Data brokers are often used to target low-income Americans for predatory products such as high-interest mortgages, for-profit educational scams, and payday loans. Data is also used to exclude people living in poverty from opportunities that would foster their economic stability. For example, colleges are assessing algorithms to determine which student will likely stick around for graduation and will ultimately be successful. Landlords are scouring credit reports to predict whether prospective tenants will pay the rent. These algorithms are often erroneous, and this means a lack of transparency for individuals who are not given a job or are denied from an academic institution based on an algorithm.

Statistics also show that social media users in the lowest income bracket are significantly less likely than higher-earning groups to say they have used privacy settings to restrict access to the content they post online. Low-income media users are also less likely to engage in other privacy-protective strategies that may impact the way they are tracked online. Low-income technological users are less likely to feel as though they know enough about managing their privacy settings and are less likely to feel they have a good understanding of the privacy policies for the applications and the websites they use. While using privacy settings and restricting the use of cookies may limit some forms of tracking and profiling, some algorithmic systems can also include profile information that many users may not realize has retroactively become available or is made accessible through third-party apps.

Consumers do not understand privacy notices and often cannot install proper software that would protect them from an attack. I do firmly believe that there should be some overarching privacy laws that protect the most vulnerable individuals in our society. I am well aware that certain individuals are better off protecting themselves and I do think that they should have the opportunity to continue to do that rather than putting control in the hands of one person. However, I do understand the need for some regulation when it comes to individuals who do not possess the capacity to do this themselves.

It is easy to say that individuals who have access to technology can simply look for software that will protect their data and their information. However, that is simply not true. Many software programs exist to do more harm than good. A layperson who does not know about technology can attempt to download software programs and ultimately have more problems than they had before downloading that software. Privacy laws can mitigate some of these problems for the less well-off individuals. The protection may not be as good as individuals who are well aware of all the possibilities of protection and are capable of protecting themselves. However, better privacy laws will seek to protect the masses and individuals who their data breached.

This is not the solution that will fix everything, but it is a solution that also impacts individuals who are not always protected. It can be argued that training people to protect themselves would be very beneficial for the long term. However, it is impossible to train every single person. There should be some underlying protections that are protecting everyone daily. If you do not possess the knowledge to find the right software and protect yourself, why should you have to suffer?

These sentences feel like they have been cut and pasted from other sources. What is the subject of your draft? "Cyberspace," as I explained in the second week of the course, doesn't actually exist.

Why bother with the troublesome metnonymy of "cyberspace"? You mean, computers are too easy to break into, and corporate networks contain lots of defective programs that reduce security. But because we have a free society, people are mostly free to run insecure computers if they want to, so collectively the result of individual insecurity is an increase in overall risk. Put that way, without having to ask whether "cyberspace is in a fragile state" we can have a useful conversation about which sorts of general safety or security regulation we would consider imposing, why and how.

Our society has moved from a period where it was simply a few people torrenting movies and songs to put on an MP3 player. Large-scale attacks are becoming more commonplace as well as more damaging. The cost of cybercrime to businesses is expected to top $8 trillion by 2022.

What is the difference between "cybercrime" and "crime"? Crimes involving telephones aren't "telephone crime."

There are many resources that are in existence to protect software from being attacked. But despite these precautions, there are still many attacks that happen. The goal for governance should be to protect all the people from all possible attacks.

Why is that the goal? Does that mean that all computers should be operated by government to prevent careless insecure operation? That all software should be approved by government? That I shouldn't be able to modify the software I use in case I make a security mistake and an attack becomes possible? I have no reason to believe that the government would do a better job securing my home, academic and business networks than I do myself, or would turn out to be good at protecting me from its own listening. Why am I wrong?

To do that, we need to fill all the gaps and spaces of attack. By shifting our collective mindset about what we expect from the cybersecurity industry, there can be a tremendous benefit for all those concerned and all those who are sitting around waiting to be attacked.

