would come across as sluttish. For a start, he describes her outfit. On page 53 when she first appears the first impression would definitely come across as tramp- like as he says ‘She had full rouged lips and wide spaced eyes, heavily made up. Her fingernails were red. She wore a cotton dress and red mules. On the insteps of which were little bouquets of red ostrich feathers’. The dress and feather shoes give us a glance of how she wants to accentuate her body and her legs and its almost like she’s trying to prove that she could be a famous model and have pictures taken of her if she’d have had the chance to. The colour of the dress and shoes are red which propose danger as we usually approach red as a threatening colour. So from the start we can she that she is going to be trouble for George and especially Lennie due to previous circumstances with him and a girl. Her hair is described as ringlets like ‘sausages’ which is good use of foreshadowing as Lennie is described as an animal, and food is used as bait for animals therefore she literally is ‘Jailbait’. She wears lots of makeup to accentuate her facial features; this is another reason why she could be a corrupting tramp. The first time she walks into the ranch she leans against the door and leans forward to show off her body to Lennie and George, on page 53 Steinbeck states ‘She put her hands behind her back and leaned against the door frame so that her body was thrown forward’. With her accentuated make up and clothing she fails to receive a notice for her feelings and for her emotions and they only concentrate on the way she looks which tells George from the start that she is going to be trouble as she throws herself forward too much for attention. In the way she speaks you can hear the sexiness and huskiness of her voice, as described on page 53 when Steinbeck says ‘Her voice had a nasal, brittle quality’ which shows us that she wants to entice people or entrance them. To conclude I think it is important to include the death scene where Steinbeck describes her as being free and innocent after her death. He describes her in a child like form and finally being beautiful and achieving everything she needed to achieve because she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. This really finalises my decision for her being innocent because it shows that she really wasn’t ever, or didn’t ever mean to be, a corrupting tramp. Her excuse for wearing slutty and provocative clothes could be because she wanted love and affection which she couldn’t get from her own, broken relationship with Curley. She was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and it wasn’t her fault. My conclusion is that I think she is innocent because of previous points that I have made and stated.