Response to other Students
Would the ability to hijack accounts violate federal wiretapping laws?
Response to Zoheriniony’s Answer
I disagree with the answer provided Zoheriniony in relation to the violation of the federal wiretapping laws. Individuals have the right to autonomy and privacy hence the need to obtain a warrant in the process of accessing confidential information. For security reasons, it is ideal for the confidential information to remain safe against external invasion or attack. The federal wiretapping laws states that the authority need to obtain warrant relating to accessing or hijacking communication of the individual on the internet or other networking modes. This is an indication that it is an offence to access confidential or private information about individuals without their knowledge or the warrant to facilitate this process. Even in the context of a criminal offence, there are elements of privacy and autonomy that must guide accessing or hijacking of information from the networking services (Pollock, 2012).
Response to Huda Al Rowaihi’s Answer
The answer presented by Huda seems to evade the context of the question by including the essence of malicious hijacking of personal accounts. I agree with Huda on the perspective that violation of the federal wiretapping laws in case of malicious hijacking. The authority should determine the situation surrounding the individual in question. In case of a criminal offence, the violation of the federal law should not apply in that it is crucial to enhance the security of the society at the expense of privacy or confidentiality rights. However, the application of this case should only be possible in the essence of proven criminal activities. Privacy of the individuals should come first, and the authority should access all means to ensure that they obtain the warrant to facilitate hijacking of personal accounts or information. Violation of the law should be the last resort in enhancing the security of the society. It is also ideal to note that attacks are normally malicious in nature (Smith et al, 2002).
Response to Angela’s Answer
I disagree with the answer presented by Angela in relation to the above question. It is crucial to respect confidentiality and privacy rights of individuals. Hijacking of personal accounts without the knowledge of individuals and search warrants is a violation of individuals’ rights. I agree with Angela from the perspective that this type of violation can enhance the security of the society through constant and effective watch over criminals. It is necessary to adhere to security needs at the expense of confidentiality and privacy rights enjoyed by individuals in the society. The end should justify the means thus the ability to access vital information without the knowledge of individuals especially in the context of criminal activities. As in the previous response, the authority should only resort to this violation act in case of proven criminal activities with the aim of enhancing security in the society (Solove et al, 2006).
Response to Stephen’s Answer
I agree with the answer provided by Stephen in relation to the above question in violation of the federal wiretapping laws. This is an act of malicious attack through the application of the private information to gain access to the accounts of other individuals. Individuals enjoy privacy, autonomy, and confidentiality rights under the protection by the constitution. It is ideal for this to be respected hence; the need to adopt or acquire warrant in order to access the vital information categorized as private and confidential. The essence of the law is efficiently illustrated in this response hence the conclusion of hijacking of accounts being a violation of federal wiretapping laws. The authority should seek the guidance of the court or legal arm on how to proceed in relation to accessing information termed as private and confidential (Steven et al, 2009).
Response to Jeremy’s Answer
I agree with the answer presented by Jeremy in relation to the question about violation of the federal wiretapping laws. Hijacking literally means accessing without the knowledge or permission of the owner of the account or property in question. Authority or hijackers should seek permission to access confidential information thus enhancement of security of the society. In case of no consultation or knowledge of the owner of the account, it should be a violation of the federal wiretapping roles. Despite this essence, there are cases that should embrace hijacking of personal accounts with the aim of promoting security within the society. This relates to the issue of proven criminal activities within the society. It is ideal in accordance to the law for the authority to adopt and utilize search warrants in the process of enhancing security within the society (Twomey, 2010).
Response to Johannes’s Answer
I agree with the answer presented by Johannes in the process of tackling the question about violation of the federal wiretapping laws through hijacking abilities. Individuals have the right to privacy and autonomy as illustrated in the law. It is crucial for the authority to note the essence of privacy before accessing private information without the knowledge or consent of the owner of the account. However, it is ideal for the authority to exempt violation of the federal wiretapping laws in cases of proven criminal activities. Johannes accepts the fact that it is a crime to invade private information with malicious intentions. Hijacking with the essence of promoting the security of the society should enjoy justification by the law. This makes it complicated issue in determining on effective and efficient application of hijacking by the authority and malicious attackers (Champion, 2005).
Response to Kelly’s Answer
I disagree with the response presented by Kelly in relation to violation of the federal wiretapping laws. I still believe on the respect to the laws developed to govern interactions within the society. It is the right of individuals to enjoy privacy and confidentiality with reference to personal information. Hijacking this information without the knowledge of individuals is a reflection of invasion to privacy rights. Federal wiretapping laws are clear in respect of confidentiality and autonomy of individuals. It is the responsibility of the authority to enhance security of the society. This role or responsibility should adhere to the rules or regulations governing interactions within the community. The federal wiretapping laws demand adoption or acquisition of warrants in the process of invading personal information. Hijacking does not seek consent of the owner thus a violation of the rights to privacy (Pollock, 2012).
Are the researchers making software that enables unauthorized access to other users’ accounts doing so with the intention of facilitating that crime? Or because they are not actively engaged in committing a crime, should they not be prosecuted?
Response to Zoheriniony’s Answer
I agree with the answer provided by Zoheriniony in relation to the question about prosecution of researchers who participate in the development of software that are applicable in hijacking of personal accounts. This development like any other field is always in good faith. The aim of these researcher entail at finding weaknesses with the field of information systems and technology in order to adopt vital measures in their elimination or prevention. Malicious attackers adopt wrong concepts from these scientific developments to commit crime thus implicating the researcher as facilitators of the criminal activity. Researchers execute the programs with the aim of enhancing the security system rather than committing criminal activities. This would violate the ethics of research and its effective execution in enhancing knowledge, in relation to information systems and technology (Mayer, 2003).
