i had attached the file
Report on Ethical Issues in Current Cyber Contexts CSE2HUM Assignment 1 This assignment is due at 10:59am on 09/08/20 and is worth 15% of your overall mark for CSE2HUM Assignment Task: Background: In this scenario you are writing a report about a large technology platform. The platform provides streaming video content and stored videos (e.g. a platform like YouTube, Twitch or Facebook). The COVID-19 outbreak is causing global panic and large parts of the world are in lock down. The company usually has 2000 staff “on shift” at any one time to handle content moderation and user support. These staff work from a secure location to removing trolls, hate speech, spam, fake news, terrorist content etc. They also help users recover accounts by resetting password. Social distancing restrictions will limit the company to only using 200 of the workspaces in the secure location at a time. Until now, the tools and data staff use for their work could only be accessed in the secure workspace. The company is thinking about (a) allowing people to work from home and enabling remote access to these administrative tools, and (b) using artificial intelligence to handle some moderation tasks. The company is seeking to adapt to the COVID-19 pandemic and restrictions. With everyone stuck at home, usage of the platform has risen sharply, and engineers are working around the clock to bring new servers online and expand capacity. Users who had drifted way are coming back. New users are joining. Regular users are spending increasing amounts of time online. The volume of content has increased by over 500% on this time last year. The task: In the midst of all the changes being considered or already underway, you have been tasked by a senior manager to write a 500-word report that critically analyses ethical Issues that either do or might arise. You are to consider ethical issues for the company as a whole and potential ethical issues for individual employees. You should consider these issues across multiple cyber contexts. Your report will inform the thinking of senior management on both risks and corporate social responsibility. Your objective in this assessment: There are two objectives which are equally important: · Demonstrate your understanding of, and ability to, critically analyze the theoretical/conceptual material covered in the readings, lecture material and labs over weeks 1, 2 and 3. · Demonstrate your ability to critically analyze and articulate in your own words the key ideas of “cyber contexts” and “ethical issues”. Guidelines & Tips · You may add additional facts as you wish, just don’t conflict with the given scenario. · For a good mark you need to go beyond description + application. Instead, try to critically synthesize course content. I.e. show how different ideas relate to and impact each other. · The ideas you write about must be relevant to ethical issues in the provided scenario. (Generic ideas unrelated to the scenario would demonstrate a failure to properly analyze the “cyber contexts”.) · This is a very short assignment, so be as concise and precise as possible. · With only 500 words you need to be strategic in the number of themes you choose to cover. · For each theme you focus on, mention at least one ethical issue. · You need to unpack, explain, analyzed etc., and then provide a relevant argument in relation to each ethical issue. · Focusing on too many themes will result in a weak analysis (you won’t have enough words to do a deeper analysis). Focusing on just one ethical issue or just one cyber context will not satisfy the assignment criteria. · Be selective, be strategic, be concise. · Your assignment but be within 10% of the word limit (up to 10% under or over). If you exceed the word limit + 10%, your conclusion will not be marked (costing you 10% of your grade). Any part of the work which is more than 10% over the word limit will also not be marked. · Lecture slides may be used as a guide for finding suitable references for your assignment. Do not cite the lecture slides, but you may cite references that are mentioned in the slides. You should of course also find other scholarly work to cite. · Remember, practically all assignments, not just those in this subject but in general, are designed to assess your mastery of course content – show the assessor that you not only understand what has been covered in the course so far, but also that you can take it apart, explain how it works, put it back together again, and, most importantly, show us that you can apply what you have learnt from the course. References and reference list Your references will be cited inline, which means they count towards your word limit. Your reference list, which should appear at the end, does not count towards the word limit. A note on the rubric The attached rubric is provided to give you additional guidance on what the