Article Review on ongoing conflict between U.S technology companies and sovereign states

Article Review on ongoing conflict between U.S technology companies and sovereign states

In her article, Stephanie Hare explores the ongoing conflict between U.S technology companies and sovereign states as far as the control and access of consumer data is concerned. Most importantly, the article argues that the battle between these entities is preventing them from working together to address the greater enemies in a way that benefits both sides (Hare 550). The first section of this article explores the problem of the wicked problem of data protection. The article ends by exploring how both the U.S technology companies and foreign countries can benefit from increased cooperation between the two entities.

Both the foreign sovereign states and U.S technology companies have justifiable reasons for seeking total control over the data provided by internet users. States can use this data to thwart and prosecute cybercrimes and terrorism. On the other hand, technology companies have a mandate to protect the data provided to them by their customers and not to avail it to third parties. At the same time, Hare argues that the strong positions held by sovereign countries and U.S telecommunication companies will have negative effects on both parties. As such, Hare thinks that U.S technology companies should work together with sovereign governments for the benefit of both parties. For instance, the U.S technology companies can play their part in offering solutions to the privacy versus security debate by educating the masses and foreign governments and demonstrating how data encryption process works, especially when it comes to protecting the personal information of their customers (Hare 558). On the other hand, sovereign countries should tap into the technologies availed to them by U.S technology companies to protect their citizens against global threats, such as when it comes to terrorism.

The article by Hare has been very insightful on the issue of privacy protection in the digitalization era. For instance, the article made me realize governments have genuine reasons for their desire to have access and more control over digital data pertaining to their citizens. The article makes it clear that attention should be directed towards ways in which all entities can work together to ensure that digital data is used for the benefit of the world. For many years, people have been discussing whether or not governments should have the right to access the digital data of their citizens. From the article by Hare, this debate will never end. The continuation of this debate is exposing the citizens, businesses and governments to a wide range of problems, including the risks of terrorism and cybercrimes. At the same time, the article under review has made me realize that it is possible to force technology companies to respect the data availed to them by their customers. For instance, some of the existing proposals can be effective in protecting data from internet users. According to Hare, the European Union has rules that require technology companies that have violated the privacy rules to receive a fine that does not exceed 4% of their global turnover (554). This means that the citizens will have some form of recourse in case their right to privacy is violated by technology companies.

According to Hare, “Many people are seemingly more relaxed about sharing their data with companies than governments-whether that of their own or those of other countries-reflects culture, national history and differences in how companies and governments are empowered to use a persona’s data” (552). This is the quote I like the most from the article by Hare. I like it since it true. For me, I always ensure that I double-check every information I provide when filing official documents such as the driving license and taxes, something that I do not do when I am dealing with social media companies.

On the other hand, the article by Skopik, Settanni, and Fiedler explores the opportunities that exist for sharing security information among different entities. The article is divided into different sections. One of these sections pertains to the relevance of security information sharing. For instance, Skopik et al. argue that cybercrimes have become so complicated that the threats they present to organizations, governments and the masses cannot be addressed by individual entities (154). This has necessitated the search for newer approaches for addressing the threat posed by global criminal organizations. One of the approaches that seem promising is the increased corroboration and exchange of networking monitoring tasks between global entities.

The other section of the article by Skopik et al. pertains to the dimensions of information sharing. Increased sharing of crucial security information involves several domains. These domains include the standardization efforts, efficient coordination and cooperation, regulatory and legal landscape, international and regional implementation, and integration of information technology into organizations (Skopik et al. 156). Each of these dimensions cannot be ignored if the sharing of crucial security information among national, regional and global players is to be successful. For instance, there is a need for a legal framework to guide how the sharing of security data between and among nations is to be done safely and effectively without compromising people’s right to privacy. Each country or region having its unique laws for guiding how crucial security information can be shared between different entities only serve to decrease the possibility that potential national and global threats can be neutralized before they happen. Also, standardization efforts ensure that the national, regional and international entities and governments submit security information in a form that can be stored and accessed easily without jeopardizing the safety of the data in question.

Before reviewing this article, I had not realized that the United States already has an information-sharing framework in place. According to Skopik et al., the United States’ information sharing efforts are spearheaded and guided by the U.S White House Executive Order (161). I have always known that different federal and state bodies in the United States constantly exchange crucial intelligence amongst themselves. However, I was not aware that there is a framework guiding the information sharing efforts by these entities. At the same time, the article under review made me realize that information sharing is a complex process than I ever thought. For me, sharing of critical security information involves one entity making a phone call to another informing the latter about what it knows about possible threats posed by criminal organizations. However, the article under review informed me that highly complicated technologies are needed to ensure that shared information is safe and easily accessible by relevant entities. At the same time, the article me realize that legal and regulatory issues are by far more complicated when it comes to the sharing of critical security information by national, regional and international entities and governments than I originally thought.

Skopik et al. argue, “Effective cybersecurity centers are hard to establish and often neither governmental bodies nor companies and customer organizations are well prepared to run and use them” (155). I find this quote to be true. Each of these entities has shortcomings that prevent them from mounting effective digital security centers. However, establishing cybersecurity centers calls for the hiring of more workers, which would hurt the profit margins for the technology companies. Similarly, the government does not have the human and nonhuman powers it needs to successfully run a cybersecurity center.

Works Cited

Hare, Stephanie. “For your eyes only: US technology companies, sovereign states, and the battle over data protection.” Business Horizons, vol. 59, no. 5, 2016, pp. 549-561.

Skopik, Florian, Giuseppe Settanni, and Roman Fiedler. “A problem shared is a problem halved: A survey on the dimensions of collective cyber defense through security information sharing.” Computers & Security, vol. 60, 2016, pp. 154-176.