Data Protection and Cyber Security Issues - Essay Example

? Data Protection and Cyber Security Cyber Security In recent times, the press has highlighted a number of challenges posed by Twitter, in relation to criminal tweets. Despite attempts to curtail this most dangerous form of communication, it is apparent that these examples simply demonstrate that the law is unclear, weak and ineffectual when it comes to addressing these challenges. Undertake a critical evaluation of this view. [NAME] [SCHOOL] Introduction The present world has been stormed by massive technological breakthroughs that have seen great advancement in the way we communicate. Many communication advancements have been realized and these have led to the turning of the world into a minute global village where the distance is no longer a communication barrier. What has made this a possibility is the improvement in the communication technologies and mediums. The social media has been the best hit. Over the past, the social media has realized great developments which have made it easier to communicate and build a network of people from all over the world. Because of this, just as Bishop J. implies on increasing online communities, millions of people who were once not interested in social network development have now diverted to the same and joined the booming social platforms.1 These developments have seen emergence of many social media platforms and chat rooms that people are now free to join for a chance to connect with both known and unknown people from every location of the world, thanks to the internet. Social chat-rooms like twitter and Facebook are just but examples of the freely available social platforms. The development in the social media has come at a price that the society has dearly paid in the past years. The adoption of digital communication done through the social platforms has, over the past, paved way for many instances of the violation of many UK laws that govern the privacy of information and human rights. There have been several instances where people have used the various social platforms to pass messages that either violates human rights or laws governing the country. Twitter, a prominent social media website, has been used by various people to relay criminal tweets which have affected the public by a great deal. The government has been trying to control the information passed through the social media. As outlined by Bishop, various laws and regulations have been made to prevent people from posting offensive messages that might have adverse effects on the public.2 Contrary to what should happen, people who post criminal and offensive messages on these social platforms have, in the past, made away with the offenses. For instance, law enforcers now say that offensive comments that are posted on twitter and Facebook rarely lead to charges unless they also include eminent threats and/or even lead to harassment campaigns. This and many past events has seen the government unable to curtail the harms caused by various social media offensive messages hence clearly showing that the law is unclear and ineffective in addressing the social media offenses. This has come along with mixed reactions from people who are now left with question that tends to explain whether the social media is really effective in controlling the digital content. The numbers of offensive messages which are posted on twitter and Facebook among others have been on the rise lately. Estimates now show that millions of messages are sent within a single day. The most surprising part is that this is a statistic for only twitter with other social websites not considered. A large number of the messages which are sent daily are offensive and pose threats to the public. What has made this a significant threat is that the messages, which are initially only meant for a particular person or group, may eventually end up reaching millions of people worldwide. According to the U.K director of public prosecutions (DPP) Keir Starmer QC., many people who post criminal messages online may go uncharged. This he says happens since the court only takes interest in cases which represent or cause a campaign of a direct threat or harassment. This has made it difficult to control information posted in social forums. As emphasized by Tayeju-Akinsiku concerning technology and communication, the effects of the lack of clarity of the law in handling digital content criminal offenders has caused several controversial decisions over tweets that were rather offensive and would have resulted to criminal charges.3 Moreover, the director of public prosecution (DPP) has further explained that the current media laws are unclear and makes it absolutely difficult to prosecute people who post criminal messages on social media. With the decision that offensive messages posted on social media will not be considered offensive unless they pose an harassment threat or direct threat, it is unfortunate that the law has left a significant gap for law breakers to post offensive messages with the protection that they will not be directed to individuals or start an harassment campaign. This implies that for a prosecution to be launched, the posted message has to be more than offensive. The message must not be merely disturbing, iconoclastic, satirical or rude. These are the guidelines that the current U.K law holds for digital content offenses. The ineffectiveness of the law concerning online offenders is also seen when it implies that in cases where the posted offensive message is swiftly removed by the writer or the social websites and service providers, the act is not considered a chargeable offense. Moreover, it also implies that in cases where the message is evidenced to not have been initially meant for a larger audience, the offender is unlikely to be charged in court. With these considerations, the only left chargeable cases are those which exceed the considerations of the freedom of expression. This is not all; the law is also unclear in further determining recognized cases. It further implies that for a person to be charged for posting offensive messages on social media the charges must satisfy the interest of the public and this may help people who post offensive messages to go uncharged. In the past, several cases have been dismissed on the grounds of not qualifying to be presented to court. The major case that happened recently is the case of Tom Daley concerning the media prosecution. This case involved Daniel Thomas, a junior professional footballer. Daniel Thomas posted homophobic message on Twitter concerning Tom Daley and Peter Waterfield, Olympic divers. The posted messages were taken up by various people who distributed it throughout the social media. Tom Daley was later arrested and put under interview. Afterwards, the case was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) which was given the responsibility to decide whether he was to be charged for involving himself in a criminal offense or not.4 According to the Communications Act 2003, it is an offence to send a grossly offensive communication using electronic communications which are open to the public. Sending message through Twitter is considered a public sending of electronic messages. The recipient of the message, according to the Communications Act does not matter and can be the intended recipient or any other person. The message posted by Thomas was undoubtedly offensive. However, due to lack of clarity of the law, the CPS had the responsibility to determine, not whether it was offensive but whether it was extremely offensive enough to lead to the launch of criminal charges. Coming up with a clear decision concerning this case was a daunting task. Considering the take of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the case of Handyside v UK (1976), that stated that the exclusive right to the freedom of expression of every individual entails the right to say anything one may wish to say or express personal opinions that may offend, disturb, shock or anger a given section of the population or the state, the circumstances and context were found to be significantly relevant. The following facts were considered in the case; the fact that Mr. Thomas posted the messages with an intention of them being funny, the fact that the messages were initially not meant to go beyond his already added followers who largely comprised of friends and family, the fact that Mr. Thomas deleted the messages immediately, the fact that Mr. Thomas was sorry about the harm caused and had already been suspended by his team and finally the fact that the messages were not intended for either Mr. Daley or Mr. Waterfield. These facts were taken into consideration and Jim Brisbane; the Wales Chief Crown Prosecutor concluded that the message was not so grossly offensive that criminal charges could be launched. This is a case where the law was not straight-forward enough to allow for the prosecution for posting criminal messages. The messages were themselves offensive but no charges were pressed. This showed that despite the efforts that have been put in place to shun social media crimes and offences, the law is still not in full support as some of its sections and acts are still not reliable enough to prosecute social media digital content offenders. Concurrently, in May 2010, the conviction of a man, Paul Chambers, for allegedly posting a joke on Twitter on the issue of bombing Robin Hood Airport located in South Yorkshire also showed the inaccuracy of the present laws governing the usage and dissemination of digital content. His tweet attracted attention from thousands of people and was met with widespread condemnation and disproval. Again, the U.K Crown Prosecution Service had the duty to bring him under the law but this eventually failed. His conviction was later dropped on appeal in July in the High Court. This brought about mixed public reactions as the messages posted were offensive and violated the interests of the public. The results would later see the set-up of interim Crown Prosecution Service guidelines on the prosecution of cases involving any communication done over the social media. The guidelines which have been laid down by the Director of Public Prosecution and the Crown Prosecution Service have been trying to change the ways in which people break the media laws. The guidelines come as a revision of the past electronic communication and social media laws of the past which did not clearly define the prosecution of criminal tweets and other social media updates. The guidelines have introduced various modern terminologies and concepts that try to explain the stand of law against the social media malpractices but to no avail. The counter effect and opposition gotten from the many Human Acts laws and those governing the freedom of speech give it thorough challenge. This hinders the possibility of clearly defining electronic communication offence. The DPP is now forced to provide effective prosecutorial guidance with no law rewriting and this has put him in a very challenging solution. This step taken and the guidelines outlined also indicate how difficult it is to apply old laws to the new world of social communication. While the now provided guidelines attempt to provide better explanation to the digital electronic communication over public forums, people who always use the social media are still left uncertain about the kind of information that if distributed leads to a punishable offense according to the law. This further shows how the law is still not clear and effective in handling issues concerning social media criminal messages. There has been a significant development of the laws and acts guiding the use of electronic data. The past laws state that one can only be prosecuted in cases where the sent message is a gross offence to its recipients or anybody who it relates to. This was according to DPP v. Collins [2006] 1 WLR 222 which also has it that messages concerning a particular ethnic minority could only be considered grossly offensive when not directly sent to them but the public. There is also the Human rights Act 1998 (HRA) which fought to equally guarantee freedoms and rights under European Convention concerning the Human Rights. This aimed at providing utmost respect to people who hold given judicial offices and become eventual European Court of Human Rights’ judges and for related purposes of guarding human rights in relation to other cases with electronic communication included. The Human Rights Commission legitimatized the legislation of the UK in concern to the defamation which made it absolutely necessary for the ruling government to fully protect the reputation of its citizens when handling the freedom of expression. As from the beginning of the year 1998, the impacts that the Human Rights Act brought has grown to reach over the boundaries of constitutional matters, general legislation and the effect of consideration in various law disputes. This Human Rights Act, as implied by Masterman and Leigh, also influenced significant points that relates to the way people use the internet including the use of online social communities like Twitter.5 An example of this instance is seen in Article 11 of the same convention which basically imposes obligatory associations and related organizations to ceremoniously accept every person wishing to join them. The Act further implies that people have the right to join the social websites by application so as to further relay their expressions, views, beliefs, practices ideas and cultures as outlined in the Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen v. United Kingdom (ECHR, App no 11002/05). It is evident that these were enacted before the now booming social media came into existence. These specific laws were made well before the social media undergone the transformation which it has now undergone. This implies that the laws cannot be used to accurately shun criminal tweets and other social media updates. Many activities are now going on in the social websites and millions of people have also joined. Therefore, laws that were used to govern electronic communication over public forums a decade ago cannot effectively be of use at this time. Nonetheless, while performing the international review of laws, computers and technology, Bishop J. explains that the ways people communicate have also undergone a great deal of transformation with the introduction of various modern methods.6 This has changed the words people use, phrases and how people write their messages making it quite difficult for the old laws to distinguish what is offensive and what is not. For instance, many words that were considered offensive several years ago are now considered normal. The old laws and regulations governing electronic communication have also been changed and improvised over the past. For instance, the Communications Act 2003, Section 127 has been enacted and covers the distribution of improper texts and messages. Section 127(a), similar to the previous similar sections of the law, now includes indecent phone calls, emails and all electronic messages of indecent manner. Section 127(2), due to the changes in the way people communicate, now covers persistent messages, prank messages and sending of any electronic material that causes annoyance or misappropriate anxiety to the recipient. Crown Prosecution Service has it that the law now states that a person liable for any of the offences under section 127 CA 2003 shall be liable to lawful imprisonment or conviction. Despite these consequences, the law is yet to clearly define what message is considered grossly offensive. It is yet to explain concisely what specific kind of message is punishable and should be avoided. This is also as a result of the ever changing communication style and language. People are now easily accepting words and phrases which were once considered inappropriate and considering them less harmful which is why the law needs to be revised and clear outlines drawn on what is offensive and a criminal message. According to DLA Piper, a commercial law firm, almost two thirds of the entire online social community (63%) has little or completely no awareness of their respective legal rights as well as responsibilities whenever they are posting messages and comments on various social websites.7 The firm goes ahead to explain that over half (52%) of specifically Twitter users do not put the media laws into considerations before tweeting their tweets regardless of the past high profile cases concerning the abuse of the electronic communication and social media. According to the DLA Piper survey, only about 6% of all respondents of the survey indicated that they have had a moment when their profiles on social media websites were blocked by the website moderator. This is probably because what one considers to be extremely offensive might in other cases be normal to a different person hence the public interest is not violated. Web administrators and moderators are also finding it difficult to do their work of moderation being that there is not point-blank law that defines specific media offences over the social media. The ambiguity of the social media laws presents challenges of respective law enforcement as well as free speech. According to the Leveson Report, the internet is describes as a mere ‘ethical vacuum’ where people from all walks of life, including bloggers, normal members, may consider acting with impunity without the risk of attaining ‘glossy’ offense threshold. This has even worsened with the dropping of many cases concerning offensive messages in Twitter. In conclusion, various media and public laws have been enacted to control the electronic content shared in the social media. However, several instances of criminal tweets have been witnesses in the past and to make matters worse, the law has not been clear enough to punish the offenders. Controversial criminal tweets and messages have gone unquestioned and if so had their cases dropped at one level of the law due to ambiguity of the explanation of the law concerning the social media’s offensive messages. The law has no specific definitions of what is considered inappropriate and in most cases relies on the interest of the public to determine the threshold of the offensiveness of a criminal tweet. For instance, according to Rowbottom, the public order laws are primarily about the standards of behaving in public, the law also only seeks to manage the competing rights and interests of people sharing a public space.8 Because of this, various sections of the public have been socially or psychologically harmed by offensive messages from other people who, due to the lack of clarity of the law, have gone scot free without cases to answer. These have mostly occurred in the social media websites like Twitter who are now full of people busy building their social networks without clear laws to govern the information that they share. Despite various attempts by various individuals and law sections to bombard the social media information malpractices, the evident past examples and events clearly indicates that the law is still unclear, weak and ineffectual when it comes to addressing these challenges. Read More