Answer

Week 10 Cybersecurity 

Question A

Is privacy even possible? Who acts as though they want it?

Privacy is under attack. We have a blurred picture of its existence in this coming years and this is the worst part of it. But there is hope. Commentators in the digital world have tried to contend that privacy is dead but still have gone through to prove their aspects in different theories. All these theories point back to a contradicting opinion on individuals/organizations attitudes and behavior towards privacy. They (organizations and individuals) concentrate so much on the short-term gratification towards their achievement rather than the long-term consequences which widely crumbles the security of their data in this digital era. It is highly possible for a breach to happen and their privacy being interfered with posing the highest challenge in accountability. Privacy involves taking charge of information of consumers. Having knowledge of the information will turn tables around to finally see light at the end of the tunnel. Having knowledge of your information flow, to its destination and having in mind the audience viewing it will make it possible for this policy to take a turn and have meaning to the digital expertise. People’s decision are more general when addressing privacy and hence their behavior termed as irrational and inconsistent while they need to value their information; narrowing down their preferences to specific and actual ones. We can hence conclude that privacy has not all been left to the drain but there are measures that may be enacted to verily make concrete and profound meaning to this field.

Question B

Power of Personally Identifiable Information (PII) when coupled with behavioral predictive modelling

This is defined as a method involving examination of the behavioral patterns of consumers to target advertisements to them. Companies can be able to track individuals via a software code with details on an individual and then give power to determine what advertisements are viewed and products being offered to them. PII lists that there is privacy offered to the individual’s personal information but basing on the nature of this information on databases, linking this data is highly predictive on the person’s identity. Paul Ohm proposes that regulators should abandon PII and instead condensing and reducing the flow of information in the society to prevent privacy harm. But on this concept, it will bring regulators to give up on counter values such as security, innovation and free speech. In general, PII puts at stake privacy especially for big companies such as those of credit reporting agencies. However, several other commentators have a different view that PII is good and need to just be re-conceptualized to give bounds for privacy law in regards to future effectiveness.

Question C

Harm of commercial entities collecting and using personal information is a major threat. Imagine walking into a KFC restaurant and making an order then paying via mobile money app. You then proceed to a bank and make a deposit/withdrawal. Later, you take a cab going home. This information about you has been collected by different companies and in a cyberspace, your information can be linked together to identify you. It can be a form of surveillance inhibiting a person’s choices and freedom. Harm brings to mind personal information being at stake for individuals. This information may not seem intimate or sensitive at the moment but draws back to harm associated with sharing data. Databases linked together can disempower people as vulnerability of the individuals is high and unauthorized persons having to view this information. This in turn harms the choices individuals make to disclose their personal information and also destroy the aspect of anonymity over the web due to lack of protection. Cyberspace activities may be hindered if this continues as it is already posed as harm.

Question D

Opt in policy tends to focus on the consumers preferences unlike opt out where choices for the consumer are focused on the default of the system. For obvious reasons, a consumer will opt for the policy that favors them as opposed to that which focuses on set regulations ignoring the consequences(if any) in the near future. Opt in gives the consumer the right or freedom to bar its personal information from being shared or used by a particular set of persons. The company cannot disclose or use personal information without clear and proper consent of the individual. In opt in policy, the regime harness merchants in efforts of providing a message on what the consumer may want to receive as a notification regarding their personal information. Unlike opt in, opt out makes the merchants obligated in providing a message that possibly a consumer does not wish to receive. The opt in policy minimizes on the strategic-behavior transaction cost (which can be avoided) by using systems that discourage parties from generating such costs as opposed to opt out which is quite expensive where companies may be reluctant to offer this service due to higher transaction costs. Hence, the consumers pay for added costs that companies may have an incentive to increase. Opt in policy is highly preferred to opt out as a consumer has not been provided with privacy notice brochures that are: too length (which is not necessary for consumers); the messages can be obscured by information that is included in the mailing; and the message does not provide Plain Language Law in analyzing texts for those with a low education level.