Social and Legal Aspects of Computing - Assignment Example

s) Question This study is about safety of personal details against illegitimate use, storage, damage, exposure or interference. It is always essential for the people, who are charged with the responsibility of keeping personal details of others to ensure that the information is secure, reliable, and up to date and free of any interruptions that may result to decline in value or make them unworthy for the purpose it was intended for (Andrea & Deborah 2011). To achieve this objective, the data should be kept away from accessibility of any intruders. It should be made accessible to the relevant people for the relevant purpose. Information should be kept in a place where it is only accessible to the relevant people whenever and wherever they may need it (Ward & Dafoulas 2006). However, in this case study Susan failed to protect details of her group members by selling the data to businessman and mishandling the backup information which was stored in a USB stick. The information was not available to the users since the database became in accessible and Susan misplaced the only back up that was available. Personal details should also be kept in such a manner that they will portray the accuracy to the users. To achieve this, it is vital for the data to be kept in a place where they cannot be altered without the consent of the owners (Theda & Mary 2010). In the case study, Susan had written information which was irrelevant such as the details regarding the Caroline relationship with her former boyfriend Tom. Such information did not add any value to the information for the purpose it was intended for. Furthermore, Susan allowed another personal to use the data illegally which could result to its loss in authenticity. In addition, Susan forgot the secondary device in which the data was stored, and this created a loophole for other people to access private data which they could alter to suit their personal desires rather than the use for the benefit of the members. Question 2 The principle of data protection act requires that the individual information being generated should be just and legitimate (Theda & Mary 2010). It is a legal requirement that such personal details should be obtained for a specific purpose only and not for any other reason whether legitimate or lawful. Susan violated this rule because she included private information regarding the relationship between Caroline and Tom (her former boy friend) and by adding that there relationship was not genuine, but a mere pretence just meant to hurt her. This information was not related to the reason for which the database of members was required. The regulations also require individual information regarding other people to be processed with their authority (Andrea & Deborah 2011). The information held by one person on behalf of others is not supposed to be used for any other purpose apart from the one it was meant for. In this case, Susan shared member’s personal details with Peter for commercial use and in fact she received compensation of £1000. This was against members wishes since they were included in the deal. Therefore, members are entitled to compensation for the illegitimate use of personal details. Personal details should be kept safe where they cannot easily be accessed by unauthorized parties, spoilt, or replicated (Andrea & Deborah 2011). Susan violated this rule by carelessly sharing information with other people which eventually caused blockage of data maintained in the members’ website. She also misplaced the backup gadget which contained member’s details and probably the gadget was taken by other people. Those people who took that gadget probably went ahead and abused the information contained in it for their personal gains. This denied the group members the right to protection of their personal details which may result to abuse of their details. Question 3 In the case study, Peter replicated the data massively and sent numerous email messages to the clients. The members complained to Susan that they were receiving messages which were marketing Barkhampton’s Computer Shop. Although Peter had obtained the details for the members of Barkhampton University Student Computing Society to use for his own business, these details were not provided by the members for this purpose. According to Andrea & Deborah (2011), this was against authority for the safety of the information shared through the internet. It is legal requirement that personal details should be used with authority from the owners (Nunziato, 2009). Susan had made personal arrangement with the Peter so that she could sell the details of her members to him. She did not consult the members in person to seek their consent for use of their personal details. She used the details for her members for her own benefit. Since Peter knew about it and bribed Susan in order to obtain those details, He violated this rule hence was liable to the members. He should have first requested the members in person to ensure that he has authority to use their details for his own gain. The use of personal information for business or other purposes requires just and legitimate acceptance by the user (Nunziato, 2009). This will involve consent from the owner and the user must