The development of new technologies has been a major contributor to several innovations and solutions to the contemporary challenges facing organizational managements. In this regard, the advances developed in the world in technological perspectives have been creating a broad range of influence to the workplace environment. In particular, communication technologies have been critical in the development of a robust frameworks aimed at compelling the global community towards a global villages workplace phenomena through enhanced communications. However, the overuse of technologies which is also characterized with mishandling of the new technologies has been detrimental to human social-economic lives (Kerr, 2014).
Within the society, several aspects are prohibited to underage persons such as cigarettes, alcohol, and pornographic contents. Nevertheless, with the development of the internet, young persons are highly susceptible to these vices through their personal computers. The contemporary internet for the parents is often considered hazardous and dangerous innovation to children. The advances in computer and internet technologies, in particular, have also resulted from numerous negative influences on both children and vulnerable adults. These effects include; malicious software, also referred to as Malware, which includes; spyware, phishing scams and adware (Kerr, 2014).
Another potential threat is data theft through a mechanism such as credit card numbers and stolen passwords among others. This may result in considerable losses of financial resources and possible loss of commercial packs. Advanced technology has also created a significant increase in cyber-bullying and rise in sex predators for the minors through social-networking sites and chat rooms. Sex exploitation of the minors is mainly considered to have the most advanced impact on the children groups and individuals with devastating effects on the entire society. Advanced technologies have also tended to violate the legal right to privacy. In essence, many modern democracies have centralized this right (Kerr, 2014). Privacy right is very essential for other rights including freedoms and personal autonomy.
How should new technologies be regulated? Can they be regulated?
The regulation of new technologies is very necessary to provide the most optimum results expected in the society or an economy. While regulations of new technologies may be associated with creating significant inhibition to the development of new technologies, moderations must be exercised towards establishing important protections against the adversities of the technology. To enhance the regulatory outcomes of technologies, the regulation of technologies provides a complex scenario which depends on the technology of the regulations adopted and the designs and instruments chosen in for the particular regulatory intervention. To develop a technological, regulatory mechanism, it is important to understand the operations of the regulatory responses within an ecological system within the framework under which the regulations seeks to create changes in (Lloyd, 2014).
While there has been an increase in the level of adverse influences of technology, the regulators must be extra careful in developing certain forms of uncertainty within this space. In particular, the regulation of technologies may act as a barrier to further advances in the same technology. In the banking sector, in particular, online lending has been democratizing the manner in which consumers and other smaller business entities have been borrowing money. This implies that they become relatively less dependent on the banks. In case the government decides to introduce stiff regulations in this industry, this may result in considerable challenge on the borrower or the clients who are the main beneficially of the advanced online lending technology. The type of regulations adopted in the technological world must not be very strict and overstepping since such regulations may create unprecedented outcomes. This implies that regulation of technologies should be taken but caution must be exercised while creating the restrictions or boundaries thereon to separate the intended results from the unprecedented outcomes.
Is it sometimes necessary to sacrifice a few freedoms to protect national security and to ensure the long- term viability of civil liberty?
The national security entails a wider sense which involves both external and internal security. External security comprises the implementation of the large legal codes by the state as a mechanism for preventing attacks against the state borders, possible foreign invasions, and terrorism. It may also be useful in assisting in maintaining immigration control and the international trade activities. Internal security, however, entails a considerable domestic feel using the expressions of political powers via a democratic process. Consequently, before sacrificing some freedoms, the state must first identify the sections of the national security by reference. For instance, if referring to the internal security, there is a real threat to individual freedoms to enhance state security.
The civil rights for the citizens to privacy, peaceful protests and fair trial among others may be subject to potential threats to improve internal safety and long-term civil liberty. For instance, in the US, there has been the establishment of the US Patriot Act, which is perceived to be intended for monitoring and listening to potential terror groups conversations. However, while the latter has been the primary intention, many companies have been a beneficiary of this law. In this regard, it implies that by exercising civil rights through expressing themselves does not recap one to be a terrorist. Instead, such makes individuals more patriotic to their country. From this perspective, the consideration of sacrificing some pertinent freedoms for the sake of the countrys prosperity is very essential and may create a successful end with public civility. Some freedoms are therefore necessary to be curtailed for practical endorsement of national security instruments (Kerr, 2014).
Should the same protocols be used for domestic electronic surveillance and foreign surveillance? Why?
Both domestic electronic and the foreign surveillance must not adopt similar protocols. National security is a primary concern for any country. However, the threats to national security can be either external or internal perpetrators who may form the basis for the violation of certain individual rights and freedoms. The exposure of the surveillance programs to the locals must not be expanded to the international perspectives due to the varying interests among the local and global citizenry (Willard, 2011). At any particular time, the local mechanism, for instance, can order the delivery of phone records from a local telecommunication firm. Further communication details about the local communication industries can be easily retrieved. This situation is highly likely due to the legal systems that govern the operations of the organizations in a country.
Due to the varying international laws regarding privacy of information and other aspects of communication, this may be inhibited through cross-border reach out to information sources. Consequently, it may involve a consideration of international law that would facilitate the adoption of the procedural mechanism for retrieving information from foreign surveillance systems. There have also been considerations of surveillance programs as illegal processes in certain jurisdictions although claimed to be intended to prevent terrorist attacks. The difference between local and international laws has therefore been critical in considering the differences in the formulation of domestic electronic surveillance and foreign monitoring systems. This implies that international monitoring systems must not be similar to the domestic electronic surveillance systems due to the differences in their levels of threats and impending comfort of manipulation (Willard, 2011). The protocols must be enshrined within the context of the legal systems of the country involved.
What is the likelihood that new surveillance technologies will be used as tools of repression by authoritarian regimes in the near future?
In modern governance, the majority of developing countries have been exercising dictatorship forms of governance which are a significant subset of development. Besides, this practice has also been slowly creeping into other authoritarian regimes globally. Repression technologies comprise of hardware, liveware and software components undertaken through manipulative programs with significant social-political controls. Modern technological equipment comprising of political controls includes helicopters-mounted crowd monitoring equipment and the night vision cameras. These equipment are used for speeding up the processes of social-political controls besides making them relatively efficient in targeting and clearing dissident aspects questioning the status quo (Willard, 2011).
There is also addition software of different standards operating procedures that form software components of trade. These includes riots and specific counter-insurgency training that are supplied to authoritarian regimes as well as technical allegiances such as the adoption of scientific approaches to interrogations and other severe forms of human destructions. Through any particular bureaucracy of repressions, there are several people with learned ideological attitudes that are necessary for maintaining the systems in operation (Willard, 2011). Due to these advances and growing interests to manipulate the electorates and keep powers, the authoritarian regimes are more likely to use repression technologies in future to manage their ascension and retention of power in the long-run. This is also a significant threat to the democratic space that has been a subject of significant discrepancies and wars over time.
Kerr, O. S. (2014). The fourth amendment and new technologies: constitutional myths and thecase for caution. Michigan Law Review, 801-888.
Lloyd, I. (2014). Information technology law. Oxford University Press, USA.
Willard, N. (2011). School response to cyberbullying and sexting: The legal challenges. BYUEduc. & LJ, 75.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SuperbGrade website, please click below to request its removal: