{"id":344,"date":"2023-04-22T19:47:57","date_gmt":"2023-04-22T19:47:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/rknap004\/?p=344"},"modified":"2023-09-09T23:19:44","modified_gmt":"2023-09-09T23:19:44","slug":"eportfolio-entry-13","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/rknap004\/2023\/04\/22\/eportfolio-entry-13\/","title":{"rendered":"CYSE 200T-ePortfolio entry #13"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Q: How should we approach the development of cyber-policy and -infrastructure given the \u201cshort arm\u201d of predictive knowledge?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A:  As described in a journal article by philosopher Hans Jonas (1973), “The short arm of human power did not call for a long arm of predictive knowledge”, referring to how humans make decisions for certain actions on moral and ethical grounds (Jonas). Essentially, what Jonas is saying in this situation is that humans lack the ability to predict the outcomes of deciding a particular action for the long-term, only being limited by the short term of “predictive knowledge”. By going off of this, cybersecurity administrators and specialists need to not only devise the short-term effects of adding a policy\/infrastructure, but to predict the long-term as well. While not every action can be predicted, there are some decisions that could be made with some predictive knowledge. For instance, for implementing a new organization server, an administrator can use the system information and details of what the server is used for to determine how long it will last, when the system will need to be retired, how to prepare for downtime, etc. Usually, when implementing hardware, administrators will have the resources needed to determine how to implement the system and how it will affect the organization long-term. In terms of cyber-policy, however, this is where things can get a bit tricky, especially depending on the size and scope of the organization. The best way to approach the development of cyber policy should be to take anything and everything that could possibly occur as a consequence or benefit for the policy being acted on, and should be considered on both a practical and ethical standpoint. Furthermore, to avoid any unnecessary consequences from the action, either for the employees or the projected customers, multiple different disciplines should be consulted before proceeding with the policy, including engineers and criminologists. With these precautions in mind, cyber-policy can be reliably made and implemented while extending our arms to the furthest length of  proposed predictive knowledge possible to anticipate future consequences. To further secure the safety and security of policy making, effective \u201cback-out plans\u201d should be used to fall back on in case a proposed policy doesn\u2019t work out. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

References:<\/p>\n\n\n\n