Team Against Greater Law Enforcement example essay topic

The beginning of the debates saw the proposing team outlining the importance of IT in relation to human choice and freedom. Using Napster as an example, users of IT may now choose to purchase the 1 song of their preference unlike browsing and selection methods of the past where consumers would have to buy a whole CD just to enjoy the listening pleasures of that 1 song. The team went on to propose that IT provides a means whereby its user may enjoy the freedom to receive. This is exemplified in the receipt of news from all over the world, where in some countries, perhaps in the present and the past, were subjected to restrictions in terms of press freedom. Not only has IT allowed the user to receive this, but also to receive news or mediums of communication in a faster and more efficient way. Electronic mail has come forth to steal the limelight from its predecessor, the snail mail, and perhaps someday replace it altogether.

Within the efficient communicating and freedom of choice and receipt, on the other side of the coin lies the freedom to broadcast i.e. the freedom of speech in cyberspace. With IT, old boundaries are breached and we can now do things which we couldn! t before. In performing tasks such as research, IT provides a global network that reduces research time and increases productivity. In the end, I gather that perhaps the message the proposing team was trying to send across was that IT simply improves the quality of life. The opposing team began with a rebuttal of the proposition!'s argument that IT simply gives more freedom to man, by stating the fact that in some parts of the world this is not the case.

In China, for example, restricted Internet is not an uncommon practice. I tend to agree with this because at a more fundamental level, this is exemplified in the war on Iraq by the United States of America. In the era of Saddam Hussein!'s rule over Iraq, its citizens were denied their right to enjoy broadcasts from all over the world. Instead, its citizens were only allowed to tune in to broadcasting mediums of the regime!'s choice. In any case where IT does facilitate smooth and efficient communications, the opposing team highlighted that this facility is also available to the wrong hands, so to speak. We hear of members of terrorist movements communicating via IT-facilitated means, handling of financial assets by underground activists for illegal purposes and etc.

Perhaps one of the most crucial drawbacks put forth by the opposing team is the issue of security on the Internet. E-commerce is often associated with business transactions online. These transactions require exchanges of personal details of a person, details which may lead a person to be spammed with advertisements of other promotional sales activities as a result of unscrupulous database administrators selling customer data to other organizations. Credit card fraud is not an uncommon phenomenon on the internet especially with the rise of E-commerce champions such as Amazon. com, Barnes & Noble and practically every financial institution of the world. To its most serious extent, some users are reluctant to partake in Internet banking for fear of security leaks pertaining to the sensitive information of their financial well-being.

While the proposing team have outlined that IT facilitates communications, the opposing team have explored the extremity of this. At this end, we see the birth of a niche of people known as the! ^0 computer geeks! +/-. Those portrayed in movies as computer, technology or IT enthusiasts who build their whole lives around this! ^0 concept! +/- known as IT.

When communications become the sole source of social interaction, IT instead causes anti-socialism among this niche of people, a point which the opposition made but was not elaborated enough to my liking. Furthermore, it is this group that is especially sensitive to the waves of trend on the Internet. Unknowingly hidden within the freedom of publishing and receipt, could lie undesirable propaganda that is unhealthy to the heart and mind of an individual, a community and a nation as a whole. Indeed, it is IT which facilitates this advertising of propaganda that is not of original thought. This ultimately sucks its users dry of the freedom to think for one!'s self, therefore concluding with a quote from the opposition, ! ^0 Freedom is not of the physical form, it is of the mental state.!

+/- In my opinion, this debate highlights the many pros and cons that IT brings. The propositioning team has outlined the most obvious of benefits that man can and has derived from IT. The opposing team has, conversely, put forth arguments to rebut these benefits. Looking at the whole picture, the benefits of IT are inherent to man. Undeniably, man has derived tremendous conveniences from IT. But the arguments of the opposition bear relevance in highlighting the abuse of IT.

This debate highlights how, like many other things in this world, a tool may be beneficial if used in certain ways and harmful if used in another. Many proverbs have been coined by famous icons of history to describe this. The one that comes to mind is that! ^0 One man!'s meat is another man!'s poison!

+/-. True indeed, that IT can and has helped to better mankind. But at the same time, many have paid the price for the use of this tool. As such, it is in my opinion that perhaps the virtue of moderation, moderation in thought, in use and in intentions could prove obliging in ensuring the use of IT for only the best of purposes.

