We are watching the movie “Minority Report”. There are a lot of ethical issues concerning technologies we can find in this movie. The biggest ethical issue with this movie is how pre-crime branch of government is prosecuting general public before they even commit any crime. These people that are arrested end up directly in some high-tech jail without any trial.
Another ethical issue I see is with how the pre-cogs are being treated. Pre-cogs are genetically created human clones and are kept in a controlled environment and they do not have normal interactions with other human beings. Neither do they have any social life like everybody else. To me it seems like they are treated like lab animals.
Pre-crime also seems to be hiding the facts about some errors it made in arresting innocent civilians just so that the people can think the system is working without any error and ultimately the founders make the big profit.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Class activities in April 2010 with guest speakers
In the month of April we discussed Ethics in IT and Societal Impacts. Our instructor invited a few guests to come to our class and discuss different ethical issues with IT and talk about technology in general.
One guest was a lawyer in capitol hill who discussed the ethical issues with Facebook, cell phones and also Google technologies. We talked about how Google is planning to scan all the books that were ever published and how it might raise the concerns about copy right violations. We also talked about piracy of MP3 music and other medias.
Another guest came from a IT think tank group. He made a presentation on the importance of IT and technologies.
One guest was a lawyer in capitol hill who discussed the ethical issues with Facebook, cell phones and also Google technologies. We talked about how Google is planning to scan all the books that were ever published and how it might raise the concerns about copy right violations. We also talked about piracy of MP3 music and other medias.
Another guest came from a IT think tank group. He made a presentation on the importance of IT and technologies.
Monday, March 29, 2010
Our other class activities in March 2010
In one class we had a guest speaker from capitol hill who is a lawer. We talked about data mining in general, public social web sites such as facebook and how taking quizs in facebook can expose our information to others. We also talked about ethical issues related to Google wanting to scan every books that every published and archiving them in their databases for public use.
Currently we are watching a movie called "Minority Report".
We recently also finished watching another movie called "Other People's Money" which taught us a great deal about Utilitarianism.
Currently we are watching a movie called "Minority Report".
We recently also finished watching another movie called "Other People's Money" which taught us a great deal about Utilitarianism.
Liabilities in ISP Business
Legal liability by definition is “obligations under law arising from civil actions or under contract. Legal liability can only be decided by courts even if the settlement is made out of the court by mutual agreement. Legal liability is the legal bound obligation to pay debts 3. For the ISPs legal liability can arise from violating any copyright liability, trademark liability, contract law and fraud and defamation.
Moral responsibility can refer to two different but related things. First an entity has moral responsibility for a situation if that entity has an obligation to ensure that something happens. Second an entity has moral responsibility for a situation when it would be correct to morally praise or blame that entity for the situation. According to Joel Feinberg, among others said that corporations and other groups of people can have what is called ‘collective moral responsibility’ for a state of affairs 4. In cnet news Janet Kornblum wrote an article about how a U.K. based ISP took down an Internet freedom controversial web site that many believe to have supports for terrorists 5. This is an example of a morally responsible ISP.
Accountability is a concept in ethics and governance with several meanings. It is often used synonymously with such concepts as responsibility, answerability, blameworthiness, liability and other terms associated with the expectation of account-giving. For ISPs accountability can arise from its user suffering from attacks from hackers and spammers.
Internet Service Providers provide services of bringing the internet connectivity to its users. Some of the ISP companies claim that they bring high speed internet service to its users. However, when users start getting SPAM emails, a portion of the delivery cost is passed onto the users in the form of wasted network bandwidth, increased strain on the utilization of system resources and disk storage space.
Richard Spinello argues that, these SPAMs are morally objectionable as SPAMs have harmful consequences as well as it violates the individual autonomy of Internet users. Spinello also says that SPAMs in addition degrades the fragile ecology of the Internet. Another example of inconvenience is defamation which is the communication that harms the reputation of another and lowers that person’s self esteem in the eyes of the community. Freedom of speech is our constitutional right. However, we all are morally responsible for what we say and the impact of that to others and the society. So, ISP should be morally accountable for what they allow their users to post in their hosting servers. However, Richard Spinello argues that, simply because an ISP presents an occasion for defamation does not necessarily imply that ISP is accountable. For an ISP to be accountable, to conditions are required:
a) The ISP must also have had some capability to do have done something about the defamation.
b) The ISP failed but failed to take action.
However, if the ISP promptly removes the defamatory remarks, issues a retraction on behalf of the victim and initiates good faith effort to track down the originator so that the defamation does not reoccur, then the ISP fulfilled their moral accountability and responsibility. Anton Vedder also argues that ISPs should be morally responsible for harm caused to individuals.
From the utilitarian view point, SPAMs, attacks, and speech that is communicated using any ISP’s electronic forums negatively effects a great number of users therefore it cannot be good. So, ISP is morally accountable and responsible for any content that is presented to the subscribers using the media that ISP provides.
Applying Vedder’s and Spinello’s arguments to the Amy Boyer case of cyberstalking it appears that Tripod and Geocities should be held accountable for the harm caused to Amy Boyer. Because, the ISPs had the capability to bring down the sites that contributed to the stocking and had contents about Boyer including threats. ISPs didn’t remove those contents. The ISPs also didn’t track down the originator of the contents in their server to ensure no harm is cause to the victim.
References:
1. Herman T. Tavani. (2007). “Ethics & Technology – Chapter 9”.
2. Arthur Sullivan and Steven M Sheffrin. (2003). Economics: Principles in action, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
3. David T. Risser. (2006). Collective Moral Responsibility.
4. Janet Kornblum. (September 18, 1997). ISP censorship seen as trend, Cnet news.
Moral responsibility can refer to two different but related things. First an entity has moral responsibility for a situation if that entity has an obligation to ensure that something happens. Second an entity has moral responsibility for a situation when it would be correct to morally praise or blame that entity for the situation. According to Joel Feinberg, among others said that corporations and other groups of people can have what is called ‘collective moral responsibility’ for a state of affairs 4. In cnet news Janet Kornblum wrote an article about how a U.K. based ISP took down an Internet freedom controversial web site that many believe to have supports for terrorists 5. This is an example of a morally responsible ISP.
Accountability is a concept in ethics and governance with several meanings. It is often used synonymously with such concepts as responsibility, answerability, blameworthiness, liability and other terms associated with the expectation of account-giving. For ISPs accountability can arise from its user suffering from attacks from hackers and spammers.
Internet Service Providers provide services of bringing the internet connectivity to its users. Some of the ISP companies claim that they bring high speed internet service to its users. However, when users start getting SPAM emails, a portion of the delivery cost is passed onto the users in the form of wasted network bandwidth, increased strain on the utilization of system resources and disk storage space.
Richard Spinello argues that, these SPAMs are morally objectionable as SPAMs have harmful consequences as well as it violates the individual autonomy of Internet users. Spinello also says that SPAMs in addition degrades the fragile ecology of the Internet. Another example of inconvenience is defamation which is the communication that harms the reputation of another and lowers that person’s self esteem in the eyes of the community. Freedom of speech is our constitutional right. However, we all are morally responsible for what we say and the impact of that to others and the society. So, ISP should be morally accountable for what they allow their users to post in their hosting servers. However, Richard Spinello argues that, simply because an ISP presents an occasion for defamation does not necessarily imply that ISP is accountable. For an ISP to be accountable, to conditions are required:
a) The ISP must also have had some capability to do have done something about the defamation.
b) The ISP failed but failed to take action.
However, if the ISP promptly removes the defamatory remarks, issues a retraction on behalf of the victim and initiates good faith effort to track down the originator so that the defamation does not reoccur, then the ISP fulfilled their moral accountability and responsibility. Anton Vedder also argues that ISPs should be morally responsible for harm caused to individuals.
From the utilitarian view point, SPAMs, attacks, and speech that is communicated using any ISP’s electronic forums negatively effects a great number of users therefore it cannot be good. So, ISP is morally accountable and responsible for any content that is presented to the subscribers using the media that ISP provides.
Applying Vedder’s and Spinello’s arguments to the Amy Boyer case of cyberstalking it appears that Tripod and Geocities should be held accountable for the harm caused to Amy Boyer. Because, the ISPs had the capability to bring down the sites that contributed to the stocking and had contents about Boyer including threats. ISPs didn’t remove those contents. The ISPs also didn’t track down the originator of the contents in their server to ensure no harm is cause to the victim.
