Please reply to the below: Playdevil's advocate byprovidinglogical arguments that oppose those presented in someoneelse's initial post.

Initial post

Privacy Laws

Question #1

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) have been instrumental in upholding the privacy of internet users. However, COPPA is more effective in encouraging websites to limit the Internet resources available to young persons through largely unenforceable age restrictions instead of preventing unfair and deceptive practices against minor internet users (Matecki, 2010). CISPA allows companies to voluntarily share information but only if they relate to cybersecurity, which means that it fails to provide a comprehensive framework for guaranteeing the privacy of internet users. ECPA guarantees that electronic communications of users are protected, but its scope is limited since it only applies to email, telephone conversations, and electronically stored data (PennLibraries, 2023). As such, additional privacy laws detailing the scope of privacy protections available to children and institute guidelines for determining ethical and unethical privacy violations to protect internet users are also covered. Privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) can also be integrated into privacy protections since they minimize personal data use in the internet to guarantee data security (Kaaniche et al., 2020).

Question #2

Most of the cybersecurity laws in my state align with the federal cybersecurity legislations and guidelines. As such, the enhancement of cybersecurity laws should focus on acknowledging and integrating emerging innovations such as homomorphic encryption to secure a technology user's privacy. This approach guarantees that data is kept in an encrypted state during data processing to maintain its integrity or prevent manipulation (Yang et al., 2023). This prevents data breach and ensures that data remains secure during processing and analysis to maintain privacy of users.

Question #3

With respect to privacy, unethical behavior entails omnipresent surveillance of internet users and unauthorized sharing of user data with third parties. Ethical behavior entails obtaining user consent before data collection and sharing as well as minimizing inducements that encourage people to reveal their personal information. As such, people are expected to lose some degree of privacy when using technologies due to their preference for convenience. The complacency of technology users makes them believe that revealing their private information allows commercial (and public) organizations to make their lives easier (by targeting their needs) (Rainey & Anderson, 2014). This implies that the divide between convenience and privacy has motivated people to surrender their privacy rights to service providers.

Classmate post:

Privacy and Privacy-Enhancing Technologies

ECPA.The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), enacted in 1986, is insufficient in addressing the rising privacy challenges of modern digital communications and emerging technologies. The ECPA is a relic of the past predating the development or subsequent growth of the World Wide Web (WWW) alongside other modern technologies, designed to protect against real-time wiretapping and other local area network (LAN) threats with little protection for actual records and no attention paid to jurisdiction (Kerr, 2014, pg. 1-2). Digital communications in the modern world function well-beyond the scope of the ECPA meaning it lacks adequate safeguards following the advancement of technology and evolution of the internet. The safeguards in place under the ECPA cover a few aspects of electronic privacy but it fails to address the vast amount of information accessible by the Federal government whether it be through service providers, search engines, social media platforms, and other web applications or websites.

Changes in technology likewise serve to render the ECPA as outdated, the most notable being the blurring distinction between stored and real-time surveillance as organizations are no longer limited by storage space and one-time access to stored contents can reveal information gathered over years (Kerr, 2014, pg. 18-21). Modern organizations are incentivized to collect, maintain, and utilize the information provided by users whether it be in terms of their activity or the personal information they provide in the creation or usage of their account. The ease of collection of personal information of every level further incentivizes cyber attacks by advanced persistent threats (APTs) sponsored by foreign government as Federal agencies are not the only threats to electronic privacy.

Laws similarly render the content protections of the ECPA highly ineffective, rulings in lower courts established the contents of emails under the Fourth Amendment, and in the case of theUnited States v Warshakthe Sixth Circuit held the acquisition of email contents without a warrant as unconstitutional andWarshakis used to find reasonable expectations of privacy for stored contents (Kerr, 2014, pg. 27-28).

Additional laws that are needed in addressing the insufficiencies of the ECPA would require a foundational overhaul taking the modern digital landscape into account, closing off the many loopholes for electronic data protection and creating a consistent standard for privacy protection. Privacy enhancing technologies that might serve to address the issues of the EXPA include encryption technologies for protection communications in transit or at rest, anonymization tools enabling users to communicate in private or anonymize identifiable information in a secure manner, and privacy-preserving services for secure storage.

CISPA.A common argument against the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) that I'm familiar with is the potential abuse by federal agencies through the information that is being shared with them, lacking sufficient safeguards in preventing or limiting the degree of information that is being shared with the Federal government. Legislation targeting CISPA should continue to focus on balancing cybersecurity and privacy, ensuring strict regulations and safeguards for limiting data sharing with reliable and comprehensive options for oversight of cyber intelligence initiatives. In terms of privacy-enhancing technologies, it would be beneficial to have a comprehensive assessment tool that determines the overall impact of data sharing on individual privacy rights and their effectiveness in combating legitimate threats to the nation.