marker will look for when marking your assignment. You are encouraged to mark your own work using this rubric before finalizing your assignment. This will help you to notice areas where your assignment can be improved. Remember: Content which is not relevant to the assignment question will be ignored. You cannot meet the rubric requirements using content which is irrelevant to this assignment. Credit note: The image of a person in a hoodie on laptop with a green binary background used at the top of this assignment sheet is based on an image by Christoph Scholz released under a creative commons license, details at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/140988606@N08/27509199696 Marking Rubric: Assessed Material<50% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-100% introduction 10%: 1. opens with academic context; 2. states theoretical contention/argument (your point of view on the matter); 3. provides overview of the writing’s structure (implicit statements will suffice); 4. introductory material is brief, engaging, and clear. none of the 4 criteria present. meets 1 of the 4 criteria. meets 2 of the 4 criteria. meets 3 of the 4 criteria. meets all of the criteria. key theoretical terms & concepts 20%: …not named/used incorrectly/vaguely defined. …named but not defined. …named, defined, and incorporated into text. …briefly defined, incorporated into the text, and used to support argument(s). …concisely defined, critically analysed, and used to support argument(s). body paragraphs 10%: 1. topic sentence refers/states contention; 2. paragraph elaborates on body topic; 3. linking sentences used to sustain a coherent (and valid) argument across the text; 4. contents of paragraphs are brief, engaging, on topic, and clear. no body paragraphs conform to criteria. few body paragraphs conform to criteria. several body paragraphs conform to criteria. most body paragraphs conform to criteria. all paragraphs conform to criteria. argument 20%: mostly descriptive. little analysis. rarely addresses the contention. not clearly related to essay question. descriptive. some analysis. exploration rather than argument. addresses contention in passing. some clear analysis. frequently addresses the contention mostly clear and critical analysis. always addresses the contention consistently clear and critical analysis. contention is sound and convincing. relevant reading 10%: non-academic or otherwise unreliable sources used/sources used are potentially misunderstood. insufficient incorporation of sources/over- reliance on one or two sources. cursory understanding of sources used is evident. sufficient incorporation of sources shows adequate understanding of sources. skillfully incorporated and critically analyzed sources. sources beyond required readings prominent. strong understanding of sources used is demonstrated. wide reading on the topic as well as a strong awareness of multiple perspectives through that reading evident. overall clarity of writing 10%: difficult to read. poor quoting / grammar /spelling / vocab /punctuation / paragraphing etc. relatively easy to read but more proofing needed / verbose clear expression / essay has been effectively edited well written. development of argument clearly outlined. sentences flow. succinct. well written. clear line of argument. engaging style. conclusion 10%: 1. ties subject matter of report together into a single, unified argument; 2. states significance of argument/contents (reiterates to the reader why the work was worth reading); 3. concluding remarks are clear, succinct and engaging. either no conclusion, conclusion does not fulfill its function, or the assignment exceeded the word limit by more than 10%. meets 1 of the 3 criteria. meets 1 and partially fulfils a second of the 3 criteria. meets 2 of the 3 criteria. meets all of the criteria harvard in-text referencing 5%: http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/referencing- tool/ style rarely correct/ little referencing of ideas/ content that should have been referenced left unreferenced. some inconsistencies in referencing/ insufficient referencing of appropriate sources. errors present in referencing but referencing present is sufficient. few errors/ skillful referencing. consistent, precise and skillful referencing reference list 5%: no reference list. major errors: e.g., in-text sources not in bibliography & vice versa. reference list features numerous errors. reference list features few errors. reference list mostly or completely free of errors. powerpoint presentation cse2hum – lecture 2.1 semester 2 - 2020 dr andre oboler these cse2hum materials for 2020 by dr andre oboler incorporate materials developed by dr patrick scolyer-gray. image at the top is based on work by christoph scholz. ∏ cricos provider 00115m latrobe.edu.au assignment 1: the basics your first assignment is due by 10:59am of august 9th. the