高分的essay代寫范文參考—Should Governments Regulate Encryption?
社會政策essay代寫范文—政府應該監管加密嗎?本文是一篇留學生管理專業的Essay寫作格式參考范文。公元前600年，斯巴達人使用一種設備在戰斗中發送秘密信息，首次記錄了加密技術。從那時起，加密技術的使用變得更加先進，使用次數也呈指數增長。許多人認為，規范加密將有助于防止犯罪分子保持匿名。每個國家在監管加密方面都有所不同，但沒有人能在提供有效的安全性和防止犯罪分子逃避調查之間找到完美的平衡。本報告將分析政府對加密的監管是否值得侵犯隱私。具體來說，本文將比較規范加密可能侵犯公民隱私或協助抓獲罪犯的利弊。以下是管理學essay范例寫作的全部內容，是一篇符合國外大學Essay寫作格式要求的范文，供參考。
Abstract摘要
Encryption was first recorded in 600 BC when the Spartans use a device to send secret messages during battle. Since then the use of encryption has become much more advanced and used exponentially more. Many people believe that regulating encryption will help prevent criminals from remaining anonymous. Every country is different when it comes to regulating encryption, but no one has found the perfect balance between providing effective security and preventing criminals from avoiding investigation. This report will analyze if governmental regulation of encryption is worth the violations of privacy. Specifically, this paper will compare the pros and cons of regulating encryption which can violate citizen’s privacy or assist in seizing criminals.
Keywords: encryption, regulation, data security, government 關鍵詞:加密，監管，數據安全，政府
Does the Government Need to Regulate Something as Important as Encryption?政府需要規范加密這樣重要的東西嗎?
In the rapidly growing age of technology, things become new more quickly. With the constant need to keep ‘updated’ in the world, there is also a need to keep security. Encryption has been around for a long time, but modern encryption wasn’t invented until the enigma machine in 1918. This is very recent, putting in perspective that no laws or policies were in place at the time to keep encryption from running rampant. Even in current day, we are still having trouble coming up with regulations for this. When Apple had an argument with the FBI over access to a locked iPhone used by the San Bernardino gunman, North Carolina’s senators offered a bill that would have required companies to provide unencrypted versions of data if given a court order. This is just one example of many. Current day encryption has a multitude of different algorithms, some of which are monitored and regulated by the government. But does the government regulating encryption mean that citizens must give up some sense of privacy? Or does it meant that criminals attempting to remain anonymous will be caught.? This report will analyze scholarly opinions and different country’s policies on regulating encryption and come to a conclusion, answering the following questions.
What are the current regulations for encryption and do countries have different rules?
Are citizen’s privacy at risk by regulating or not regulating encryption?
What are the trade-offs for regulating or not regulating encryption?
What are some possible regulations to control encryption?
How will these regulations affect our daily lives?
In a new age of technology, privacy is a key component to a healthy, functioning society and the government’s role in regulating encryption could jeopardize these rights.
What are the current regulations for encryption and do countries have different rules?目前對加密的規定是什么?各國有不同的規定嗎?
Before looking to deeply into the morals of regulating encryption we need to understand what regulations are currently in place. Every country has a different take on what needs to be controlled. For example, Estonia surprisingly, is one of the most networked countries in the world. Citizens use networks for banking, voting, paying taxes as well as other things. In 2007, Estonia was hit with a massive cyber attack taking down banks, telephone networks and television stations (Sales, 2013, para. 3). Since then, Estonia has set up a “Cyber Defense Unit” to react to those kinds of situations. However, despite a dedicated unit, according to article 215 of their Criminal Procedure Code, investigative authorities can order the production of information from any person, but they cannot require that person to divulge encryption keys or passwords. This means that the citizens are allowed some form of privacy, which other countries do not. All countries take a different approach by attempting to regulate encryption in a multitude of ways. Saper stated in his journal that “some countries restrict the import or export of cryptographic technology, others restrict the import of encrypted data, and still others restrict or prohibit the use of encryption within their borders” (Saper, 2013, p. 3). Countries like the United states are an example of all three. The U.S. regulates all imported and exported encryption through The International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Export Administration Regulations (EAR).
