Discussions
This page includes selected discussions from my CYSE 200T course. These writings show how my understanding of cybersecurity concepts developed through the semester. Each post demonstrates what I learned about threats, ethics, and human behavior in cybersecurity.
Post 1—Opportunities for Workplace Deviance
How has cyber technology created opportunities for workplace deviance?
Cyber technology has allowed for a greater chance of workplace deviance because it has created more insider threats, like employees who are careless or angry and might steal company info or damage the system. And now with remote work becoming more popular and employees using their own personal devices, it is easier for them to misuse company data without being noticed. This makes it more likely for workplace deviance to happen online. Which can lead to greater chances of data theft, security breaches, or misuse of digital tools.
Post 2—The “Short Arm” of Predictive Knowledge
From this week’s Jonas reading: How should we approach the development of cyber-policy and infrastructure given the “short arm” of predictive knowledge?
When looking at how markets, businesses, groups, and individuals are regulated or limited differently in the face of diminishing state power and technological advancement, Verbeek suggests that it’s not so much a legal distinction of borders but an ethical level of intention and responsibility. The smarter and more integrated technology becomes in everyday life, as opposed to facilitating mediation and active engagement in decision-making, for example, the more companies should create technology with ethical value, transparency, and user initiative to mitigate miscommunication and manipulation. For instance, states should rely less on the desire to prohibit or strongly limit all emerging options and instead, learn how to best facilitate an integrative process. The same can also be applied towards individuals and groups; more users should learn more about digital literacy and practice responsible “onlife citizenship,” understanding how technology mediates their actions and relationships.
Post 3—Verbeek and the Intelligification of the Material World
How should markets, businesses, groups, and individuals be regulated or limited differently in the face of diminishing state power and the intelligification and networking of the material world?
When looking at how markets, businesses, groups, and individuals are regulated or limited differently in the face of diminishing state power and technological advancement, Verbeek suggests that it’s not so much a legal distinction of borders but an ethical level of intention and responsibility. The smarter and more integrated technology becomes in everyday life, as opposed to facilitating mediation and active engagement in decision-making, for example, the more companies should create technology with ethical value, transparency, and user initiative to mitigate miscommunication and manipulation. For instance, states should rely less on the desire to prohibit or strongly limit all emerging options and instead, learn how to best facilitate an integrative process. The same can also be applied towards individuals and groups; more users should learn more about digital literacy and practice responsible “onlife citizenship,” understanding how technology mediates their actions and relationships.