CMP2091M Professional Practice Item Two

Submission Guidelines

This assignment is an individually assessed component.
You are required to make an electronic submission for this assessment component. Your submission must be presented according to the Lincoln School of Computer Science guidelines for submission of assessed written work. As an indicative quantity measure, each submission would be expected to contain roughly 2,000 words.

Hand In Instructions

The deadline for submission of this work is presented in the School Hand-in schedule as presented on Blackboard. An appropriately completed front sheet must be included as the first page of your submission.
DO NOT include this briefing document with your submission.

Large amounts of telecommunications metadata must now be kept for two years by Australian telecommunications companies, under a new law which came into effect on Tuesday. It covers data on who called or texted whom and for how long, as well as location, volume of data exchanged, device information and email IP data. It also makes it much easier for authorities to access the records.

Some have said the laws – an expansion of existing rules on what data can be retained – are justified, but others have raised concerns about civil liberties or potential flaws in the scheme.

The bill was introduced to the Australian parliament when current Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull was communications minister. He said then it was “critical” for security agencies and law enforcement, citing investigations into domestic terrorism. “No responsible government can sit by while those who protect us lose access to vital information, particularly in the current high threat environment,” he said, in a joint statement with Attorney-General George Brandis. The government has stressed that the data retained is only “metadata” and does not include the content of calls and messages themselves.

While Australian internet services are required to keep detailed records of almost everything about an email or chat conversation apart from their content, foreign platforms, like Gmail, Hotmail, Facebook and Skype are exempt. Internal email and telephone networks, such as those operated within companies and universities, are also exempt.

Opponents point out that, considered in entirety, such metadata paints a detailed picture of what people are doing, even if the content of messages is not included. They also point out that while terrorism and child abuse investigations are often cited to justify the laws, they also allow for data to be requested for much more minor crimes. It will still take a warrant to access a journalist’s data to identify their sources, but that hearing will take place in private. And no warrant is needed for government agencies to search the data of its own ranks. The security of the servers used to hold the data has also been a question, with mass data breaches becoming increasingly common around the world. Australian lobby group the Communications Alliance has said most internet service providers (ISP) are not yet storing metadata as the law requires.

Some online services are also unsure about whether the law covers them and precisely what data they need to keep, the body said.

Telecommunications providers in the UK retain metadata for a minimum of one year, although the UK’s High Court ruled in July that aspects of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, were unlawful. Despite this, the order to nullify that part of the legislation has been suspended until March. Meanwhile the UK is pushing ahead with even tougher legislation.

In the US, a court ruled in August that the National Security Agency (NSA) could continue to collect phone metadata, although Congress changed the law earlier in the year to allow phone companies to keep their own databases, which the government can query. In China, few protections exist against any form of state surveillance, and in Russia a law came into force in September requiring technology companies to store any data on Russian users on servers within the country – readily accessible to local authorities.

Tesla launches ‘autopilot’ update but urges caution

Tesla has launched a software update for its vehicles – enabling the cars to have an “autopilot” mode. While not fully self-driving, the software means the Model S and new Model X can “automatically steer down the highway, change lanes, and adjust speed in response to traffic”. Tesla chief executive Elon Musk said the autopilot mode was designed to increase driver confidence on the road.

However, Mr Musk said users adopting the software – available in North America from Thursday October 15th 2015 – should exercise caution while using it. “It should not hit pedestrians, hopefully,” he told the media. “It

should handle them well.” He added that if the car is involved in a collision, the driver is still liable. “The driver cannot abdicate responsibility. That will come at some point in the future.” Other regions of the world would be updated in the next couple of weeks pending regulatory approval.

The software uses a combination of cameras, radar, ultrasonic sensors and mapping data to determine its position and navigate. When the car has arrived at its destination, it is able to scan for an available space and park itself. Unlike Google, which is aiming for a fully-autonomous vehicle, Tesla’s approach is to gradually introduce features which take away the need for drivers to carry out certain functions.

Currently there are limitations to the software which would improve over time, Mr Musk said. “If there’s heavy snow it’s going to be harder for the system to work, so we’d advise caution. Essentially it’s like a person – how well can a person figure out what route they should take. Over time it will be better than a person.” He offered the view that the limitations of many human drivers are not evident in the new system “long term it will be way better than a person. It never gets tired, it’s never had anything to drink, it’s never arguing with someone in the car. It’s not distracted.”

Other car manufacturers such as BMW and Volvo are also developing, and implementing, autonomous features to their cars. Google’s entirely self-driving car has clocked up well over one million miles on public roads, mostly in California. The way Google sees it is that where a driverless car is forced to choose between what it thinks is the least harmful of various scenarios – the Google car is still far smarter than a human, and, crucially, will save thousands of lives by existing in the first place.

Commenting on Google’s approach to producing a driverless car Sergey Brin, Google’s co-founder, thinks

there’s space for two types of driving experience on our roads. “I love the idea of being out on the open road that’s kind of curvy and fun – you’re driving, really getting into it,” he said. “But in practice that’s probably 1% of my experience. Typically I’m in stop-and-go traffic, and some traffic jam, or just going from light to light on a pretty straight road, mostly just trying to make sure nobody does anything weird in front of me and I don’t crash into them. I think we need to see both of those worlds, and I think there’s a future for both of those. I don’t think we’re going to see no human driver any time soon.”

A “terror attack” has taken place in Singapore – all part of a controversial web campaign to launch the newest title from the popular Call of Duty video game franchise. Set in Singapore during the year 2065, Call of Duty: Black Ops III begins with a mission where players must investigate the “mysterious disappearance” of a CIA station. Ahead of its worldwide release on 6 November, US-based games maker Activision launched a series of tweets, setting up the opening scene for a fictional attack in Singapore. While the tweets aimed to tease fans and also introduced new characters to the game, many social media users were unimpressed at the way things were playing out on Twitter, saying the scenario was in bad

taste.

The popular first-person shooter franchise has attracted its fair share of controversy since its release in 2003. Earlier editions of the game focused on World War Two events while newer titles have been set during more recent times. Cuban authorities expressed unhappiness over a mission in one of the games, where players could attempt to overthrow and assassinate former leader Fidel Castro. Another Call of Duty expansion saw

players raiding a news agency in Doha, widely speculated to be the offices of Arabic TV network al-Jazeera.

Singapore’s military would not give a comment on its view of the campaign, but thousands of social media have been interacting and engaging with it on Twitter. “There have been too many similar tragedies lately to joke in the way you did, without making your fiction clear,” said a Twitter user in New York. Other users
like Mark Lawson, criticised the stunt. “This Call of Duty stunt is so bad. So irresponsible,” he said. Tech reporter Allegra Frank slammed the tweets in a blog post, saying: “I can’t say that the masquerade has taught me much about the game or increased my interest in it. “Instead, it stands solely as a notable failure in marketing, an attempt to grab some attention by playing to the strengths of social media during actual military action.” But members of Singapore’s devoted gaming community, “enjoyed the preview” in the tweets and began to hit back. “Video games now are supposed to be realistic. I think it’s cool that developers have based scenarios and game play on real life events. Don’t stop,” said a Twitter user in Japan.
Another user commented: “I feel sorry for anyone who thinks this is real.”