在深入研究規范加密的道德之前，我們需要了解目前有哪些規定。每個國家對需要控制的東西都有不同的看法。例如，令人驚訝的是，愛沙尼亞是世界上網絡最緊密的國家之一。公民使用網絡進行銀行、投票、納稅以及其他活動。2007年，愛沙尼亞遭受了大規模的網絡攻擊，銀行、電話網絡和電視臺紛紛癱瘓。3)此后，愛沙尼亞成立了一個“網絡防御單位”，以應對這類情況。但是，根據《刑事訴訟法》第215條，雖然設立了專門機關，但調查機關可以命令任何人提供信息，但不能要求任何人泄露密鑰或密碼。這意味著公民可以享有某種形式的隱私，而其他國家是不允許的。所有國家都采取了不同的方法，試圖以多種方式監管加密。Saper在他的期刊中寫道:“一些國家限制加密技術的進口或出口，另一些國家限制加密數據的進口，還有一些國家限制或禁止在其境內使用加密”(Saper, 2013, p. 3)。像美國這樣的國家就是這三種情況的一個例子。美國通過《國際武器貿易條例》(ITAR)和《出口管理條例》(EAR)管理所有進出口加密技術。
Each country has a unique way of dealing with encryption techniques which vary in forms of privacy; India has a mandatory encryption strength. China requires that manufacturers must have their encryption method approved by the National Commission on Encryption Code Regulations. Russia demands a license for distributing encryption algorithms. They all attempt to help them draw the line between being able to prevent criminals from using encryption maliciously, while simultaneously allowing citizens their right of discretion. Regulating encryption is a constantly evolving area and the disparate regulations of each country presents the complexity of the problem we are facing as this issue evolves further.
Are Citizen’s Privacy at Risk by Regulating or not Regulating Encryption?規范或不規范加密是否會危及公民隱私?
Governments regulating encryption is not pointed towards specific or individual people. They are not targeting the privacy of their citizens. For the most part governments are attempting to regulate companies or tech providers that hold or sell user data. The data that the government is regulating however, is user data at the core. Unless you are under investigative authority there is not much you have to worry about. In fact, encryption regulations simply help every day consumers. For example, section 103(a) of the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of says that “telecommunications carriers cannot use encryption themselves in a way which would prevent them from being able to intercept communications or deliver them to the government” (Global Partners Digital, 2018). But everything is prone to being hacked, meaning ultimately no ones data is 100% secure or private.
政府監管加密并不是針對特定或個人。他們的目標不是本國公民的隱私。在很大程度上，政府試圖監管持有或出售用戶數據的公司或技術提供商。然而，政府所監管的數據，其核心是用戶數據。如果不是調查機關，就沒有什么可擔心的。”事實上，加密法規只是幫助了每天的消費者。例如，《執法通信援助法案》第103(a)條規定，“電信運營商本身不能以阻止其攔截通信或將其交付給政府的方式使用加密”(全球合作伙伴數字，2018)。但所有東西都容易被黑客攻擊，這意味著最終沒有人的數據是100%安全或隱私的。
What Are the Trade-Offs for Regulating or not Regulating Encryption?規范或不規范加密的權衡是什么?
Like all aspects of life there are pros and cons to everything. In trading in privacy there are a lot of downsides that come with it. The growing use of encryption has significantly reduced the amount of plaintext that investigative officials can access. The number of smart phone users have boomed in the last decade with 47% of all smartphone and tablets using full disk encryption. This poses a serious threat to law enforcement and intelligence agencies. “Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) General Counsel James Baker reported that for fiscal year 2016, the FBI had encountered passcodes on 2,095 of the 6,814 mobile devices examined by its forensic laboratories.” (National Academics of sciences, et. al, 2018, pg. 31) Of those 2,095 devices only 1,210 were able to be broken into. And in 2017 the “FBI was unable to access about 7,500 mobile devices submitted to its Computer Analysis and Response Team, even though there was legal authority to do so.” This means there was an alarming amount of evidence that the FBI was denied to encryption standards not held by the government or companies. Not only are investigative authorities being held up by device encryption but most information off shore is inaccessible for the most part. Gmail, for example, stores their emails in servers not in the united states. Because Google stores these servers over seas it makes it harder for intelligence officials to gain accesses to plaintext.[1] The increased use of encryption also has other effects in helping criminals retain anonymity on the web. The U.S. Department of Justice’s National Strategy on Child Exploitation Prevention and Interdiction Working Group conducted a study on “more than 1,000 federal, state, local, and tribal investigators” (National Academics of sciences, et. al, 2018, pg. 42). In 2016 they concluded that more than 30 percent of respondents reported that the use of encryption by child pornography offenders has significantly increased.
By these statistics it shows that not only are intelligence agencies and tech corporations having trouble retaining access to plaintext of everyday items like smart phones and emails, but criminals are using it to provide themselves cover for communication. Like many things, encryption is a double-edged sword, and universal or at least federal regulations are a must-have when attempting to control encryption.
這些統計數據表明，不僅情報機構和科技公司難以保留對智能手機和電子郵件等日常物品的明文訪問，而且犯罪分子正在利用這些信息為自己的通信提供掩護。與許多事情一樣，加密是一把雙刃劍，在試圖控制加密時，通用或至少是聯邦法規是必須的。
What Are some Possible Regulations to Control Encryption?控制加密的一些可能的規則是什么?
