Course: LAWG 200 – Security Practice and the Canadian Legal System
SAIT Polytechnic Winter 2022
Final Exam – Part II
Time Allotted: 24 hours
Instructions: This portion of the exam is open book. You may refer to your textbook and any other course resources in order to answer the questions. You may NOT consult with any other person on your answers and all answers must be in your own words.
Format:
Your submission should be in a Word document uploaded to the appropriate D2L Assignment dropbox. Only one file can be submitted. Both Essay/Case Analysis and the answers to the Section B questions should all be included in one document.
Please use 1.5 line spacing.
Part II contains three sections:
Section A is an Essay question. Section A is worth 10 marks.
Section B contains three Logic Problems. Section B is worth 10 marks.
Section C contains questions relating to the two Debate Topics. Section C is worth 15 marks,
A possible 5 bonus marks are available. Bonus marks may be awarded for answers which demonstrate outstanding understanding of the issues and concepts or incredible wit. (You can theoretically receive more than 100% on this section of the test.)
Section A
Instructions: You can choose to answer either the Case Analysis or the Essay Question. Do not answer both. (500-1000 words maximum)
Essay Question (10 marks)
If you were forced to choose between Social Contract Theory or Rule Utilitarianism as the ethical theory that you would have to live by for the rest of your life, which would you choose and why? Include a discussion of the pros and cons of each theory as they might apply to situation you might face in lifeOR
Case Analysis (10 marks)
Using the case analysis model, analyze the JSTOR hack in accordance with the usual criteria:
Clearly state the perspective from which you will analyze the incident.
Identify the participants in the scenario and the role that each plays.
Identify the perspective of each participant and any assumptions implicit in that
perspective.
Identify the principal ethical concerns in the scenario.
State the theoretical standpoint you are taking in the analysis and any assumptions that
are implicit in that standpoint.
Discuss the morality of the participants in the scenario from your theoretical standpoint
Provide justification or evidence for all claims that you make.
Construct clearly stated, strong arguments
Section B
Logic Problems (10 marks)
Instructions: For each of the following scenarios, identify whether it demonstrates a logical fallacy and, if so, which logical fallacy, or fallacies, is being demonstrated. Explain your answer as briefly as possible. The scenario may demonstrate no fallacy. It may demonstrate multiple fallacies.
Scenario 1: Aamon Aardvark and Arek Anaconda are sitting in the jungle discussing ethics. Arek is explaining why he believes that the best approach is Ethical Egoism. He tells Aamon that society works best when everyone acts in his or her own interest. Aamon says that he thinks that is selfish, and that he likes to think about how his actions affect other people.
Arek Anaconda hisses in agitation. “ Don’t you realize that this attitude doesn’t work? Haven’t you read Ayn Rand? People acting in their own interest improves the economy and creates progress everywhere!”
Aamon confesses that he has not read Ayn Rand.
Arek: Ayn Rand has written many books and millions of people have read them! People have been reading them for nearly eighty years! Ethical egoism obviously works well!
Aamon humbly agrees that Arek must be right.
Scenario 2: Alexander Grizzly and Peter Squirrel are in the forest. They have been arguing about whether or not it is better for medical devices to share common operating systems rather than purpose-built domain specific ones. Peter is worried about how the change from the former to the latter is impacting security of the devices. Alexander says that the benefits of interoperability and the cost savings justify the industry move in the direction of common O/S.
Alexander feels very strongly about this. He roars at Peter, “ Everybody in medical Infosec in Kazakhstan agrees that interoperability outweighs the security risk!”
Peter starts climbing the nearest tree. “But if Pacemakers and insulin injectors are easily hackable that defeats the whole purpose of security. The risk to patients must be kept minimal where failure can be fatal.” He squeaks assertively.
Alexander grabs the tree and shakes it in his anger. “Are you saying that 20000 Kazakhs are wrong?! Do you think Kazakh people are stupid?! We know the information security! “
Peter squeaks and starts climbing to the top of the tree.