References:
1. Herman T. Tavani. (2007). “Ethics & Technology – Chapter 9”.
2. Arthur Sullivan and Steven M Sheffrin. (2003). Economics: Principles in action, Pearson Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
3. David T. Risser. (2006). Collective Moral Responsibility.
4. Janet Kornblum. (September 18, 1997). ISP censorship seen as trend, Cnet news.
Laws of Protecting Proprietary Software
Laws play a fundamental role in shaping a society and in preserving its order. Property laws preserve order by establishing relationships between individuals, different sorts of objects and the state of the relationship between individuals and objects. Ownership claims involving "intellectual objects" are both similar to and different from ownership of tangible objects. Non-tangible or "intellectual" objects represent creative works and inventions. Intellectual objects, such as software programs, are non-exclusionary. Intellectual objects can be easily reproduced at a relatively low cost. Legally, one cannot own an idea in the same sense that one can own a physical object. However legal protection is given only to the tangible expression of an idea that is creative or original. Current law says that intellectual property should be protected. A property right is a natural right for the individuals who worked to achieve the goal of getting the property or inventing the property, including intellectual objects. Property rights also encourage creators and inventors to bring forth their artistic works and inventions. So, property right law is essential for the positive growth of our society. Although, some critics argue that computer software should be excluded from copyright and patent protection laws, I do not believe that the law for protecting proprietary software has gone too far. Following are the reasons.
1. Copyright is a legal form of protection given to a person or author.
2. If the software is not protected by copyright or proprietary protection laws then it will discourage the inventors and software programmers to spend their valuable time and money on inventing a solution and bring it in the market.
3. Even though software can be expensive, when we consider the amount of time, and investment an individual or an organization makes the price of the software seems very reasonable.
4. Most of the software comes with evaluation versions for users to try before they make the investment on the software.
5. For educational purposes, most of the students get access to software from the schools. So, students having limited finances does not justify stealing.
6. When someone purchases a software it is only for that person’s use or the use of a number of people which the licensing agreement allows.
7. Software may not be tangible but they are the result of people’s hard work and unauthorized use is stilling.
8. Any property physical or intellectual is a property and may not be stolen.
9. The programmers and companies that produce software cannot compete against free.
To balance the exclusive controls given to copyright holders against the broader interests of society, there is principle of fair use. This means that every author or publisher may make limited use of another person’s copyrighted work for the purposes of criticism, comment, news, reporting, teaching and research, etc. Fair use restricts the total control of copyright holders and it also supports reverse engineering for research, etc. When the original software is sold for the first time the owner loses rights over the work which is called first-sale doctrine. First-sale doctrine is another balancing scheme. However, to protect copyright holders, SBCTEA extends the time of protection for copyrighted works. Authorities such as DMCA has anti-circumvention clause also to protect copyright holders. Unauthorized uploading and downloading of software is also prohibited.
Labor theory of property says that a person is entitled to the result of his or her labor. Utilitarian theory says, property rights should be granted because they provide an incentive to bring ideas into the marketplace. The personality theory says, a property right should be granted because of the personality of the author that is invested in the creative work. At the same time, open source software are available in the market for users to use, distribute or run research on. So, there is always a balancing act which allows individuals or organizations to be able to use software without stilling or breaking the law.
References:
1. Herman T. Tavani. (2007). “Ethics & Technology – Chapter 8”.
1. Copyright is a legal form of protection given to a person or author.
2. If the software is not protected by copyright or proprietary protection laws then it will discourage the inventors and software programmers to spend their valuable time and money on inventing a solution and bring it in the market.
3. Even though software can be expensive, when we consider the amount of time, and investment an individual or an organization makes the price of the software seems very reasonable.
4. Most of the software comes with evaluation versions for users to try before they make the investment on the software.
5. For educational purposes, most of the students get access to software from the schools. So, students having limited finances does not justify stealing.
6. When someone purchases a software it is only for that person’s use or the use of a number of people which the licensing agreement allows.
