Throughout the entire spring semester, this class has exposed me to a variety of topics within the cyber world and the diverse perspectives people hold on these issues. It has broadened my understanding of the nuanced ways in which different individuals approach cyber topics, and helped me appreciate the underlying reasons for their viewpoints. This exposure has allowed me to develop a more well-rounded understanding of the cyber landscape and how people engage with it. The diverse range of discussions and debates has expanded my critical thinking skills, enabling me to consider multiple sides of an argument and recognize the problems in the cybersecurity world.
One topic that I really enjoyed was the “Case Study on Information Warfare”. This case study was about how Cambridge Analytica used data from facebook to help with the votes in the political side. Cambridge Analytica’s actions affected data security and vote-based structures. They disturbed the crucial standards of equivalent opportunities and individual freedom by utilizing taken data to acquire political impact, making an abnormality in the political field. Their strategy of involving individuals’ very own data as a political influencing weapon harmed both the vote based cycles’ uprightness and the public’s trust in them. This disintegration of trust isn’t just a break of security yet additionally a hazardous pattern toward the utilization of information to control and influence political outcomes.
The “takeaway” from the Cambridge Analytica episode is the basic necessity to safeguard individual information and maintain the honesty of democratic systems. It is pivotal to comprehend the risks of using individual information for political control since it can prompt a decrease in trust in just frameworks and an infringement of individual freedoms. To safeguard the foundations of equal rights and personal autonomy and to prevent similar abuses in the future, vigilance and stringent information security protocols are required.
Another topic that we talked about in class that opened my eyes is the “Case study on Data Ethics”. This case study goes over why it is important to protect user data, and it also discusses if data mining is right or wrong. Before this case study and still do, I have always believed that data protection is important because it is your duty to protect that valuable information and data. How would you feel that your data has not been protected? You will feel unsafe because it is valuable information. But now if you agree to give a company your data and the company states that they will be mining your data I feel like that is fair. This was one of the topics that we have discuss that really changed my mind and opinion on the topic.
The takeaway that I have gotten from this is that it is so vital to safeguard clients’ data and their wellbeing when they utilize an organization’s labor and products. Organizations should shield client information from any expected mischief to forestall misuse and deceptive way of behaving. Regardless, assuming a client intentionally consents to terms that include data mining, it very well may be thought of as satisfactory for however long they are completely educated about the methodology and decide to assent. Communication regarding the use of information must be honest and open in order to maintain confidence and safeguard clients’ autonomy and privacy.
The last topic I will talk about is “Case Study on Whistleblowing”. I personally love this case study because it discusses Edward Snowden. If you don’t know who Edward Snowden is, he was a NSA employee that leaked important information to the public. Edward Snowden is considered a traitor to the United States. But some people find him a hero. Before this case study I always found Edward Snowden to be a hero. But after the discussion and reading other people’s opinions I also do find him a traitor as well. I find him a traitor because he knew where he worked was the United States Government. Plus he knew the consequences when he leaked the data. But he still decided to leak the information. Simply because of that I find him a traitor. But I believe that ethically he was right, but professionally he was in the wrong.
The takeaway from this conversation is what unusual Edward Snowden’s activities were and the way that they meant for issues of public wellbeing, security, and straightforwardness in government. Snowden’s holes ignited a worldwide discussion about how to offset protection privileges with public security, prompting expanded mindfulness among the overall population and changes to observation strategies. Some see his activities as a fearless dissent against the abuse of perception abilities, while others recognize that he imperiled public security and stressed connections between accomplice organizations and information gatherings.
This class has given me comprehension of various points and perspectives from this course. It has made it possible for me to see the reasoning behind various points of view and broadened my capacity to comprehend the nuanced approaches that people take to digital challenges. This experience has provided me with a superior handle of the web and how individuals use it. The broad scope of talks and discussions has reinforced my ability for decisive ideas, assisting me with evaluating various perspectives and distinguishing difficulties confronting the field of organization security. I feel more ready thus to draw in with computerized difficulties deliberately pushing ahead.