“What about your own Premier Kenney, then!? “ demands Alexander. “He says common O/S is much better! You believe him, if you don’t respect Kazakh opinion?”
Scenario 3: Both Katherine Koala and Dan Dingo work for a non-profit that does fund-raising to support wildlife rescue and rehabilitation. They have just found out that one of their volunteers has been careless and accidentally sent their donor email list to one of their vendors. The donor list contains names and contact information but no financial information. They are arguing about whether or not to let the donors know about the breach.
Dan says that they don’t have to, because there is no substantial likelihood of harm, given that no financial information was revealed.
Katherine says that the donors still have a right to know that the information is out there. She brings up Kantianism and the duty to act universally. She suggests that the reasonable rule should be to give people all the information they need about the state of their privacy and let them decide if they consider the breach a non-issue. She starts talking about “perfect duties”
“Enough” says Dan. “I don’t care what some German philosopher 200 years ago said. I have an organization to keep running. We are in compliance with the legislation. That’s all I need to know. Discussion over.”
Scenario 4: Jeremy Giraffe is out on the Savannah, having an argument with Brad Baboon. They are discussing whether a reasonable employer can demand employees buy a phone with biometric identifiers for multifactor authentication use when logging into the employer’s system.
Jeremy thinks the employer should bear the cost of any security measures including buying the phone they want an employee to have. Brad says that is ridiculous. He thinks verybody should have a phone capable of biometric identification at this point. Anyone using an old clamshell is an idiot who shouldn’t be employed.
At this point Zachi Zebra butts in. “Why are you even arguing with this idiot?” he asks Jeremy. “Baboons do rude things that embarrass the tourists. There’s no point trying to have a reasonable conversation with this guy. He’s got the maturity level of a four-day old foal!”
Section C -Issues
Instructions: Below each of the two debate issues provided, there are several questions relating to the proposition. ( You may find it helpful to refer to the Debate Guide in your Student Resources tab to assist you in formulating answers.)
In answering these questions, you are expected to demonstrate your understanding, not just of the issue, but of the principles explored in Module 1 on Logic and Argument, the principles explored in Module 2 regarding evidentiary weight and, and application of the ethical theories explored in Module 3.
In addition to the marks noted next to each question, four additional bonus marks are available for excellent answers.
Be it resolved that: In modern Canadian society, internet access should be guaranteed as a fundamental right in order to ensure equality for all citizens. (___/8)
Question 1 (3marks)
On behalf of the Pro side of this issue, provide at least two strong arguments in favour of the resolution. Support your arguments with evidence. (max. 250 words)
Question 2 ( 3 marks)
On behalf of the Con side of this issue, provide at least two good arguments why internet access should not be a constitutional right. Support your arguments with evidence. (max. 250 words
Question 3 (2 marks)
Some rights exist which do not have constitutional protection. They rely on public demand for, and recognition of, these rights. One example that exists in Alberta is the right not to have your heating disconnected in the winter even if you have not paid your bill. The gas company can pursue other remedies but they cannot deprive you of power. This came into existence because of public and government recognition of the fact that lack of heat in severe temperatures can cause death, and that is too heavy a penalty to impose on people whether they are negligent in paying their bill or whether financial hardship prevents them from doing so.
Give your opinion on whether a similar right should be demanded and recognized regarding internet access and what the scope of any such right should be. (max. 100 words)
Be it resolved that: Democracy cannot effectively function without privacy and current levels of data-gathering are a threat to the process. (___/7)
Question 4 (5 marks)
On behalf of the Pro side of this issue, provide at least two strong arguments in favour of the resolution. Support your arguments with evidence and sound reasoning. Try to identify specific issues that arise. (max. 250 words)
Question 5 (2 marks)
On behalf of the Con side of this issue, provide at least two good arguments explaining how democracy can adapt to the current open information environment. . (max. 200 words)