I'm not sitting around, I'm securing my systems. I use free software and I have no need for a "cybersecurity industry," as opposed to secure software we can make, share and improve for ourselves. Why are you telling me that someone else knows better than I do, or than you could know if you wanted to?

I don't understand the comparison. No private person needs to or can operate a nuclear reactor. But everyone can and should know how to run a basic server: that's the idea of FreedomBox. Why should I agree to this "gold standard" comparison that seems to fly in the face of my own personal experience and to be at odds with my social intentions? If your argument is persuasive, so much the better, but where is it?

It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.

Protecting Our Cyberspace

-- By ChevaunSamuels - 02 Dec 2019

Cyberspace has become a key domain of power execution and a core issue of global politics. Initially, cyberspace was constructed as a space free from regulation and intervention. However, after many cyber-attacks and the expansion of knowledge, the rising tide of threats to the stability and future development of cyberspace has spurred calls for more expansive governance. Cyberspace governance is characterized by a large number of actors, issue areas, and fora involved in processes of steering. Cyberspace is often equated with the World Wide Web but the two are not the same. Cyberspace can be thought of as a complex, highly distributed network infrastructure. In contrast, the World Wide Web denotes a collection of resources identifiable by means of global Uniform Resource Identifiers, and accessible via cyberspace. Accountability in cybersecurity is virtually non-existent. Despite billions of dollars spent worldwide on cybersecurity solutions, cyberspace is in one of its most fragile states ever. The World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Risks Landscape 2018 ranked cyber-attacks alongside extreme weather events and the prospect of nuclear war as the most likely and dangerous risks threatening the stability of society.

Our society has moved from a period where it was simply a few people torrenting movies and songs to put on an MP3 player. Large-scale attacks are becoming more commonplace as well as more damaging. The cost of cybercrime to businesses is expected to top $8 trillion by 2022. There are many resources that are in existence to protect software from being attacked. But despite these precautions, there are still many attacks that happen. The goal for governance should be to protect all the people from all possible attacks. To do that, we need to fill all the gaps and spaces of attack. By shifting our collective mindset about what we expect from the cybersecurity industry, there can be a tremendous benefit for all those concerned and all those who are sitting around waiting to be attacked.

Accountability structures should be reflective of the diversity of the individuals who are attacked and use the cyberspace. The enlistment of stakeholders essential to the resolution of specific cyberspace governance problems presents an important first step with regard to streamlining collective accountability structures and identifying corresponding responsibilities. The adoption of constitutionally inspired enforcement mechanisms has proven fruitful in various cases. In the context of one of the largest cyberspace governance entities, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the appointment of an ombudsman has helped clarify otherwise murky accountability structures and provided community members with a useful mechanism of recourse.

Furthermore, accelerating the development of advanced methods for controlling access to networks or the information resident on them is crucial. While one of the principal advantages to cyberspace is the ability to share information nearly instantly and globally, at every level of classification, and with one person or millions, there is no “inalienable right” to unfettered access to all systems and all information. We need systems engineered to be used responsibly by people with a reasonable amount of training. Otherwise, we may be asking for unreasonable levels of proficiency on the part of the operator and not enough on the network administrator or software engineer.

To help with governance, it is imperative that we have more programs to equip the younger generation to learn about computers and cyberspace in general. Often times the younger generation is not provided with the proper exposure to computer science and to the technicalities of things such as coding. This exposure for the younger generation will help to make sure that we have a positive future and we have individuals who are willing to learn about the industry and grow in knowledge. Cyberspace’s ubiquity demands lifelong attention to norms of behavior. To have high standards for cyberspace means protection training should begin literally in elementary school and receive an appropriate emphasis throughout one’s entire career to include all military profession schools, service and joint professional development education, and technical training. There are too many case studies to help drive home the costs and risks of bad cyberspace practices in our education and training courses. Despite substantial differences between nuclear and cyberspace operations, when it comes to developing a culture of accountability the nuclear analogy reigns supreme and should be viewed as the gold standard when devising cyberspace protection training at every level.

• #Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, ChevaunSamuels
• #Set DENYTOPICVIEW = TWikiGuest

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list.