Image

I’m working on a Law exercise and need support.Answer stated question 250 words.

I’m working on a Law exercise and need support.Answer stated question 250 words. Respond to 2 classmates 250 words each.Stated Questions: How can we explain the pluralized and privatized character of internet policing? What problems might this configuration of policing generate? How might they be overcome? Why is the regulation of privacy enhancing technologies such as encryption so difficult to address? Is it possible to meet the demands and needs of all social constituencies at the same time? If it comes to a choice between security and liberty, on which side should we err?Classmate 1 Sesan:The internet revolution of the years has opened up countless new ways for people to shop, make transactions, sustain livelihoods, and to commit crimes. Every time people switch on a computer, open an email, view a website or make an online payment, there are multiple new opportunities for crimes to be perpetrated. In fact, significant number of crimes committed now involved or are enabled by the internet. These technological changes have fuelled a substantial new private policing sector that includes commercial companies but also online vigilantes and policing. Despite its scale, online private policing activity has been largely ignored by researchers and politicians. Yet it is already creating some significant issues that need addressing. This new online private policing sector exists most obviously in the numerous companies providing services. These include designing, testing and maintaining security systems, responding to cyber-attacks and moderating websites for harmful or illegal content. But many other organizations have also developed their own cyber-security structures to better protect themselves from online crime. In most large organizations, these structures are led by what are generally called chief information security officers, but there are also many other new cyber-security roles such as security architects and ethical hackers. One of the most interesting roles to emerge in this new sector is that of the moderators who police the content published on the internet. They play an important role in preventing the publication of undesirable material, from hardcore pornography and footage from war zones through to abusive and inappropriate language.The internet has not just stimulated new forms of commercial private policing but has also enabled a new type of vigilantism to flourish. For example, the limited law enforcement response to the masses of scam emails and bogus websites we’re at risk from everyday has led to the growth of “scam-baitors”. These are private individuals who try to engage with scammers and waste their time or simply raise awareness of their scams. One of the problems with scam-baiting is the humiliation and racism often involved. For example, some scammers have been encouraged to do repetitive tasks such as draw street maps and rewrite books, paint themselves or pose naked in humiliating positions, all of which have then been publicized. The rapid growth of both commercial and amateur attempts at policing the internet shows there is a demand that is not being met by the traditional provider of law enforcement, the state. But the problems that are emerging from this private security activity demonstrate why it isn’t enough to leave such significant operations to the market or volunteers.On the difficulty as regards regulation of privacy enhancing technologies such as encryption, a number of relatively recent developments have contributed to an increased level of awareness of the need for security and privacy, especially with respect to online activities. Most notably, the continued evolution of technologies that permit individuals to connect and communicate (for example, e-mail, instant messaging, chat, online social networks, etc.), resulting in an increasing amount of personal information (generated by and about individuals) being available online; the increased interest that corporations have in collecting this information and making use of it in some fashion; revelations about the extent of government surveillance of individual communications and other online activities, including those of law-abiding citizens; and the continuing headlines about major breaches at both government organizations and corporations, resulting in the compromise of millions upon millions of records containing personal information. These developments bring with them potential or real risks of identity disclosure, linking data traffic with identity, location disclosure in connection with data content transfer, user profile disclosure or information disclosure itself. Hence, privacy enhancing technologies can help address these risks. Privacy Enhancing Technologies are intended to allow users to protect their (informational) privacy by allowing them to decide, amongst other things, what information they are willing to share with third parties such as online service providers, under what circumstances that information will be shared, and what the third parties can use that information for. A wide range of privacy enhancing technologies have been proposed, but few appears to have made their way out of the research environment and into the marketplace or impact on people’s lives in any meaningful way. There are a number of possible reasons why privacy enhancing technologies such as encryption seems difficult. To start with, the current economic and regulatory environments provide little incentive for deploying promising consent technologies, so further development of technology alone is not likely to lead to significant changes. Much