Responses should be a minimum of 250 words and include direct questions. You may challenge, support or supplement another studentâ€™s answer using the terms, concepts and theories from the required readings. Also, do not be afraid to respectfully disagree where you feel appropriate; as this should be part of your analysis process at this academic level.
Respond to Michael:
The dilemma of resolving tension between information technology and privacy is definitely complicated. John Shenefield (2010) wrote about the dilemma, exclaiming that there is a potential for great evil when powerful technological capabilities are available to fall into the wrong hands (p. 466). He expanded on this thought by writing “to ward off such a calamity, he recommends that the government make itself smart enough to take sensible steps to defend the public” (Shenefield, 2010, p. 466).
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlinesOrder Paper Now
Due to civil liberty advocates opposition to cybersecurity intrusion detection systems, there has been a long difficult path to coming up with a system that can be agreed upon. According to Shenefield, the opposition pushed back resolution with developing federal intrusion detection systems for ten years (2010, p. 472-473). This shows that the nation really can prevent the government from having access to data. He suggested that a system should be created that upholds electronically enforced accountability, where the government is not restrained from access to data, but misuse can be detected and punishable (Shenefield, 2010, p. 474). If such technology was created, effective at detecting misuse, and efficiently monitored to catch unjust privacy infringements, I would say this could be of great value in the dilemma of balancing adequate information technology use and protecting privacy. The only question left after creating said software would be what defines a privacy infringement violation? Ultimately, I believe the technology mentioned by Shenefield offers great potential in satisfying both sides of the debate.
As for whether or not making technological choices at the intersection of privacy and civil liberties protection with national security requires trade-offs, Alexander Joel believes the answer is no. He wrote “the IC need not stand paralyzed by the choice between its core mission to provide security and its solemn obligation to protect privacy and civil liberties” (Joel, 2010, p. 1765). Further, he believes a lawful technological capability should be tailored to providing adequate security while protecting privacy and civil liberties (Joel, 2010, p. 1765). I agree with this point, and I feel like technologies such as the ones suggested by Shenefield could provide such a capability. If a program was created to police the use of cybersecurity capabilities and ensure privacy was not overly infringed upon, balance between security and freedom could potentially be met.
Finally, in regards to whether it’s justified to have civil liberties and personal rights interfered with for the sake of national security, Nadine Strossen provides a quote from Justice Brandeis: “Experience should teach us to be most on guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficient…. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding” (2000, p. 21). Strossen’s conclusion upon the dilemma matches my opinion. Swaying the protection of civil liberties and privacy can become a slippery slope, and a line needs to be drawn to protect such rights. As said throughout my post, programming should be developed to protect these rights. Where technological capabilities can be developed to detect security threats, similar capabilities can equally be developed to run alongside cyber-security programs to safeguard against unlawful civil liberty and privacy infringement.
Joel, A. W. (2010). Choosing both: Making technology choices at the intersections of privacy and security. Texas Law Review, 88(7), 1751-1765. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy1.apus.edu/docview/722461786?accountid=8289
Shenefield, J. H. (2010). A knowledgeable insider warns of the challenges in shaping counterterrorism policies. Journal of National Security Law & Policy, 4(2), 465-474. Retrieved from https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy2.apus .edu/docview /872471643 ?accountid=8289
Strossen, N. (2000). Cybercrimes v. cyberliberties. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 14(1), 11-24. doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy2.apus.edu/10.1080/ 13600860054854