7. Software may not be tangible but they are the result of people’s hard work and unauthorized use is stilling.
8. Any property physical or intellectual is a property and may not be stolen.
9. The programmers and companies that produce software cannot compete against free.
To balance the exclusive controls given to copyright holders against the broader interests of society, there is principle of fair use. This means that every author or publisher may make limited use of another person’s copyrighted work for the purposes of criticism, comment, news, reporting, teaching and research, etc. Fair use restricts the total control of copyright holders and it also supports reverse engineering for research, etc. When the original software is sold for the first time the owner loses rights over the work which is called first-sale doctrine. First-sale doctrine is another balancing scheme. However, to protect copyright holders, SBCTEA extends the time of protection for copyrighted works. Authorities such as DMCA has anti-circumvention clause also to protect copyright holders. Unauthorized uploading and downloading of software is also prohibited.
Labor theory of property says that a person is entitled to the result of his or her labor. Utilitarian theory says, property rights should be granted because they provide an incentive to bring ideas into the marketplace. The personality theory says, a property right should be granted because of the personality of the author that is invested in the creative work. At the same time, open source software are available in the market for users to use, distribute or run research on. So, there is always a balancing act which allows individuals or organizations to be able to use software without stilling or breaking the law.
References:
1. Herman T. Tavani. (2007). “Ethics & Technology – Chapter 8”.
Biometrics Technology - what does ethics say?
Biometrics can be defined as, the biological identification of a person, which includes eyes, voice, hand prints, finger prints, retina patterns, and handwritten signatures (Power, 2002). Irma van der Ploeg (2004) notes that with biometrics tools, a person’s iris can be “read” in the same way that a person’s voice can be printed, fingerprints can be “read” by a computer that is “touch sensitive” and “endowed with hearing and seeing capacities.” In 2002, an iris-scanning device, which is a type of biometric identification scheme, was first tested at London's Heathrow Airport. The scanning device captures a digital image of one's iris, which is then stored in a database. The digital image can be matched against images of individuals, including those entering and leaving public places.
At Super Bowl XXXV in January 2001, face-recognition technology was used by law-enforcement agencies to scan the faces of persons entering the football stadium. The scanned images were instantly matched against electronic images (faces) of suspected criminals and terrorists, contained in a central computer database. Initially, this was controversial; after September 11, 2001, it was widely supported.
European Proposals to use of biometric identifiers have also generated controversy. The Eurodac Project is a European Union proposal to use biometrics in controlling illegal immigration and border crossing in European countries. In 2002, a decision was made to go forward with the Eurodac proposal.
There are arguments both for and against the use of biometrics technology.
The arguments for Biometrics:
• Biometrics cannot be blamed for anonymity loss in today's world but larger social and technological forces caused this. Computers and computer networks like the Internet make it incredibly easy to collect and store people’s personal information, and to share this information to a large number of people.
• The Internet provides many resources for identity theft (e.g. search engines, genealogy databases).
• In the physical world, people have access to others' credit reports.
• For a small fee employers can perform checks on their employees through services provided by companies like Informus and Infoseekers.
• There is no need for biometrics in order for government agencies surveillance to take place. There are already satellites which can track a person's movements with extreme detail.
• Video surveillance cameras in department stores, online electronic transactions, and email sniffing are just three means by which others can keep track of one's digital identity.
• Biometrics protects privacy by safeguarding identity and integrity. Biometric authentication systems provide very secure protection against impersonators. Weaknesses in token-based and knowledge-based authentication systems can be exploited and broken into.
• Biometrics is a friend to privacy because it can be used to limit access to information.
• Biometrics is a privacy-enhancing technology. Many current biometric algorithms use biometric characteristics to construct a unique code that can be reconstructed only with the particular biometric identifier or a person's actual physical characteristic.
• Biometric data is electronic code that is separate and distinct from personal information, and provides an effective, secure barrier against unauthorized access to personal information.
The arguments against Biometrics:
• Critics argue that biometric authentication methods present a serious threat to privacy rights. These arguments have been broken down into three categories: anonymity, tracking and surveillance, data matching and profiling.
• Individuals lose their anonymity in any system or digital environment that uses biometric authentication methods. Option of anonymity for electronic purchases and in the political arena as part of people’s expectation of privacy.
• Privacy advocates see biometrics as being able to help in government monitoring of citizens by the State. Biometric measures can be used as universal identifiers for individuals because each biometric measure is unique.
• Isolated identifying and non-identifying information in different databases can be used to create extensive records that profile people's shopping and spending habits.
