8

by Danielle Ojede

The unconscious-like trance seemingly emulates psychosis in the midst of an illuminating screen as the individual indulges in expeditious and rhythmic clicks and swipes. The substantial influence wielded by significant figures in the technological industry, particularly in the realm of social media, have inordinately increased as a direct result of its colossal popularity, authorizing holes for corruption. Therefore, it’s essential to comprehend the intention of a quotation delineated by John Acton, an American politician renowned for his philosophical adages, in relevance to this specific issue as “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd[e] the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.” This is primarily because this corruption, the arising publicization of the applications of Artificial Intelligence in social media algorithms alongside youthful cybersecurity policies integrated in law, have ultimately perpetuated the cycle of data breaches amongst different institutions. Hence, these factors contributing to the continuation of this issue adds to the significance of divulging in conservations with distinct people to diversify the potential solutions that hinder the exploitation of users’ data that are utilized for other purposes without their explicit consent.

Garic Barosse, a law student specializing in the applications of social media in cybersecurity at the University of Texas at Austin and an avid member of the university’s cybersecurity program, retains first-hand experience in the operations of cybersecurity in international institutions, manifesting in his significant insight to the subject of cybersecurity and its interconnectivity with social media. Categorically, Barosse originally inhabited China for an extensive period of time which enabled him to receive an abundance of exposure to subjects of data centers, localization, and privacy regarding his research centralizing on national security. Additionally, this particular experience further emphasized his passion for the integration of law in cybersecurity systems in social media as he claims that “there are a lot of interesting issues around privacy and data . . . [and] it’s a . . .growing field, and . . . a place where [there aren’t] . . .clear law[s] . . . [like] labor law [which] has been around for hundreds of years. [However in cyber security law] . . . a lot of the [content covered in] . . .data and security [is manufactured] as we go.” Consequently, the consistent molding of the framework of a field ultimately results in the concretion and definite distinguishability of different notions; this is specifically assumed for the implementation of law in cybersecurity, specifically with the distinction between data breaches been hacked. . . [and the] individuals, [particularly those] whose personal information has been lost. [Nonetheless], whether or not that’s a question of the individual being sloppy, or whether it’s . . . a state actor coming in trying to hack the company, ultimately that third party was . . .actively doing the breaching. So . . . legally, [it’s viewed] as largely the same.” and leaks. However, according to Barosse, the following is complicated as in law, “a lot of times [the two aren’t distinguished] . . . because ultimately the important thing is that the company . . . is the victim but there’s multiple victims, right? There’s the company who’s

[The distinguishing between a data breach and leak is] . . . just a matter of perspective, because a data breach versus a data leak, from the attacker’s perspective, that’s going to be very intentional. That leak or that breach, they’re trying to get that data, but at the same time, that can be due to negligence from the Chief Technology Officer at a company. . . failing to implement good sound practices . . .

This neutralized perspective with reference to the differentiation of data leaks and breaches transcends into the ideology of utilization of morals and ethics in law with cases pertaining to this corruption. More unequivocally, Barosse elucidated that “[in law, data breaches are viewed] as theft [primarily because morals are rarely discussed as it] tends to be . . .about balancing liability and minimizing risk . . .so there’s a big conversation now about . . .who should be responsible for these risks.” Barosse proposed an instance highlighting this statement as if a bank experiences a breach of data and an individual loses personal information, both the individual and bank are victims as the individual lost their data and the bank is a victim of external hackers. Therefore, this catalyzes the conversation of who should “[compensate the victim] and whether [the proclaimed victim deserves] anything . . .[as the law can’t determine if] anything bad . . .did happen to you. . because [of solely losing] your personal information [which isn’t deemed as ‘illegal’ unless your credit card information is utilized]. So [this stems into the] question of . . .who . . .has the level of responsibility to take care of these [circumstances]”, as articulated by Barosse.

Notwithstanding, the seemingly unjust handling of accountability in law doesn’t discount the potential jeopardization of political and social systems, detrimental effects of psychological applications in social media, and loopholes in privacy protection clauses connected to the issue. Kevin Kulda, a fellow law student to Barosse at the University of Texas at Austin (UT), claims that the em-

“ bedding of psychological tactics in social media is detrimental “because social media com panies, or . . .technology com panies in general, can use psychology to craft algorithms and their technology to attract users and to engage users in ways that might not be to their benefit or even for their health in the long term. So it can be very detrimental because these technology companies have the incentive to research psychology, to craft this [curation of data], to be so interesting to users that they’ll spend hours and hours on content and use it in ways that might be unhealthy, arguably.” The perversion of psychology in these algorithms causes the alterations in the functionality of political and social systems as noted with the Cambridge-Analytica matter, resulted in the usage of users’ data from Meta, formerly known as Facebook, by third-party organizations and is speculated to have swayed the trends in elections in the mid-2010s. In consonance with this instance, Kulda stated that “if companies, especially foreign states, can . . .collect data, use it to build profiles and use it to manipulate voters, I think that is a huge problem, especially in democracies like ours, where our political process is . . .fostered through an election system. [Therefore,] . . . if we can’t have confidence in our voting systems [then] . . . [it’s] a huge issue.”

However, for social systems, Kulda claims that the “breakdown of trust” between individuals of society due to the reception of differing information is another significant problem which feeds into specific issues like the recurrent polarization of the democratic and republican parties in the United States of America. On that account, the absence of a singular, broad law in cybersecurity is replaced with a collection of laws that protect users’ data which allows for loopholes whilst addressing cases of cyberse- curity in social media. Case in point, a law in cybersecurity stated by Kulda that is currently claimed to be a ‘loophole’ by some details that “if you have your data stolen because a company didn’t protect it [and] . . .if you don’t suffer a harm, then you don’t have standing in court to sue them. So in a lot of times, a company won’t be held accountable in that regard . . . I think the fact that having your data stolen or taken away because the company didn’t protect it is not a harm. I think that’s kind of a loophole to where a lot of times companies . . .can, if you want to describe it, get away with having their customers’ data stolen and not suffer repercussions for that or not make them whole because our law doesn’t recognize that as harm.”

