Week 3 questions:

Question 1 –

See if you can find an example of a privacy breach that was reported in the Australian or international news in the last 6 months. What were the consequences? i.e. legal, political, financial, personal etc. What action was taken in response to the privacy breach? A major breach that happened in 2015 was when, Kmart Australia customers were hit by online privacy breach, due to a security hack. It was a privacy breach as customer’s personal information including their name, email address and telephone numbers were accessed by unauthorised users. Customers were notified of breach through email. The customers who were affected were the online users. Kmart acted effectively, they handled the breach and notified their customers quickly. This had consequences for Kmart though, customers were enraged that they did not show the breach across all social media platforms, whilst they emailed the concerned customers, they did not completely “publicly” expose this privacy breach. Customers may never shop online at Kmart again, impacting sales and their public image.

In reference to:

(Shoba Rao,News Corp Australia Network. (2015). Kmart Australia customers hit by online privacy breach in security hack. Retrieved 19 March, from http://www.news.com.au/technology/online/hacking/kmart-australia-customers-hit-by-online-privacy-breach-in-security-hack/news-story/9eb8eed08aedb63c28fa8164ff1e726b)

Question 2
Intellectual Property (IP) online, particularly copyright is keeping many lawyers in a job, but are they losing the battle? Topics such as plagiarism are still popular in universities, and occasionally a politician will get caught using someone else’s words. The Internet is not a copyright free zone, but it is certainly a battle ground. Watch the following video and discuss your rights to use copies or make mashups.

Copy rights directly affect everyone. There is now a bigger concept of relationships online, rather than the ‘ownership’of content. On YouTube, content ID recognises videos that are uploaded which breach the copy right aspect to registered content. This protection method does not allow the breached content to be uploaded. You cannot record a song on a mobile device and upload it to YouTube if it has a copy right policy and denies your use of it’s content. Your upload is compared to all files in their data base (such as YouTube), then the usage rights are analysed. If the usauge rights declare it can not be used unless you have been given permission and you upload it anyway, it will be removed. Some usuage rights state you can use their songs or content, aslong as you give them credit. The policy will directly affect what you can and cannot upload or use. In some cases, depending on what the company wants to do, they may give usuge rights to a video or contemt so that they can advertise their business through the hits or views it gets.

Mashups are when one video has multiple copy right owners. There may be a song included but that song has an artist and a publisher who have ownership rights. On YouTube (in reference to the video), all parties must register to the content ID system.

What AmI technologies are identified in the case?

Collection of data about individuals from hundreds of sources. Data is then sold data back to many of those sources.

Location tracking devices for employees (in a bid to minimise theft). They also have iris scanners which ensure a higher rank of security within the organisation.

They also have profiling technology where the company can identify people who are security risks by tracking their data and location.

What drives DMC’s officers to take the actions they took?

Being a multinational company, DMC knew that a scandal like the theft of data would compromise their reputation for securely holding national information thus destroying their business. By withholding the theft information, they thought they could minimise the issue or problem in the public eye. They did not want their buyers to think they were untrustworthy, especially with their own employees stealing valuable data.

DMC is the clear market leader in the aggregation of AmI data. Are there any comparisons you can make to technology companies today?

Ambient intelligence is utilised by companies like DMC, I would say that Google could be compared with other search engines such as Yahoo or Wikipedia and come out on top. While all of these companies utilise data information and have a way of identifying which data is most relevant to the user’s search, Google is widely renowned for its quick and efficient searches, and people connect with it in a variety of ways. Gmail is widely used for emails, Google drive is utilised for its data storage and Google scholar provides access to articles written for educational purposes.

How realistic is the description of governments using the technology and prohibiting immigration from states with no AmI data aggregation information?

Governments can use this technology to avoid money laundering or financial terrorism according to (Dr. ir. B.H.M. Custers. Profiling of money laundering and terrorism funding. Retrieved 22nd of March, from http://wwwis.win.tue.nl/~tcalders/dadm/lib/exe/fetch.php?media=iceis_contribution.pdf). Also in reference to: (Paul De Hert. Legal safeguards for privacy and data protection in ambient Intelligence. Retrieved on 22nd March, from http://www.vub.ac.be/LSTS/pub/Dehert/269.pdf) The article outlined that people could be refused immigration into a country if there is a lack of information withheld in data about them. This description seemed that it could be accurate, even if countries did not use AML data aggregation, such as third world countries they could be refused immigration into our country until further data was found on record and to add into our AML data.

What would be the impact of this digital divide?

While DMC is a leader of aml technologies, the whole digital world can have data accessed about them, the rest of the world without this digital data storage will have trouble connecting with countries who are further advanced. They may be less likely to have data theft but also will be left behind by the rest of the world using the internet to manage their countries and people.

List some of the ‘unintended consequences’ described in the case.

Their shares skyrocketed to the bottom of the stock exchange. People lost trust and respect for the company as they tried to cover it up, employee morale may have been tense and the boss also ran away (showing her unethical standards). The company fortunately received a boost of revenue by the government to keep afloat, as the multinational data was too essential to the security and privacy of the companies.

Do members of the class all agree on the issues raised by this case? What were the main points of difference (if any) in discussions?

Organisations need to act ethically if they are to survive in the public eye. By covering up the issue and not turning over the situation to the police, their reputation was shattered. If they had have reported it straight away and notified all of its users, I think DMC would be a bigger and more successful organisation. Most organisations on that large scale would legally deal with the matter to avoid being shut down or loss of profits, it sounds like DMC was not being ran ethically and had staff who proved a threat to company. This may have stemmed from the leadership, even the ceo ran when it came to the law, leaving DMC to look un ethical and un trustworthy.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s