People (like you!) who become knowledgeable about information security technolog

Question

People (like you!) who become knowledgeable about information security technology wield considerable power. How they use that power - for good or for ill - is governed by a complex mix of psychological considerations we refer to as cybersecurity ethics. Those values guide an individual or organization when making decisions involving technologies, processes and practices designed to protect networks, computers, programs and data from attack, damage or unauthorized access - but that can also be used to exploit those same things!

You may have heard or seen in the media last year that a research firm allegedly accessed 50 million Facebook user profiles improperly. Facebook CEO and co-founder Mark Zuckerberg apologized for the social media giant's role in what he calls the Cambridge Analytica situation. Facebook contended that its privacy enforcement technology worked exactly how Facebook built it to work, but that bad actors - like Cambridge Analytica - violated the company's terms of service. On the other hand, Facebook has since changed those terms of service to further limit what information third parties can collect from user profiles - implicitly admitting that its prior terms were insufficient. Facebook also has flooded the media with commercials designed to restore users' confidence in their privacy practices.

(1) In your opinion, who was at fault? Facebook users for not scrutinizing its terms of service and simply trusting its technology to work? Facebook for not taking more care when formulating its terms of service and protecting what third parties can access? Or Cambridge Analytica for realizing there were loopholes in the terms and technology and taking advantage of them, instead of sharing their discovery with Facebook? Provide a rationale for your finger-pointing!

(2) Using a single adjective in each case, characterize the actions of each of the three players: Users, Facebook, C/A. For example, do you think what each group did was Moral? Ethical? Legal? Naïve? Something else? Provide a few sentences rationalizing your characterizations.

Major post: Be sure your post meets the following criteria:

-At least ONE 100-word paragraph responding to EACH of questions (1) and (2).

that means, your major post must consist of at least two 100-word paragraphs overall.

-2 sources (one of these can be the textbook if you like).

*You can cite sources using a hotlink or in a standard format like APA or IEEE.

Explanation / Answer

The answer to above two questions are as follows:

(1) In my opinion, Facebook was at fault because, as it was reported, Facebook shared the data of some 50m people without ever asking for user permission and since their terms of service were not stringent enough, C/A was able to find the loopholes and use them for their personal gain. Facebook does not directly share the data to any political parties but they rather sell the space on user timelines and this is an acceptable feature since users agree to see targeted apps when they accept terms of service, but Facebook is in complete control of how this data is used and shared later. Since the initial permission given during sign up by the user was enough for Facebook to gather this data, it was the reposibility of the organization to make sure that the data is safe.

(2) Users: naive. They are not naive because they simply trust the technology to work (few technology glitches are acceptable but the technology is supposed to provide quality of service) but rather for not making a concious decision on which apps to use and what data to share.

Facebook: Unethical. They gather humongous amount of data and don't seem to give enough thought on how that data can be misused and what kind to user data should be shared given the nature of the app.

C/A: Immoral and illegal the way used the data. First, they bought the user data from Kogan which was collected without any user consent and under violation of Facebook terms of service. Second, they didn't report it to the organization. Third, when confronted with Facebook they agreed to destroy the data, which, as it seems, they never did. Fourth, according to whistleblower Christopher Wylie, they used this information to influence US elections.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse P
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.