• The biggest danger of biometrics, according to privacy advocates, is that biometric identifiers can be linked to databases of other information that people do not want to share. The threat to privacy arises from "the ability of third parties to access this data in identifiable form and link it to other information, resulting in secondary uses of the information, without the consent of the data subject." [1]. This would be a violation of the Code of Fair Information Practices, since the individual would no longer have control over the dissemination of his personal information.
• People generally have negative feelings towards biometrics, in particular fingerprints, because of its association with criminal identification, and more recently because of its use in State welfare schemes to prevent recipients from making double claims on their benefits.
• Biometric identifiers are an "example of the state's using technology to reduce individuality." [2]. This type of identification corrupts the relationship between citizen and state because it empowers the State with control over its citizens.
• Religious groups argue that biometric authentication methods are "the mechanism foretold in religious prophecy (e.g. the Mark of the Beast)" [3].
• Further religious objections are based on the premise that individuals must give up themselves, or part of themselves, to a symbol of authority which has no spiritual significance.
• Though there are no documented cases of biometrics technologies causing actual physical harm to users, certain methods are considered as invasive. For example, retina scanning requires the user to place his eye as close as 3" away from the scanner so that it can capture an image of his retina pattern. Fingerprint recognition devices too are deemed as invasive because they require the user to actually touch a pad.
• In terms of privacy protection for users of biometric systems, it suggests only self-regulation for the private sector. This means that there would be no legal way to punish companies for misuse of biometric information.
• There are many companies who do not audit how information is used and disclosed.
• Businesses commonly sell information to each other in order to use data mining algorithms to discover consumer trends, and send them targeted advertising material.
• Sometimes authorities use biometrics technology in public places to catch criminals and suspected terrorists. For example at super bowl XXXV in 2001Some argue that it would be a violation of privacy to do so without appropriate court orders.
My position on this controversial topic:
I personally would like to separate the issues involving biometric technology in two groups. The first issue has to do with unauthorized parties gaining access to one’s personal information including credit card information, medical information, work history, etc. and then sharing this information with third parties for data mining and information matching for the benefit of their business. The second issue has to do with government agencies using biometric technology in public gatherings without public knowing about it or having appropriate court order.
In my opinion, technology can be used for both to benefit us or to cause harm. I would argue that government should have more regulations on biometric technology usage rather than relying on self regulations in private sectors. So that the victim can get legal protection and help and companies think twice before they involve themselves into unauthorized or unethical conducts. I do not personally see any issues with getting my retina scanned or fingerprint taken for identification purposes. For one example, this could make the line in the airport security checkpoints move faster as it helped the Heathrow airport. I however do not want to have my private information that is not public information to be linked to my biometric identification information.
I also do not see any issue and support the law enforcement using the biometric technology to track and catch criminals and potential terrorists. In recent days we have seen lot of security britches in the airports and other institutions which was cause by the lack of information sharing between government agencies. The use of biometric technology can reduce the chance of this kind of incidents from occurring and create better security for the nation and its citizens.
References:
1. "Privacy and Biometrics" http://www.ipc.on.ca/web_site.eng/matters/sum_pap/papers/pri-biom.htm
2. Davies, Simon G. "Touching Big Brother. How biometric technology will fuse flesh and machine." http://www.pclink.com/sarakawa/files/biometric.htm
3. "IBIA Announces Privacy Principles" March 25, 1999. http://www.ibia.org/press3.htm
4. Herman T. Tavani. (2007). “Ethics & Technology – Chapter 7”.
At Super Bowl XXXV in January 2001, face-recognition technology was used by law-enforcement agencies to scan the faces of persons entering the football stadium. The scanned images were instantly matched against electronic images (faces) of suspected criminals and terrorists, contained in a central computer database. Initially, this was controversial; after September 11, 2001, it was widely supported.
European Proposals to use of biometric identifiers have also generated controversy. The Eurodac Project is a European Union proposal to use biometrics in controlling illegal immigration and border crossing in European countries. In 2002, a decision was made to go forward with the Eurodac proposal.
There are arguments both for and against the use of biometrics technology.
The arguments for Biometrics:
• Biometrics cannot be blamed for anonymity loss in today's world but larger social and technological forces caused this. Computers and computer networks like the Internet make it incredibly easy to collect and store people’s personal information, and to share this information to a large number of people.