Response to Huda’s Answer
I agree with the answer provided by Huda in relation to the development of software by the researchers applicable in the execution of criminal activities in the society. Huda clear notes the intention behind the development of such software that relates to increase of awareness of consumers in ensuring security of their networking systems. This is the main reason behind the development of the software. It is ethical to ensure that malicious attackers are responsible for their action in applying the software to commit criminal activities within the society. There is a misinterpretation of the intention of researchers in adopting the software. It is critical to note that the researchers like in the medical department aim to enhance the knowledge of effective application of information systems and technology (Erickson, 2008).
Response to Angela’s Answer
I agree with the answer presented by Angela in relation to the prosecution of researchers who develop software that are applicable in hacking into personal accounts without the authority or consent of the owners. It is ethical to understand the motive behind the development of the software than in the application in determining whether to prosecute the researchers. Researchers develop the software with the aim of enhancing networking security system. Through the development of the software, researcher highlights on the available threats within the information systems and technology field. Identification of the threats is crucial in the process of identifying effective and efficient solutions for the challenges facing the networking systems. Criminals who adopt and implement the software for malicious purposes should face the full force of the law for their irresponsible actions such as invasion of privacy and autonomy of individuals with ill motives (Quigley, 2008).
Response to Jeremy’s Answer
I agree with the answer provided by Jeremy with reference to the question on the development and application of hacking software by researchers. From his perspective, it is crucial for the researcher to ensure that the vital software remains in a secure hand in order to minimize its negative impacts by the criminal minds. Careless distribution or availing of the software to the criminals should be charged as a criminal act. Researchers should take responsibility for the outcome of careless distribution of the software to the criminals. Despite this argument, it is ideal to note that researchers do not promote negative or ill motives hence should not be responsible for activities by malicious hackers who adopt different use for the software. Hackers should be responsible for their actions of affecting security within the society hence should face prosecution for violation of privacy laws (Gutbrod, 2008).
Response to Stephen’s Answer
I agree with the expression of Stephen in attempts to tackle the question on the prosecution of researchers for the development of software that are applicable in the execution of criminal activities. It is critical to note that software do not commit criminal activities, but individuals do thus the need to hold culprits responsible for the ill actions within the society. Researchers provide essential knowledge in the identification of vulnerabilities thus an opportunity to enhance security of the network. Through this crucial information, individuals and organizations learn on effective and efficient preventive measures with reference to the available threats with the field. It is also essential to regulate the production and distribution of the software to the entire society. This would limit its access the criminal hackers thus limiting the essence of criminal activities within the society (Sterling, 1999).
Response to Johannes’s Answer
I agree with Johannes’s answer in relation to the question in that researchers should not face prosecution for implementation of their software by the criminal offenders. This is diverting responsibility and punishment from the right source. The role of researchers in this development is to identify weaknesses and counter measures on how to tackle the challenges within the market. Providing criminals with the software would not be the best idea in order to enhance security in the society. Before the development of an effective counter measure to the threat, criminals would have executed enormous malicious activities. There should be restrictions on the production and distribution of the software with the main objective of limiting their reach to the criminal minds (Fay, 2005).
Response to Kelly’s Answer
I agree with the response provided by Kelly in relation to the role of researchers in the development and implementation of software. The vital role of the researchers is to enhance the awareness of the public on the available threats and essential preventive measures. Criminals should be responsible for actions in harming the society by hacking into confidential or private information. The role of the researchers is crucial to the development of accurate preventive measures hence the ability to minimize insecurity within the society. Researchers should not face prosecutions for their actions in the development of the software. Despite this fact, it is essential for researchers to adopt appropriate regulation systems to minimize accessibility of the software to the criminal or malicious hackers (Jones et al, 2008).
References
18 Usc Chapter 119 – Wire And Electronic Communications Interception And Interception Of Oral Communications
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-119
Champion, D. J. (2005). The American dictionary of criminal justice: Key terms and major court cases. Los Angeles, Calif: Roxbury Pub.
Duquenoy, P., Jones, S., & Blundell, B. G. (2008). Ethical, legal and professional issues in computing. Australia: Thomson.
Erickson, J. (2008). Hacking: The art of exploitation. San Francisco, CA: No Starch Press.
Fay, J., & Fay, J. (2005). Contemporary security management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Gutbrod, R., & Wiele, C. (2012). The software dilemma: Balancing creativity and control on the path to sustainable software. Berlin: Springer.
Mayer, J. (2003). On quality improvement of scientific software: Theory, methods, and application in the GeoStoch development. Bristol: Tenea.
McClure, S., Shah, S., & Shah, S. (2002). Web hacking: Attacks and defense. Boston, [Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
Pollock, Joycelyn M. (2012). Criminal Law. Anderson Pub Co.
Quigley, M. (2008). Encyclopedia of information ethics and security. Hershey [Pa.: Information Science Reference.
Smith, R. E., & Sulanowski, J. (2002). Compilation of state and federal privacy laws. Providence, RI: Privacy Journal.
Solove, D. J., Rotenberg, M., & Schwartz, P. M. (2006). Privacy, information, and technology. New York: Aspen Publishers.
St, A. K., & Still, B. (2007). Handbook of research on open source software: Technological, economic and social perspectives. Hershey PA: Idea Group Reference.
Sterling, T. L. (1999). How to build a beowulf: A guide to the implementation and application of PC clusters. Cambridge, Mass [u.a.: MIT Press.
Stevens, G. M., Doyle, C., & Library of Congress. (2009). Privacy: An overview of federal statutes governing wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
Twomey, D. P. (2010). Labor & employment law: Text & cases. Mason, Ohio: South-Western Cengage Learning.