McCullough Gilpin, contracted as Mac Gilpin, a law student at the University of Texas at Austin, dispensed potential and distinct solutions on individual, institutional, federal, and global levels to hinder the magnitude of the issue concerning encroachment of users’ data on social media platforms, especially by third-party organizations. Case in point, Gilpin vocalized that “[there is an emerging] idea that cyber insurance [detailing insurance that protects a business following the breach of sensitive information about the clients] will . . . help . . . improve cybersecurity protections in . . .an organization is . . .debated.” This is because Giplin claims that to retrieve “ a . . .cyber insurance policy, the insurance company is going to require that your company institute[s] multifactor authentication and all these different cybersecurity controls. [However], at the same time, even if you do get a ransomware attack on you, then your insurance company is going to pay that off . . . [so] . . . the company that’s insured knows that, but the attackers [simultaneously] know that too, and they’ve actually been targeting companies that they know have cyber insurance . . There’s a lot of people who argue that cyber insurance actually increases rent attacks and increases cybercrime and as you know, a big part of ransomware attacks is data breaches and data leaks . . .and a lot of times, ransomware attackers . . .will extract that data, exfiltrate that data. [However,] the counterargument is that that has actually prevented more malicious, more sophisticated attacks [ultimately] because [with the assumption] . . . that insurance has . . . caused more ransomware attacks to happen and more cyberattacks and ultimately more data leaks . . [then] there’s a potential that over time, it actually will decrease . . .even then because as these insurance companies experience more or their clients experience more attacks, they’re able to accumulate a lot more data about how attackers infiltrate systems.”

Besides this, Giplin stated that there is “a move to [individual-based solutions] . . .like, [in] zero trust infrastructure[s]. [For instance], every single time you log into somewhere or you share data, it’s very intentional [and] there’s just verification processes [utilized] everywhere, [however] . . . it does come down to . . .education [and] being aware of the digital environment.” Thus, it is principal to comprehend the philosophy of John Acton for our society progressively becoming aware of and actively galvanizing change because of the ethical discrepancies broadcasted in this issue. Therefore, as this societal problem’s magnitude spikes as a direct result of vulnerabilities in cyber security and laws, it’s significant to perpetually mold and cement ideologies and diversify the conversation by the acquisition of personal experiences and probable solutions to ultimately hinder the risks posed from the matter.

By Bela Castano

By Bela Castano

In the present time, technology is so deeply involved in our daily lives, that many find it exceedingly difficult to step away from the pressures tied to their devices. As a result, a plethora of detrimental byproducts can arise, harming our health and distorting the pitch perfect facade of technology.

Physical demands, often found in the most minor of practices

Neck, shoulder, or back pains

Emotional Interference + Social Intrusion

Promotion of a concept referred to as, “technostress”, in which individuals report negative symptoms when in direct correlationw ith tech. interaction

Disproportionate work-life balance (encourages dependency & guilt ridden ties to tech.)

Conflict on account of blue light strain + irritation

1) “I believe that social media can be a useful, positive tool at times, but the distractions and dangers that it creates make it something to be used cautiosly and in moderation.”

Distortion of self image --> fostering a culture composed of incessant comparisons among peers

Promotes a disconnect from reality, triggering a sense of isolation + loneliness

Eye irritation

Underlying hand strain + potential risk of cramps

7) “With access to so much, it’s easier to get sucked into the hole of constantly watching, binging, or ‘doom scrolling’”.

6) “...the anxiety due to social media that I have observed, and the disregard of privacy by tech. giants certainly leaves a stain on my views of technology.”

Prompting...a lack of attention, abnormal stress reactions, fatigue, and so on

5) “It’s difficult for me to pry myself away from technology even when I want to take a break from it, since I see it everywhere.”

Triggers “day time” response in your brain

Linked to anxiety

Linked to depression

Establish boundaries, and try your very best to stick with them; after all, consistency is key! The more you dedicate yourself to your goals, the more improvement you undergo in your journey.

2) “I often worry about how tech. keeps me up and prevents me from sleeping.”

As cliche as it may sound, monitor your screen time, making honest observations as to your usage. Do you notice anything different if you decrease the frequency in which you use your devices, whether that be a computer, iphone, tablet, etc.?

“Crack down” upon anything you deem unnecessary or illigitimate in truth, content, and / or well being / intention

Concentrate on one task at a time - quit multi-tasking, no matter how good you claim to be at it!

1 2 3 4 5

Always ensure that you are contributing to a safe, healthy environment online. As common as the phrase may be, change truly does start with the individual!

What do your peers have to say about the subject?

3) “I experience tech. related concern through being worried about how addicted we are to social media & tech. in general, myself included.”

2) Once more, students relate to a sense of discomfort when prompted on the ‘cons’ of technology.

5) It’s the cycle of addiction! When utilizing tech., our brain more commonly experiences “accomplishments” or “rewards”, resulting in a vicious cycle of guilt & pleasure.

4) “I think technology can be really beneficial in education, [it] connects people all over the world, and it is a good source of entertainment, but it is also addictive, manipulative, & takes time away from other things you could include [in life].”

What is YOUR perspective on technology? How do YOU think it affects your life? Do YOU relate to any of the quotes listed above? If so, to what extent?

Note: All quotes shown above were said by your very own peers, here in L.A.S.A. highschool! I have chosen to preserve their privacy, but please know that you are not alone, should you find yourself relating to the feelings expressed above.