On May 25, 2018, the European Association’s new security law and the General Data
Protection Regulation (GDPR) came full circle. Different various advocates have required the
US to take action to pass its information assurance enactment that surpasses the rules and
regulations of the General Data Protection Regulation from that point forward. Furthermore, the
General Data Protection Regulation experts keep up with the laws and regulations to enforce
massive expenses on the economy and reduce the experience by the user on the internet. I
believe that even with these defects, it would be a great proposition to put in a policy similar to
this in the U.S. I also think that Europe is great at keeping their countries together and fair. I
think that it is not the same for the U.S. In this case analysis, I will argue that Utilitarianism
expresses that the United States should follow Europe’s legislation regarding privacy because
Europe focuses more on privacy than profit.
I will use Elizabeth Buchanan’s article “Considering the ethics of big data research: A
case of Twitter and ISIS/ISIL” to prove my argument. The IVCC can be known as the Iterative
Vertex Clustering and Classification model, it is an information search method illustrated by
Mathew Curran Benigni, Kathleen Carly, and Kenneth Joseph for locating the Islamic State of
Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) or Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) supporters on Facebook,
Instagram, Twitter, and other social media platforms. I believe that the first concept that stood
out to me is the use of the IVCC model on Facebook. It is possible for any law enforcement,
police, or intelligence organization will develop this method to distort and identify any suspicious
communications or activities on social media like Twitter for security and authority reasons with
the method’s enhanced abilities to identify any group or individual within a social media
platform’s networks. The Iterative Vertex Clustering and Classification model approach allows
for recognizing any groups and individual users in a massive data set. This software could be
harmful if it’s used the wrong way, but it can be good for the community. I know that all
computer software arent 100 percent accurate, but there could be a chance that the software
can identify the wrong person as a threat. This software development can result in other harmful
outcomes. The first thing is that the government companies and law enforcement might be
using the presence of terrorists on any social media platforms as an excuse to do something
that every individual in the country is terrified of. They can do all sorts of things, such as spy on
any innocent social media users. The other people behind this software would be able to
concentrate on every person as well as Iterative Vertex Clustering and Classification and the
Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. By utilizing their authority to gather data on innocent businesses
and individuals for financial and personal benefit. Sometimes they may be even focused on the
clear and not target those who claimed to use their authority or focus on detailing anyone they
suspect is a member of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria or the Iterative Vertex Clustering and
Classification militarist group. That’s even if it was a mistake and lacked proof. There are many
people, on Instagram, Twitter, and other social media platforms that wish and support being a
part of an enemy militarist organization. The individuals threatening our security would have had
the upper hand if the police or law enforcement hadn’t used the IVCC approach to narrow down
and identify ISIL members or supporters. Authorities and employees might be considering the
more considerable benefit of the individual people on Twitter and other social media platforms
and the entire country of the United States of America. This relates to the Consequentialism tool
because the theory of consequences focuses on the implications of people’s actions. Police or
any type of law enforcement either has two choices, using this data to do good in the
community, and it will have a lot of positive consequences to follow. Then the bad guys will be
off the street, and the public will be safe and more secure. The other choice is choosing to
abuse the power, which will have some harmful consequences. It will lead to people not having
that safety and the public who violated their privacy. I believe the priority goal of this legislation
is to offer customers more choice over what firms do with their private data. Organizations have
to destroy categories of information after they are no longer required according to the GDPR. It
also requires companies to disclose what information they collect about their consumers such
as their data and rights. The GDPR is kind of similar to the laws in California that have been
passed which require businesses in that state to protect their private information by limiting how
much information is collected.
The second article that I will be supporting my argument and using some key concepts is
Micheal Zimmer’s “But the data is already public.” In this article, Zimmer discusses the T3
project. The T3 project is also known as the “Taste, Ties, and Time” project, and it was created
by just a few researchers, including one UCLA professor Andreas Wimmer, two Harvard
University graduate students with a degree in sociology Kevin Lewis and Marco Gonzalez, and
two Harvard University professors, Jason Kaufman and Nicholas Christakis. This project came
about by constructing a dataset consisting of a large quantity of profile data from all social
media accounts, including many Harvard College students. They made every effort to conceal
the student’s private data and safeguard the privacy of their consumer’s data instead of using
people’s personal information for misuse or their benefits. However, this strategy can backfire
because each student’s data source was tracked and identifiable to Harvard College. The
developers and researchers attempted to make the data available the following year and
decided to withdraw their dataset because there were some defects in the project. There are
many worries that college students face about people being able to access private information
and data about them without having to do any hard work. The T3 project’s conclusion was a
complete failure. The researcher genuinely cared about the privacy and security of their fellow
college students, the idea of the study was intriguing, and their personal information. Many
people who practice utilitarianism think that the consequences of their actions or activities
should be more positive than negative. Many people who practice utilitarianism would bealso be
focused on the happiness of one or more people rather than the public’s suffering. I believe that
the researchers and the supporters of this project used utilitarianism to make their personal
decisions because they would’ve decided to continue their studies even though the students felt
uncomfortable with the information being posted. Even though the “Ties, Taste, and Times”
project had a negative output, the supporters and the researchers believe that the T3 project’s
thought-action or activities were more focused on the happiness of college students being able
to have their personal information secured any outside sources or from the unknown rather than
greed and using the college students’ private information for their own business and financial
gain. According to the article, “the source of the T3 dataset was established with reasonable
certainty in a relatively short period of time, without needing to download or access the dataset
itself. While individual subjects were not identified in this process, the ease of identification of
the source places their privacy in jeopardy given that the dataset contains a relatively small
population with many unique individuals. The hopes by the T3 research team that extreme effort
would be necessary to crack the dataset were, unfortunately, overly optimistic.” The new privacy
policy in Europe requires that individuals know about their own privacy. The power balance
shifts towards the customer on May 25. The GDPR focuses on the users being aware of which
private data about them is being used. 28 member countries of Europe are protected by this
law. Even though the United States might restrict certain information, it doesn’t restrict cross-
border information flows.
Personally, I don’t think that anything that supports the researchers did violate any
privacy laws and regulations. They chose to take down the project but they didn’t have to take
the project down. They chose to take it down to minimize the suffering of those who’s
information was posted online. Since the U.S lawmakers will be able to apply this concept in
making their laws as well will support my argument. I also believe that the U.S laws usually
favor people that are upperclass people or in business. Many of the privacy laws are made to
protect the public instead of organizations profiting off them and exploiting them. Personally, I
believe people would feel much safer from the police or law enforcement and people being able
to blackmail them or use them for profit if the U.S were to adopt privacy laws such as in Europe.
Consumer privacy rights have been breached by targeted organizations by Federal Trade
Commission.