• The Internet provides many resources for identity theft (e.g. search engines, genealogy databases).
• In the physical world, people have access to others' credit reports.
• For a small fee employers can perform checks on their employees through services provided by companies like Informus and Infoseekers.
• There is no need for biometrics in order for government agencies surveillance to take place. There are already satellites which can track a person's movements with extreme detail.
• Video surveillance cameras in department stores, online electronic transactions, and email sniffing are just three means by which others can keep track of one's digital identity.
• Biometrics protects privacy by safeguarding identity and integrity. Biometric authentication systems provide very secure protection against impersonators. Weaknesses in token-based and knowledge-based authentication systems can be exploited and broken into.
• Biometrics is a friend to privacy because it can be used to limit access to information.
• Biometrics is a privacy-enhancing technology. Many current biometric algorithms use biometric characteristics to construct a unique code that can be reconstructed only with the particular biometric identifier or a person's actual physical characteristic.
• Biometric data is electronic code that is separate and distinct from personal information, and provides an effective, secure barrier against unauthorized access to personal information.
The arguments against Biometrics:
• Critics argue that biometric authentication methods present a serious threat to privacy rights. These arguments have been broken down into three categories: anonymity, tracking and surveillance, data matching and profiling.
• Individuals lose their anonymity in any system or digital environment that uses biometric authentication methods. Option of anonymity for electronic purchases and in the political arena as part of people’s expectation of privacy.
• Privacy advocates see biometrics as being able to help in government monitoring of citizens by the State. Biometric measures can be used as universal identifiers for individuals because each biometric measure is unique.
• Isolated identifying and non-identifying information in different databases can be used to create extensive records that profile people's shopping and spending habits.
• The biggest danger of biometrics, according to privacy advocates, is that biometric identifiers can be linked to databases of other information that people do not want to share. The threat to privacy arises from "the ability of third parties to access this data in identifiable form and link it to other information, resulting in secondary uses of the information, without the consent of the data subject." [1]. This would be a violation of the Code of Fair Information Practices, since the individual would no longer have control over the dissemination of his personal information.
• People generally have negative feelings towards biometrics, in particular fingerprints, because of its association with criminal identification, and more recently because of its use in State welfare schemes to prevent recipients from making double claims on their benefits.
• Biometric identifiers are an "example of the state's using technology to reduce individuality." [2]. This type of identification corrupts the relationship between citizen and state because it empowers the State with control over its citizens.
• Religious groups argue that biometric authentication methods are "the mechanism foretold in religious prophecy (e.g. the Mark of the Beast)" [3].
• Further religious objections are based on the premise that individuals must give up themselves, or part of themselves, to a symbol of authority which has no spiritual significance.
• Though there are no documented cases of biometrics technologies causing actual physical harm to users, certain methods are considered as invasive. For example, retina scanning requires the user to place his eye as close as 3" away from the scanner so that it can capture an image of his retina pattern. Fingerprint recognition devices too are deemed as invasive because they require the user to actually touch a pad.
• In terms of privacy protection for users of biometric systems, it suggests only self-regulation for the private sector. This means that there would be no legal way to punish companies for misuse of biometric information.
• There are many companies who do not audit how information is used and disclosed.
• Businesses commonly sell information to each other in order to use data mining algorithms to discover consumer trends, and send them targeted advertising material.
• Sometimes authorities use biometrics technology in public places to catch criminals and suspected terrorists. For example at super bowl XXXV in 2001Some argue that it would be a violation of privacy to do so without appropriate court orders.
My position on this controversial topic:
I personally would like to separate the issues involving biometric technology in two groups. The first issue has to do with unauthorized parties gaining access to one’s personal information including credit card information, medical information, work history, etc. and then sharing this information with third parties for data mining and information matching for the benefit of their business. The second issue has to do with government agencies using biometric technology in public gatherings without public knowing about it or having appropriate court order.
In my opinion, technology can be used for both to benefit us or to cause harm. I would argue that government should have more regulations on biometric technology usage rather than relying on self regulations in private sectors. So that the victim can get legal protection and help and companies think twice before they involve themselves into unauthorized or unethical conducts. I do not personally see any issues with getting my retina scanned or fingerprint taken for identification purposes. For one example, this could make the line in the airport security checkpoints move faster as it helped the Heathrow airport. I however do not want to have my private information that is not public information to be linked to my biometric identification information.