assignment is worth 15% of your mark for this subject you will be producing a brief written report of 500 words (+/- 10%) the word count includes references but not the bibliography your references and bibliography must be in the harvard style, to see how to do this visit: http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/referencing-tool/ you must do some research and include references to it you can cite the provided readings (required and recommended) as well as material referenced in the lecture / tutorial slides you need to demonstrate your ability to find your own references as well, so use at least materials beyond what we gave you do not cite the lectures themselves the point is not just to include references, but to reference things that add value to your report latrobe.edu.au assignment 1: context you have been given a scenario which provides the context for your responses (this is given in the background section of the assignment) you are permitted to make up additional facts to help you respond, but they must be reasonable and not in conflict with any of the facts you have been are given reasonable: the company uses sms code verification for each login by employees. unreasonable: the company has provided all employees with housing which includes a secure room they can use for their work in conflict: the coronavirus will shortly just “go away”[1] and therefore can be ignored for the purposes of this report you have also been given specific instructions on your role within the scenario (see the task). your tasks shapes both the substance and 50-59%="" 60-69%="" 70-79%="" 80-100%="" introduction="" 10%:="" 1.="" opens="" with="" academic="" context;="" 2.="" states="" theoretical="" contention/argument="" (your="" point="" of="" view="" on="" the="" matter);="" 3.="" provides="" overview="" of="" the="" writing’s="" structure="" (implicit="" statements="" will="" suffice);="" 4.="" introductory="" material="" is="" brief,="" engaging,="" and="" clear.="" none="" of="" the="" 4="" criteria="" present.="" meets="" 1="" of="" the="" 4="" criteria.="" meets="" 2="" of="" the="" 4="" criteria.="" meets="" 3="" of="" the="" 4="" criteria.="" meets="" all="" of="" the="" criteria.="" key="" theoretical="" terms="" &="" concepts="" 20%:="" …not="" named/used="" incorrectly/vaguely="" defined.="" …named="" but="" not="" defined.="" …named,="" defined,="" and="" incorporated="" into="" text.="" …briefly="" defined,="" incorporated="" into="" the="" text,="" and="" used="" to="" support="" argument(s).="" …concisely="" defined,="" critically="" analysed,="" and="" used="" to="" support="" argument(s).="" body="" paragraphs="" 10%:="" 1.="" topic="" sentence="" refers/states="" contention;="" 2.="" paragraph="" elaborates="" on="" body="" topic;="" 3.="" linking="" sentences="" used="" to="" sustain="" a="" coherent="" (and="" valid)="" argument="" across="" the="" text;="" 4.="" contents="" of="" paragraphs="" are="" brief,="" engaging,="" on="" topic,="" and="" clear.="" no="" body="" paragraphs="" conform="" to="" criteria.="" few="" body="" paragraphs="" conform="" to="" criteria.="" several="" body="" paragraphs="" conform="" to="" criteria.="" most="" body="" paragraphs="" conform="" to="" criteria.="" all="" paragraphs="" conform="" to="" criteria.="" argument="" 20%:="" mostly="" descriptive.="" little="" analysis.="" rarely="" addresses="" the="" contention.="" not="" clearly="" related="" to="" essay="" question.="" descriptive.="" some="" analysis.="" exploration="" rather="" than="" argument.="" addresses="" contention="" in="" passing.="" some="" clear="" analysis.="" frequently="" addresses="" the="" contention="" mostly="" clear="" and="" critical="" analysis.="" always="" addresses="" the="" contention="" consistently="" clear="" and="" critical="" analysis.="" contention="" is="" sound="" and="" convincing.="" relevant="" reading="" 10%:="" non-academic="" or="" otherwise="" unreliable="" sources="" used/sources="" used="" are="" potentially="" misunderstood.="" insufficient="" incorporation="" of="" sources/over-="" reliance="" on="" one="" or="" two="" sources.="" cursory="" understanding="" of="" sources="" used="" is="" evident.="" sufficient="" incorporation="" of="" sources="" shows="" adequate="" understanding="" of="" sources.="" skillfully="" incorporated="" and="" critically="" analyzed="" sources.="" sources="" beyond="" required="" readings="" prominent.="" strong="" understanding="" of="" sources="" used="" is="" demonstrated.="" wide="" reading="" on="" the="" topic="" as="" well="" as="" a="" strong="" awareness="" of="" multiple="" perspectives="" through="" that="" reading="" evident.="" overall="" clarity="" of="" writing="" 10%:="" difficult="" to="" read.="" poor="" quoting="" grammar="" spelling="" vocab="" punctuation="" paragraphing="" etc.