COPPA.Part of the issue with enforcing the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) is that application developers and software development kits (SDK) retain a financial incentive to ignore the potential violations with collecting personally identifiable information (PII) from children since it would result in decreased revenue (Reyes et al., 2018, pg. 15). The issue of age is another point of ambiguity with enforcing COPPA as while it applies to children under the age of thirteen years old, there is much difficulty with accurately classifying individuals online as most verifications are a simple yes or no. Another point of contention is the age range, there are some arguments for expanding the range of its protections up to those seventeen years old and younger as they are equally susceptible to the collection of PII by online services and organizations.

Another inefficiency that comes to mind after reading COPPA is that it exempts platforms, hosting services, and distribution channels that offer public access to content by another individual or organization that is child-directed (Reyes et al., 2018, pg. 3). Distribution platforms would naturally be incentivized towards implementing suitable regulations for supporting compliance with the law to minimize any public outrage on the issue, but some platforms might not be so inclined, and there are little resources available to children or adults in determining such platforms. YouTube, for example, is a distribution platform that is strict with following COPPA compliance requiring creators to label content 'for kids' which has the potential to negatively impact creators in terms of revenue and discoverability.

The ideal approach to privacy-enhancing technologies with COPPA would be a privacy by design approach encouraging organizations to develop privacy-driven designs, functions, and features early in the software development lifecycle (SDLC) as age verification technology remains difficult to operate at scale while being efficient, accessible, intrusive, and compliant with international regulations.

Home State Laws and the Federal Government

Washington State law requires businesses, individuals, and other public agencies to notify Washington State residents that are at risk of harm from the unauthorized acquisition of personal information, lack of encryption if personal information was not secured, and whether a security breach is reasonably likely to result in harm through RCW 19.255 and RCW 42.56.590 (Washington, 2015). A recent addition in HB 1071 proposed during the 2019 legislative session strengthened data breach notification laws through expanding the definition of personal information to include an individual's data of birth, private electronic keys, identification numbers, health insurance policy numbers, medical information, and biometric data (Washington, 2015).

HB 1071 also expands upon the information within notices to Washington State residents if a cybersecurity breach has occurred to include the known time frame for a breach, explicit instructions to secure their account depending on the information exposed, and notifications to secondary points of contact beyond the breached email address (Washington, 2015). HB 1071 and the other two data breach notification laws would be highly beneficial to every individual in the nation, and it would be more than advisable for the Federal government to incorporate the specific changes to the definition of personal information and the range of responsibilities for organizations, individuals, and public agencies.

Washington State likewise recently passed HB1155 known as the My Health My Data Act, which is a privacy-focused law on protecting personal health data that falls outside the scope of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA), protecting sensitive health data from being collected or shared without consumer consent (Washington, 2023). Regulated entities like business or organizations are required to adhere to the new requirements of collection and sharing outlined by HB 1155, ensuring individuals have control over their health information and it enables them to make informed decisions (Washington, 2023).. Violations of HB 1155 will be enforced by the Attorney General and through private actions as violations are likewise a violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA) (Washington, 2023). Expanding the protections of health information by the Federal government would be a welcome law to enact with respect to privacy interests since it would grant U.S. citizens the ability to control their personal information and utilize informed consent for collection or sharing by businesses and organizations.

Illegal and Unethical Behavior

I believe that we differentiate illegal and unethical behavior through the laws, regulations, moral principles, and societal norms that we operate under, with violations of the former being illegal behavior opening avenues for legal consequences while the former is legal but unethical violating the many rules and expectations under which average citizens in our society operate.

Some of the examples that come to mind of illegal behavior in privacy violations include data breaches where malicious actors manipulate or steal sensitive information, identity theft where malicious actors impersonate an individual enabling fraudulent activities, and unauthorized access through hacking or social engineering among several other approaches.

Unethical behavior, on the other hand, might involve organizations gathering significantly more personal information than what they are displaying to average users not gaining their explicit consent, the monetization of user data to other organizations without appropriate disclosure, and deceptive web application designs intent on tricking users into revealing information or misleading them.

Yes, I believe we can expect to lose some degree of privacy when using technology as it's often a matter of convenience, reliability, and efficiency, meaning average individuals that are the core focus of many products and services are likely to pick the path of least resistance no matter the security or privacy-related benefits of a more complex option. There is also a natural tradeoff in the types of technology being used by individuals, notably social media applications where users are trading a significant amount of personal information for conveniences in communication or entertainment and location-based applications or features revealing geographic information for collection and sharing.