I also do not see any issue and support the law enforcement using the biometric technology to track and catch criminals and potential terrorists. In recent days we have seen lot of security britches in the airports and other institutions which was cause by the lack of information sharing between government agencies. The use of biometric technology can reduce the chance of this kind of incidents from occurring and create better security for the nation and its citizens.
References:
1. "Privacy and Biometrics" http://www.ipc.on.ca/web_site.eng/matters/sum_pap/papers/pri-biom.htm
2. Davies, Simon G. "Touching Big Brother. How biometric technology will fuse flesh and machine." http://www.pclink.com/sarakawa/files/biometric.htm
3. "IBIA Announces Privacy Principles" March 25, 1999. http://www.ibia.org/press3.htm
4. Herman T. Tavani. (2007). “Ethics & Technology – Chapter 7”.
War Game
We have recently watched a short video on US military computer science cadets at West Point who are learning everything about cyber attacks and hacking and how to defend a network from these attacks. The cadets played a war game and competed amongst 7 military academies against expert hackers from National Security Agency (NSA). The NSA hackers tried to infiltrate the networks to bring down services and infect computers among other kind many other kinds of attacks. In intense environment, under pressure the cadets successfully examined and blocked unsafe internet addresses, cleaned infected computer, perform various other tasks to recover partially erased hard drive, bring up affected services, etc.
These cadets learned hacking technique from the best hackers at the government security agencies and are held responsible at the highest ethical standards. The cadets are scheduled to be deployed to foreign countries where they will serve and put their experiences to work. It is important to note that we may see soldiers killed in wars but not aware of internet attacks, however cyber attacks are very real threats against our nation.
After watching the video, our class was divided into two groups to play a similar war game. I was a part of the attack team and following are the kind of attacks we planned to launch against the network that defender team was protecting.
1. Electro-Magnetic Pulse Attack.
2. Denial of Service Attacks.
3. Social Engineering.
4. Spear Phishing Government Employees/Officials.
5. Penetration attacks.
6. Battlefield.
7. Equipment Disruption.
8. Cyber Espionage.
9. Attack on US’s command and control.
10. Compromised counterfeit hardware.
11. Wireless and wired network sniffers.
12. Spam propaganda.
13. Packet spoofing.
14. GUI intruder tools.
15. Executable code attacks (against browsers).
16. "Stealth" and other advanced scanning techniques.
17. Windows-based remote controllable Trojans (Back Orifice).
18. BotNets and Zombies.
19. Conventional warfare (i.e. storming beaches) (data from field to policy makers).
20. Trade wars (economic warfare).
21. Attack of critical infrastructure and associated IT networks (i.e. bringing down the one northeast electrical grid that runs the entire eastern seaboard).
22. Price manipulation of commodities.
These cadets learned hacking technique from the best hackers at the government security agencies and are held responsible at the highest ethical standards. The cadets are scheduled to be deployed to foreign countries where they will serve and put their experiences to work. It is important to note that we may see soldiers killed in wars but not aware of internet attacks, however cyber attacks are very real threats against our nation.
After watching the video, our class was divided into two groups to play a similar war game. I was a part of the attack team and following are the kind of attacks we planned to launch against the network that defender team was protecting.
1. Electro-Magnetic Pulse Attack.
2. Denial of Service Attacks.
3. Social Engineering.
4. Spear Phishing Government Employees/Officials.
5. Penetration attacks.
6. Battlefield.
7. Equipment Disruption.
8. Cyber Espionage.
9. Attack on US’s command and control.
10. Compromised counterfeit hardware.
11. Wireless and wired network sniffers.
12. Spam propaganda.
13. Packet spoofing.
14. GUI intruder tools.
15. Executable code attacks (against browsers).
16. "Stealth" and other advanced scanning techniques.
17. Windows-based remote controllable Trojans (Back Orifice).
18. BotNets and Zombies.
19. Conventional warfare (i.e. storming beaches) (data from field to policy makers).
20. Trade wars (economic warfare).
21. Attack of critical infrastructure and associated IT networks (i.e. bringing down the one northeast electrical grid that runs the entire eastern seaboard).
22. Price manipulation of commodities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)