As mentioned in footnote one (pg.6), the CLOUD act takes a huge step in being able to receive data that is stored over seas from the United States. This means the companies that operate without borders are now required to give data in the United States. But this is just in investigative cases, there are other steps being taken by other countries and state powers. California, for example, passed the Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 which means that” companies who do not encrypt data or neglect to employ ‘reasonable security procedures’ are liable to be sued by consumers whose data is compromised” (Crane, 2019, para 7). This means that aside from information security, companies are to be held liable for ignorance in user data security. Denmark also has a regulation known as Data Protection Regulation. It states that when transmitting sensitive data, public authorities and private companies must use some form of encryption. The exact same as the United States’ Federal Information Processing Standards and General Data Protection Regulation. These are all example of great legislation by different unions that have shown to be effective in preventing sensitive data from being accessed as plaintext by malicious third parties. There are also a lot of great regulations in banking like the European Banking authority, the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act of the U.S., the New York Department of Financial Services. But the best is the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard from the Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council. This is a global regulation that requires that companies that do not encrypt data and use security procedures be held liable by fines or penalties.
正如腳注一(pg.6)所提到的，云計算法案在能夠接收來自美國的數據方面邁出了一大步。這意味著那些無國界經營的公司現在被要求在美國提供數據。但這只是調查案件，其他國家和國家權力機構還在采取其他措施。例如，加州通過了《2018年消費者隱私法案》，這意味著“不加密數據或忽視使用‘合理的安全程序’的公司可能會被數據被泄露的消費者起訴”(Crane, 2019，第7段)。這意味著除了信息安全，公司還將為忽視用戶數據安全承擔責任。丹麥也有一項名為《數據保護條例》的規定。它指出，在傳輸敏感數據時，公共部門和私人公司必須使用某種形式的加密。與美國聯邦信息處理標準和通用數據保護條例完全相同。這些都是不同工會制定的偉大立法的例子，這些立法在防止敏感數據被惡意的第三方以明文形式訪問方面是有效的。銀行業也有很多嚴格的規定，比如歐洲銀行管理局、美國的《格雷姆-里奇-比利利法案》、紐約金融服務部。但最好的是支付卡行業安全標準委員會制定的支付卡行業數據安全標準。這是一項全球性法規，要求不加密數據和使用安全程序的公司承擔罰款或罰款的責任。
A lot of progress is being made in order to completely protect consumers. The problem is protecting consumers while also allowing intelligence agencies to be able to function. Very few countries have a minimum or maximum-security standard, for encryption and still only a few countries regulate import and exported encryption (Fig. 1).
Figure 1 “Countries with Import and Export regulated encryption” (Global Partners Digital, 2018)
There are already several regulations that we have, that have made great strides in helping improve not only the security of consumers, but also aided in allowing intelligence agencies and government officials’ investigations. There is still a lot of work to be done. Recently the ‘Five Eyes’ Governments, (US, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) called for encryption backdoors to be used in tech companies released devices. This is not a great solution as it violates many citizens’ privacy and let’s be realistic, there is no such thing as a secure back door. In fact, there have been numerous times where the government’s security has failed, 2015’s U.S. voter database just being one example.
How Will these Regulations Affect Our Daily Lives?這些規定將如何影響我們的日常生活?
These upcoming and new regulations are a step in the right direction to maintain national and personal security. Some of the proposed legislature might be going a little overboard, not only violating citizens’ privacy, but their security as well. Currently, for the most part, all encryption regulations are really imposed to require tech companies to secure and control user data or aid in investigations. Unless you run a business, staying up-to-date on encryption legislation is not a necessity. Of course, it can’t hurt to know what laws there are surrounding your geographical location, but for your everyday consumer these regulations are designed solely to protect you.
Despite being an age-old tactic in sending and receiving hidden messages, encryption is the latest in the constantly evolving world of science and technology. There are many current and useful regulations for encryption. Global regulations like the PCI DSS all the way down to state regulations like California Consumer Privacy Act. However, the use of encryption by criminals is unprecedented and must be stopped. Creating regulations that balance citizens privacy and uphold standards set by intelligence officials is key in attempting to create a secure and safe society.
盡管加密是一種古老的發送和接收隱藏信息的策略，但在不斷發展的科學技術世界中，它是最新的。目前有許多有用的加密規則。像PCI DSS這樣的全球法規一直到加州消費者隱私法這樣的州法規。然而，罪犯使用加密是前所未有的，必須制止。建立平衡公民隱私和支持情報官員制定的標準的規章制度，是試圖建立一個安全和安全的社會的關鍵。
References參考文獻
留學生Essay相關專業范文素材資料，盡在本網，可以隨時查閱參考。本站也提供多國留學生課程作業寫作指導服務，如有需要可以咨詢本平臺。
