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 Laws

A handful of privacy regulations exist in the United States (U.S.). To begin with, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (EPCA) was an addition to federal wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping regulations(U.S. Privacy Laws, n.d.). EPCA attempted to balance citizen rights while allowing more room for law enforcement action(U.S. Privacy Laws, n.d.). EPCA allowed for the private right of action and prohibited the use of illegally obtained evidence in court(U.S. Privacy Laws, n.d.).

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing Protection Act (CISPA) requires the government to share cyber threats in real-time and enables intelligence sharing with other agencies to support defensive cyber operations. CIPSA is an amendment to the National Security Act of 1957 that created and authorized a cybersecurity provider to gain cyber threat information and the authority to share it with other organizations(H.R.234 - 114th Congress (2015-2016), 2015).

The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) stops websites or services online that are tailored for a child audience from collecting personal information from children(U.S. Privacy Laws, n.d.). This law excludes information given to the parent and is enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)(U.S. Privacy Laws, n.d.).

Efficiencies/Deficiencies

All data protection laws and regulations are necessary. Without them, individual data privacy would be non-existent. However, there are significant deficiencies with all of these specific data privacy laws. EPCA and CISPA are only applicable to federal government functions. While this could have crossed over with individuals, most of what is contained within EPCA and CIPSA is simply to enable law enforcement and security organizations to function more efficiently. COPPA is just very specific. Again, it is a necessary piece of legislation. However, it could use an update. Considering how young people are now the primary consumers of online content, especially within social media.

All three and most data privacy laws need a refresher to catch up with technologies and the cyber domain in general. This is not to say that additional laws are necessary if the right ones can be appropriately amended. However, if lawmakers are having issues with changing existing rules and making new ones is the only way to establish an updated version, then that should be done. The longer time goes on, the more irrelevant existing laws become with technology, especially when cyber attackers and companies are actively profiting from data.

New Hampshire Cybersecurity Laws

The governor of New Hampshire (NH) recently signed a new bill, SB 255, a fully-fledged privacy law. It applies to state businesses that either create a product or provide a service with no less than 35,000 unique consumer payment data and no less than 10,000 personal data with at least a 25% profit from selling the data(Hunton Andrews Kurth, 2024). SB 255 imposes these requirements on data controllers, purpose limitation, and data protection requirements(Hunton Andrews Kurth, 2024). It states that data collection must be limited, privacy notes must be clear and meet standards, and data controllers must perform data protection assessments.

Overall, this is a good step in the right direction compared to what is federally available. I think that the federal government should incorporate the regulation. However, the only actual deficiency is the applicable scope of the law. Since NH is so small, it specifically targeted lower numbers, which should apply to any business that sells data at a certain percentage. Most online companies can stand for more regulation enforcement as well as auditing for compliance and the use of expected standards.

Differentiating Privacy

I believe it is pretty clear what the lines are regarding illegal and unethical behavior. If a company or a threat actor either:

• Collects or sells data without proper authorization.
• Steals or stores data without authorization.
• Invades the general privacy of an individual to make a profit or, in general.

Then, proper action needs to be taken. The individual needs to be protected from cyber attackers or from a company's profitability. This is why the government needs to work on attribution and accountability in general within cybersecurity law.

Regarding the question of whether you use technology, are you expected to lose privacy? Expected? No. I do not think that should be considered an exact trade. However, it should be made known that most online services do not prioritize individual privacy. Social media is an excellent example of sacrificing privacy in exchange for a service. There are differences between being a consumer and having consumer-based rights and being used as a product for a company. When you agree to use most social media platforms, you become a product and sacrifice concepts like data privacy to use their service. So, if you want to retain the idea of privacy, your best bet is to limit your information and use of online services in general. Nowadays, this logic no longer applies to only social media. Profiting off advertising is everywhere online.