Using A Microsoft Word Document, Please List In Order Of You ✓ Solved

Using a Microsoft Word document, please list in order of your

Using a Microsoft Word document, please list in order of your preference the five top areas in which you think computer-based laws should be passed or strengthened by legislatures, and a brief description of why you chose this law and its ranking. The minimum word count shall be not less than 250 words.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction: In the current era, computers and digital technologies permeate everyday life, from social interactions to critical infrastructure.Lawmakers must strike a balance between fostering innovation and protecting fundamental rights, safety, and fairness. This paper identifies five priority areas for new or strengthened computer-based laws, ranks them by potential impact and feasibility, and explains the rationale for each choice. The framework draws on established privacy rights, security standards, and accountability for automated systems, aiming to reduce systemic harms while preserving beneficial innovation (GDPR, 2016; OECD, 2019).

1) Data privacy and consent protections (Rank #1)

Proposed law: Strengthen or harmonize data privacy legislation to codify explicit consent, purpose limitation, data minimization, data subject rights (access, correction, deletion), and robust breach notification requirements. It should also establish clear penalties for noncompliance and create empowered data protection authorities with enforcement capabilities. Rationale: Personal data is collected, processed, and transferred at scale across borders, often with limited transparency. Strong privacy protections reduce the risk of misuse, discrimination, and identity theft and reinforce public trust in digital services (GDPR, 2016; Kuner, 2017). The law should align with cross-border data transfer safeguards and mandate impact assessments for high-risk processing (Mittelstadt et al., 2016; Floridi, 2013). Implementation challenges include interoperability with existing regimes and ensuring proportional enforcement (Solove, 2004).

2) AI governance, transparency, and accountability (Rank #2)

Proposed law: Require organizational AI impact assessments, algorithmic transparency disclosures for high-stakes decisions, bias testing, human-in-the-loop requirements where appropriate, and auditability of automated decisions. Rationale: Automated decision-making affects employment, credit, law enforcement, and access to services. Without governance, biased or opaque systems can produce unfair outcomes and erode democratic legitimacy. A robust framework helps detect and mitigate bias, ensure explainability where feasible, and provide remedies for affected individuals (European Commission, 2020; Mittelstadt et al., 2016). Potential challenges include balancing transparency with proprietary concerns and ensuring scalable oversight (Pasquale, 2015).

3) Cybersecurity standards for critical infrastructure and supply chains (Rank #3)

Proposed law: Establish mandatory baseline cybersecurity standards for critical infrastructure operators and key vendors, require proactive risk management, third-party risk assessments, and timely breach notification. It should integrate supply chain security requirements and periodic independent audits. Rationale: Cyber threats threaten public safety, economic stability, and national security. A formal governance framework incentivizes proactive defense, improves resilience, and reduces the blast radius of incidents (NIST, 2018; ENISA, 2019). Challenges include regulatory fragmentation across sectors and the need for international coherence as technology ecosystems are global (OECD, 2019).

4) Digital identity, authentication, and trust infrastructure (Rank #4)

Proposed law: Create a secure, privacy-preserving framework for digital identities, including strong authentication standards, privacy-by-design principles, and interoperable identity solutions that enable user control over data sharing. Rationale: Reliable digital identity underpins access to services, reduces fraud, and supports safer online transaction ecosystems. A standardized trusted identity layer enables safer e-government, commerce, and health services while protecting civil liberties (NIST, 2017; ISO/IEC 29115). Implementation considerations include ensuring portability across providers and preventing function creep while preserving user consent and data minimization (Floridi, 2013).

5) Platform accountability and online safety (Rank #5)

Proposed law: Impose transparency requirements on platform ranking algorithms and moderation policies; require disclosures about how content is prioritized, flagged, or removed; establish remedies for harms caused by platform practices and provide user-friendly avenues for redress. Rationale: Large platforms shape information ecosystems, political discourse, and market access. Transparent moderation and ranking policies can mitigate misinformation, discrimination, and abuse while preserving freedom of expression. Scholarly work advocates for algorithmic accountability and regulatory oversight to curb systemic harms without collapsing innovation (Pasquale, 2015; Floridi, 2013; Mittelstadt et al., 2016).

Conclusion

The five priority areas—data privacy, AI governance, cybersecurity, digital identity, and platform accountability—form a cohesive framework to address the most consequential computer-based harms while fostering responsible innovation. Each area complements the others: privacy protections empower individuals; AI governance prevents biased or opaque decisions; cybersecurity safeguards critical systems; digital identity enables secure access; and platform accountability curbs harmful online practices. Realizing these goals will require ongoing stakeholder engagement, interoperable standards, and vigilant oversight consistent with established scholarship and policy guidance (GDPR, 2016; OECD, 2019; NIST, 2018; Commission, 2020).

References

• European Union. (2016). Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (General Data Protection Regulation).
• Kuner, C. (2017). Transatlantic Data Privacy Law. Oxford University Press.
• Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, T., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., Floridi, L., & Evans, S. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2).
• European Commission. (2020). White Paper on Artificial Intelligence: A European Approach to Excellence and Trust.
• OECD. (2019). Recommendation on AI.
• National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). (2018). Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, Version 1.1.
• European Union Agency for Cybersecurity (ENISA). (2019). Threat Landscape for Critical Information Systems.
• Pasquale, F. (2015). The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Power in the 21st Century. Harvard University Press.
• Floridi, L. (2013). The Philosophy of Information. Oxford University Press.
• Solove, D. J. (2004). A Taxonomy of Privacy. University of Chicago Law Review.