="" relatively="" easy="" to="" read="" but="" more="" proofing="" needed="" verbose="" clear="" expression="" essay="" has="" been="" effectively="" edited="" well="" written.="" development="" of="" argument="" clearly="" outlined.="" sentences="" flow.="" succinct.="" well="" written.="" clear="" line="" of="" argument.="" engaging="" style.="" conclusion="" 10%:="" 1.="" ties="" subject="" matter="" of="" report="" together="" into="" a="" single,="" unified="" argument;="" 2.="" states="" significance="" of="" argument/contents="" (reiterates="" to="" the="" reader="" why="" the="" work="" was="" worth="" reading);="" 3.="" concluding="" remarks="" are="" clear,="" succinct="" and="" engaging.="" either="" no="" conclusion,="" conclusion="" does="" not="" fulfill="" its="" function,="" or="" the="" assignment="" exceeded="" the="" word="" limit="" by="" more="" than="" 10%.="" meets="" 1="" of="" the="" 3="" criteria.="" meets="" 1="" and="" partially="" fulfils="" a="" second="" of="" the="" 3="" criteria.="" meets="" 2="" of="" the="" 3="" criteria.="" meets="" all="" of="" the="" criteria="" harvard="" in-text="" referencing="" 5%:="" http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/referencing-="" tool/="" style="" rarely="" correct/="" little="" referencing="" of="" ideas/="" content="" that="" should="" have="" been="" referenced="" left="" unreferenced.="" some="" inconsistencies="" in="" referencing/="" insufficient="" referencing="" of="" appropriate="" sources.="" errors="" present="" in="" referencing="" but="" referencing="" present="" is="" sufficient.="" few="" errors/="" skillful="" referencing.="" consistent,="" precise="" and="" skillful="" referencing="" reference="" list="" 5%:="" no="" reference="" list.="" major="" errors:="" e.g.,="" in-text="" sources="" not="" in="" bibliography="" &="" vice="" versa.="" reference="" list="" features="" numerous="" errors.="" reference="" list="" features="" few="" errors.="" reference="" list="" mostly="" or="" completely="" free="" of="" errors.="" powerpoint="" presentation="" cse2hum="" –="" lecture="" 2.1="" semester="" 2="" -="" 2020="" dr="" andre="" oboler="" these="" cse2hum="" materials="" for="" 2020="" by="" dr="" andre="" oboler="" incorporate="" materials="" developed="" by="" dr="" patrick="" scolyer-gray.="" image="" at="" the="" top="" is="" based="" on="" work="" by christoph="" scholz.="" ∏="" cricos="" provider="" 00115m="" latrobe.edu.au="" assignment="" 1:="" the="" basics="" your="" first="" assignment="" is="" due="" by="" 10:59am="" of="" august="" 9th.="" the="" assignment="" is="" worth="" 15%="" of="" your="" mark="" for="" this="" subject="" you="" will="" be="" producing="" a="" brief="" written="" report="" of="" 500="" words="" (+/-="" 10%)="" the="" word="" count="" includes="" references="" but="" not="" the="" bibliography="" your="" references="" and="" bibliography="" must="" be="" in="" the="" harvard="" style,="" to="" see="" how="" to="" do="" this="" visit:="" http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/referencing-tool/="" you="" must="" do="" some="" research="" and="" include="" references="" to="" it="" you="" can="" cite="" the="" provided="" readings="" (required="" and="" recommended)="" as="" well="" as="" material="" referenced="" in="" the="" lecture="" tutorial="" slides="" you="" need="" to="" demonstrate="" your="" ability="" to="" find="" your="" own="" references="" as="" well,="" so="" use="" at="" least="" materials="" beyond="" what="" we="" gave="" you="" do="" not="" cite="" the="" lectures="" themselves="" the="" point="" is="" not="" just="" to="" include="" references,="" but="" to="" reference="" things="" that="" add="" value="" to="" your="" report="" latrobe.edu.au="" assignment="" 1:="" context="" you="" have="" been="" given="" a="" scenario="" which="" provides="" the="" context="" for="" your="" responses="" (this="" is="" given="" in="" the="" background="" section="" of="" the="" assignment)="" you="" are="" permitted="" to="" make="" up="" additional="" facts="" to="" help="" you="" respond,="" but="" they="" must="" be="" reasonable="" and="" not="" in="" conflict="" with="" any="" of="" the="" facts="" you="" have="" been="" are="" given="" reasonable:="" the="" company="" uses="" sms="" code="" verification="" for="" each="" login="" by="" employees.="" unreasonable:="" the="" company="" has="" provided="" all="" employees="" with="" housing="" which="" includes="" a="" secure="" room="" they="" can="" use="" for="" their="" work="" in="" conflict:="" the="" coronavirus="" will="" shortly="" just="" “go="" away”[1]="" and="" therefore="" can="" be="" ignored="" for="" the="" purposes="" of="" this="" report="" you="" have="" also="" been="" given="" specific="" instructions="" on="" your="" role="" within="" the="" scenario="" (see="" the="" task).="" your="" tasks="" shapes="" both="" the="" substance="">