ensure the use this information for the purpose it was intended for. Peter did not consult the owners and in fact bribed Susan in order to obtain the information he needed. This process was not legitimate and was unjust for the owners who felt offended after receiving the advertisements from Peter. Question 4 In order to ensure the safety of data shared among many people, it is always vital for the concerned parties to provide security for hardware, software and processes of data sharing (Laurette & Andries 2004). They should ensure that all storage devices are kept in a safe place where they cannot be accessed by unintended users. They should establish a procedure for identifying themselves such as use of password and usernames for accessing the data. This will limit the accessibility of information to concerned individuals only. Susan should have sought authority for sharing data from other members. In case they refuse to share their personal information with outsiders, then Susan has no other option but to adhere to their decisions. By ensuring safety of the transmission procedures (Duquenoy, Jones & Blundell 2008, p. 67), Susan will ensure that no leakage of information to unintended users and therefore reduce the danger of abuse of private details by the intruders. Susan should have ensured that the data is encrypted before transmission online to prevent the risk of leakage. The use of online transmission procedure via email was dangerous because there was possibility for data being hijacked during transmission. Question 5 The Freedom of Information Act 2000 refers to the legislation which was endorsed by the national assembly of the United Kingdom, and it grants authority to the civic access to information held by the authority (Nunziato 2009). The Act applies to three public bodies including “public authorities, public owned companies” and bodies appointed to provide communal services. Those bodies are responsible for providing information to the public when they are requested to do so. They must disclose whether they are maintaining the information as requested for the public interest. Those bodies are not however entitled for such disclosure of public information if the purpose for which it is required does not serve the interest of the majority (Helen 2010, p.47). According to sec. 14 (1), the public bodies are not obliged to provide information if they are convinced that the reason for which it is required is not valid. The public bodies have a legal period of twenty official days since the time of the request, although this period can be altered with the consent of the parties (Graeme & Lorraine 2004). They also have to make a bargain regarding the nature in which the information is required and the kind of information they want. If the cost of providing such information exceeds £600 the party may refuse to offer such a disclosure of information on the basis of cost to the general public. The public body which has provided information to the public is not liable for negligence of disclosure or otherwise since they are under protection of the law to do so (Lamay 2010). It one of the main means through which media people gains access to public information. However, those who gains access to public information have a duty to ensure that they use such information sensibly. The Act though first introduced in 1997 and passed in 2000, it came into effect in 2005. It enables the members of the general public to obtain government information without breaching the law. The Act contains eight parts which contains the rights of the public of accessing the information, reasons why they may be denied access, processes for accessing or denial and means of implementing the Act. It also contains eight schedules which provide further details of those parts. In 2007, an adjustment bylaw was brought in the House of Commons to shield some government officials against the requirements of the act. List of References Andrea, CJ & Deborah, B 2011, Helping People to Manage and Share Their Digital Information: A Role for Public Libraries, Library Trends, Vol. 59, No. 4 Duquenoy, P, Jones, S & Blundell, B, G 2008, Ethical, Legal and Professional Issues in Computing, Cengage Learning, EMEA, pp.32-136 Graeme, B & Lorraine, S 2004, Issues in Informing Science & Information Technology, Vol. 1 Helen, N 2010, Privacy in Context: Technology, Policy, and the Integrity of Social Life, Stanford, CA, Stanford University Press, pp. 13-67 Lamay, C 2010, Journalism Lawrence Erlbaum Associates and the Debate over Privacy, Mahwah, NJ Laurette, P & Andries, B 2004, The Evaluation of a Computer Ethics Program Email and Misinformation: A South African Case Study, International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, Vol. 7 Paul, M, F & Michelle, M 2011, An Introduction to Information Security Involving Users, Library Trends, Vol. 59, No. 4 Nunziato, DC 2009, Virtual Freedom: Net Neutrality and Free Speech in the Internet Age, Stanford, CAStanford University Press, pp.23-178 Theda, T & Mary, A 2010, Can We Help Information Systems Students Improve Their Ethical Decision Making? Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge and Management, Vol. 5 Ward, P & Dafoulas, G, A 2006, The Database Management Systems, Cengage Learning EMEA Read More