of the online world bases its revenue streams on the collection and processing of personal information, particularly for targeted advertising. At the same time, industry most often relies on implied, opt-out consent where the lack of action is interpreted as permission for the processing of personal information. Consent technologies that make it easier for consumers to take actions, particularly for opting out, would likely reduce revenue streams.All these suggest that there is a shortage of incentives for organizations, mostly commercial companies, to use technology to provide a better ability to consent or not consent. The economics of the current highly competitive environment, dominated by self-regulation and opt-out consent models, may dissuade companies from offering effective consent mechanisms. The tools may sometimes fail because they are considered by average individuals as too complex. Also, they may not have been intuitive, requiring specialized knowledge or skills to operate, which the average consumer may not have. They might fail because there is no consumer demand for privacy protections (which may stem, in part, from a lack of knowledge of what tools are available to them) or government might be unwilling to regulate privacy protections for fear of inhibiting innovation. More so, potential users seem not to trust the tools (i.e., that they will provide the protections they claim to); meanwhile, there is a basis for this skepticism. Many privacy enhancing technologies only ever seem to be lab prototypes, or used in limited trials, so there is little to no experience of their practical use, and their impact on the processing of personal information. Some privacy enhancing technologies may also involve third parties who are unknown to, and therefore untrusted by individuals.On the other hand, it appears impossible to meet the demands and needs of all social constituencies at the same time. This is because the very idea of representative democracy is based on the fact that the preferences of the individual constituents do not make for good decisions in complex questions. In representative democracies, decisions are likely to differ from the preferences of constituents, because they supposed to be based on more information than most constituents bother to process. Differences do not indicate a systematic problem. The issue is notably common in the area of political economy and/or public choice. Again, surveillance must be scaled up without undermining civil rights, to keep the homeland safe and secure, especially in the wake of the 9/11 event. Balancing of safe and secure nation as well as protection of liberties must be ensured. This should be pushed in a way that will preclude a draconian suppression of liberty and undermining civil rights, in a bid to guard against all potential calamitous threats and attacks.Classmate 2 Shankita: The internet is portrayed as a public good making it essential for the management of users across networks. People have misused the internet by creating pseudo accounts that are, in turn, used to commit crimes and fraud. The pluralized character encompasses people or agencies that have the mandate to track down prevent internet misuse and cyber crimes (Brooks, 2019). On the other hand, privatized character involves various institutions with regulators that control how company-provided internet can be used within organizations to prevent crime (Yar & Steinmetz, 2019). Therefore, employees’ adherence to internet restrictions is mandatory.Both pluralized and privatized internet policing have encountered significant challenges in terms of implementation. First and foremost, it is not clear how the internet police should conduct operations such that they do not intrude on other people’s privacy (Rogers, 2017). Similarly, geographical boundaries and differential rules within countries regarding internet policing have created variations in police safety operations. Moreover, the restrictions do not apply to private policing, thus threatening civil liberty (Brooks, 2019). States have implemented public and private partnerships, community engagement, and ensured alignment with the ideals of community policing to deal with cybercrime (Yar & Steinmetz, 2019). Even though advancements in privacy-enhancing technologies are coming up, the complexities in terms of consumer usage have made it necessary for specialized knowledge and skills to operate the systems which the average consumer may not have. Additionally, potential users find it difficult to trust the tools due to little experience of practical use and impact in processing personal information (Yar & Steinmetz, 2019). The changes in social fabrics, character, interest, and disparate goals have created challenges in meeting the demands of all social constituencies at the same time. However, through proactive and community policing, states safeguard citizen’s welfare, manage police organizations and allocate resources for crime prevention (Rogers, 2017). In conclusion, there is a tradeoff between the security of some and the liberty of others. Studies suggest that safety is necessary for freedom to flourish. For this reason, in matters relating to cyber-attacks and terrorism, states prioritize security to serve the public interest and ensure safety for the community at large (Brooks, 2019).ReferencesBrooks, G. (2019). Criminal justice and corruption: state power, privatization, and legitimacy. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.Rogers, C. (2017). Plural Policing: Theory and Practice. Bristol: Policy Press.Yar, M., & Steinmetz, K. F. (2019). Cybercrime and Society. New Delhi: SAGE
Requirements: 250 words each