CaseEF GroupC2 Team10
Team members: Yang SONG, Yue MEI, Zixun WANG, Yuexin QIU
Case E
1. Does the Tucson data-mining project inappropriately violate the privacy of Internet users, or is it an acceptable tradeoff to more intelligently combat terrorism? Explain your answer.
Although the Tucson data-mining project may inappropriately violate the privacy of Internet, it is an acceptable tradeoff to more intelligently combat terrorism users because it is so far, one of the best way.
The Tucson data-mining project try to use word length, punctuation, syntax, and content, etc, to identify the personality types of anonymously authors, which allows the system to specifically target those with potential threats such as militant leaders and their active followers. In other words, if someone avoid using sensitive words on the Internet, the system won’t interfere their daily life. Also, after the 911 terrorist attacks, anti-terrorism has become such an important topic of keeping world peace. By using the Tucson data-mining project, which can create a profile almost as unique as a fingerprint, to track potential threats, the government can more effectively and objectively distinguish the terrorists from the innocents, and thus, prevent the subversive behavior in advance. As it is for the wellbeing of the world, individual has a responsibility to play. In this sense, the data-mining project is an acceptable tradeoff.
2. Were the local police justified in their handling of Holm? Why or why not? For whichever view you take, briefly describe the opposing viewpoint.
The local police were not justified in their handling of Holm.
The police arrested Holm only because terrorists used his articles and he has spoken to a terrorists on two occasions. However, the police didn’t hold any direct evidences showing that Holm has planned, implemented or gave advices about any potential terror threats. In addition, the police didn’t hold the authority to put Holm under supervision for 12 months and even in prison
Case E
1. Does the Tucson data-mining project inappropriately violate the privacy of Internet users, or is it an acceptable tradeoff to more intelligently combat terrorism? Explain your answer.
Although the Tucson data-mining project may inappropriately violate the privacy of Internet, it is an acceptable tradeoff to more intelligently combat terrorism users because it is so far, one of the best way.
The Tucson data-mining project try to use word length, punctuation, syntax, and content, etc, to identify the personality types of anonymously authors, which allows the system to specifically target those with potential threats such as militant leaders and their active followers. In other words, if someone avoid using sensitive words on the Internet, the system won’t interfere their daily life. Also, after the 911 terrorist attacks, anti-terrorism has become such an important topic of keeping world peace. By using the Tucson data-mining project, which can create a profile almost as unique as a fingerprint, to track potential threats, the government can more effectively and objectively distinguish the terrorists from the innocents, and thus, prevent the subversive behavior in advance. As it is for the wellbeing of the world, individual has a responsibility to play. In this sense, the data-mining project is an acceptable tradeoff.
2. Were the local police justified in their handling of Holm? Why or why not? For whichever view you take, briefly describe the opposing viewpoint.
The local police were not justified in their handling of Holm.
The police arrested Holm only because terrorists used his articles and he has spoken to a terrorists on two occasions. However, the police didn’t hold any direct evidences showing that Holm has planned, implemented or gave advices about any potential terror threats. In addition, the police didn’t hold the authority to put Holm under supervision for 12 months and even in prison