Should Law Enforcement Make Greater Effort to Track Down Virus Makers This debate raised many interesting issues in relation to law enforcement and the tracking of virus makers. The team in support for greater law enforcement focused greatly on the effects of lawlessness of these virus makers! actions while the team against greater law enforcement presented their argument based on the difficulties of implementation. The team pushing for greater law enforcement first stated the obvious that the design of software is a complex process and it is virtually impossible for designers to cover all loopholes. After all, this is the basis of the concept of continuous improvement and how corporations of the world re-launch new versions of their existing products.

Owing to the inability of software designers to create fool-proof and flawless software, the team argued that it is on the part of law enforcement agencies to step in and play the role of a policeman in the cyberspace. The team further emphasized that without law enforcement, consumers of these software products will lose confidence in the products of a particular company. As a result, victimized companies of virus makers suffer economic consequences. Continuing on from their point, I believe that these consequences, in turn, create a chain reaction to society as a whole. As we step into the future, it is obvious to anyone that technology conglomerates have emerged out of the industrialization era. In many markets of the world, technology markets have emerged as a dominant niche by themselves where traditional giants such as construction, finance, consumer and industrial products have remained categorized within a large general index.

The consequences of a loss in confidence in these companies would signal the inevitable collapse of these IT conglomerates. To many a country around the world, the IT sector provides a huge source of revenue for its people, creating jobs and putting food on the table for many. A collapse of these conglomerates would create job losses, stir social unrest and create a global economic depression. The team further argued that viruses are malicious in nature and its creators are often ignorant to the true consequences of their actions. Many a virus maker see their actions as merely a means of self-gratification or perhaps a measure of achievement, oblivious to the widespread paranoia their actions may trigger in the event that law enforcement is lax or non-existent. Essentially, viruses represent the epitome of privacy invasion.

To not champion for greater law enforcement of these individuals! actions is to allow an invasion of one!'s privacy. Privacy is a private cost borne by each individual. By means of greater law enforcement, we can reduce the cost of constantly updating our software with patches that represent continuous expenditure by software developers to ensure the integrity of their software. To conclude for the team I would think that calling for greater law enforcement should not be seen as an incurrence of a greater cost but merely transference of this cost presently being borne by companies as continuous expenditure and by individuals as private costs of privacy invasion to a greater end. The team against greater law enforcement raised very relevant issues in regards to the extent that law enforcement may be implemented. The team stated that countries all around the world have different laws governing the citizens of their countries.

In today!'s judicial practice, laws of a country are binding on an individual on the sovereign soil of the country. It is impractical to dictate that the law of a country would apply to every other individual in any country all around the world. The same can be said if cyberspace law were to be enforced globally. Which country!'s law would reign dominant in persecuting the virus maker? Would it be the country of origin of the virus or one where damage is inflicted? The very fact that the virus may be transmitted to second, third and a chain of parties further complicates the matter.

In my opinion, the task of finding the virus maker is likened to finding a needle in a haystack. Which country of the 147 countries within the United Nations (the largest union of countries presently in existence) would law enforcers start looking at? The enormous amount of effort and time necessary in implementing greater enforcement calls for large amounts of funding. The source of these funds prove to be yet another daunting hurdle in implementing greater enforcement. While users of software may be willing to pay a premium on the product to ensure its! ^0 integrity! +/-, software developers are essentially profit making entities and would only be willing to contribute up to as much as they would have to spend on continuous improvement.

The real question then would be the adequacy of these contributions in combing the entire earth for all virus makers? The greater hurdle in this implementation lies in the asymmetry between all countries of the world. The team questions the willingness of sovereign rulers of each nation to give up their own powers and to grant authoritative power to this global law enforcement entity to carry out whatever means in their country. How much power would be of the right amount to give this entity? A lack of vested power would result in inefficiency while excessive power may cause a violation of rights differing across all countries depending on culture, historical background etc.

In my opinion, the proponents of law enforcement raised relevant consequences in regards to the actions of virus makers. The opposing team, instead, argued on the difficulties of implementation. Our lessons from Utilitarianism teach us that many of our choices are governed by achieving net benefit positions to ourselves. In nature, man would choose a choice whereby marginal benefits exceed marginal costs. Economists term this as equilibrium. Legal ists term this as judicial right.

Therefore, in choosing a stand, perhaps it is wise to consider the net result of greater law enforcement and to balance this with what it will cost society globally implement. The real question at the end of the day is, are we willing to pay the price?