Department of Defense, Research Paper Example

Since the function of the Department of Defense is to ensure national security in all its forms, it seems appropriate to tackle the issue of the manners in which such objectives change due to technological development (in what methodologies are concerned). More precisely, the constant revolution the Internet is causing these days in what communication is concerned must be understood appropriately and also accepted in order to ensure the high security levels the Department of Defense is meant to sustain. Hence, this present paper will provide the most important directions specialists ought to consider when strategizing about the future of the security processes of the Department of Defense.

First and foremost, the Internet eases the transfer of information from one corner of the world to another in a manner unconceivable a few decades ago. Not only does it take a few seconds to reach its receiver, but it is also free and easily made untraceable. Moreover, the community of hackers, those highly knowledgeable about the manners in which the Internet could be put at work towards making the information source unknown and also about entering highly securitized web addresses leaving no mark whatsoever, is already well developed and filled with members of unorthodox principles. As Murphey Dwight put it,

Readers become acquainted with the highly organized and yet free-wheeling world community of “computer hackers,” a community motivated by what might best be described as “CyberAnarchism.” (455).

Thereof, the evolution of the Internet should, as far as the Department of Defense objectives go, be regarded with great concern. All these presupposed benefits of the Internet become great threats against national security. It is not know-how about a healthy lifestyle or cooking practices being delivered easily through the Interned (which are themselves biased enough due to the marketing strategies at work, but this is already another matter), but also information about dangerous activities for the safety of the nation, to put things simply. There are numerous people asking for help activating terrorist activities and even more people predisposed to fulfill such tasks. This is exactly why the Department of Defense ought to strategize better about the online security without which the national wellbeing of specific countries is put at risk.  They have to develop strategies through which potential threats to be discovered fast and correctly. In other words, Cyber space operations are a critical component of Information Dominance, and, carefully coordinated, will provide Navy and Joint Commanders with the necessary elements to achieve and maintain an operational advantage over our adversaries in all domains.  (“Sustaining US global leadership: priorities for 21st century defense. Department of Defense” i).

The terminology is highly effective in this discussions. Whoever is utilizing the benefits of the Internet in order to activate strategies meant to affect the national security is and must be called adversary. This is what the Department of Defense is to work against, and this is exactly why it should identify the strategies which would help establish once again the secure space offline, whilst being in charge of the online activities. It is a good thing that national and international committees, consortia and other organizations have been busy developing standards and specifications for e-learning technologies at least since the late 1990’s.” (Friesen 4), and also that more and more research projects are being conducted (Leiner et. al 15; Gallos et al. 36; Arquilla and Ronfeldt 58), but it must be accepted that such strategies ought to be centered on the methodologies, both possible and legal, through which information to be controlled.

It is clear that the Department of Defense ought to change its classical strategies in order to ensure national security, given that the threats are constantly changing, so should the strategies through which they should be fought against. However, given that the principal efficient methodologies would consist of tracing and investigating information being delivered online, it becomes important to discuss them in relation to the legal measures they should comply with. More precisely, simply eavesdropping would not do, and that is both because of the fact that it would necessitate a huge amount of time and numerous personnel members in order to highlight the possible threats correctly, and also due to the right to privacy which would be tempered with. Since the first matter is rather methodological and would, hence, be solved quite easily, the second one is highly sensitive and could raise grave concerns. People are entitled to privacy and this must be respected, irrespective of the reasons at stake. This is where the real problems for the Department of Defense emerge. Undoubtedly, their objectives are extremely important for the national security, but that should not excuse man’s right to privacy, even if it is being forbidden for the sake of their safety.

There are numerous ethics articles dealing with this exact matter (Fischer-Hubner 59, Manion & Goodrum 14), but the conclusions are far from being unanimous. However, human rights ought to be considered and held in high regard.  Not only are people entitled to privacy, but an activity of such amplitude could generate some of the most unexpected reactions, all of which would temper with the general state of calmness and trust towards the Department of Defense. This is exactly why it should find the measures which would allow people to feel free to express themselves, online and offline, and which, also, would help ensure the security so much needed. Probably, the most appropriate means through which such measures would be taken would consist in utilizing the very same technological developments which raised the concerns in the first place. The IT specialists working for the Department of Defense ought to construct technical devices which would only highlight the possible threats in the online world. Rest assured, such applications should be well-constructed enough to identify all possible threats being constructed online. However, things ought to be kept silent, because people would not understand easily the motifs. No matter how well structured such applications might be, it must be accepted that some false alarms might be made, which means that some conversations could come to light. Maybe even the ethics committee would agree that such situations would rather remain hidden. The matter is too complicated and the final scope too dangerous for it to become public, and that is people should not be disturbed with matters concerning the Department of Defense. It is true, it cannot be ignored or changed in any way, some messages belonging to innocent people will interfere with these strategies will, most definitely, be read by the Department of Defense officials. However, as long as this remains unknown and it is not utilized in any way other than to identify possible threats, it should not be such an issue. However, the applications ought to follow such tasks: to identify those who might stay behind threatening the national security.

It might be put to light that such applications would be difficult to construct, due to their task. It is already common knowledge that mal-intended people develop a vocabulary of their own through which to transmit information, but social science have for a long time developed well-structured research activities by means of which to identify patterns worth identifying such conversation. The reason because of which these are being reminded right now is that the Department of Defense could conduct such research papers of their own in order to aid the IT specialists architect the most efficient applications. Given the evolution of technology, it is well known that patterns and recurrent methodologies would aid such applications highlight suspect activities online. This is why a great communication process between sociologists and IT specialists should be facilitated within the Department of Defense.

In conclusion, the Department of Defense should apply different strategies nowadays, however efficient the actual ones might be. The world is changing and so should the classical methodologies, which means that the national security should be assured also through the modern technological devices, not only by means of the classical methodologies which were and might still be efficient. Probably, the most efficient strategy would be to utilize the technological developments at work nowadays towards generating highly efficient applications through which to identify the possible threats to national security. However, contextualizing the situation, it must be accepted that an efficient and productive communication process between the IT department and highly qualified and experienced in research policies sociologists is highly essential in developing the right tools to investigate whether the Internet connection is used by people having anything but national security at heart or not.

Works Cited

Arquilla, John, and David Ronfeldt. Networks and netwars: The future of terror, crime, and militancy. Rand Corporation, 2001.

Friesen, Norm. “Three objections to learning objects and e-learning standards.” Online education using learning objects (2004): 59-70.

Fischer-Hübner, Simone. IT-security and privacy: design and use of privacy-enhancing security mechanisms. Springer-Verlag, 2001.

Gallos, Lazaros K., et al. “Stability and topology of scale-free networks under attack and defense strategies.” Physical Review Letters 94.18 (2005): 188701.

Leiner, Barry M., et al. “The past and future history of the Internet.” Communications of the ACM 40.2 (1997): 102-108.

Manion, Mark, and Abby Goodrum. “Terrorism or civil disobedience: toward a hacktivist ethic.” ACM SIGCAS Computers and Society 30.2 (2000): 14-19.

Murphey, Dwight D. “CyberAnarchism, WikiLeaks and Computer Warfare: The Unprecedented Dangers Associated with Information Technology Today.” The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies 36.4 (2011): 455.

“Sustaining US global leadership: priorities for 21st century defense. Department of Defense.” 2012. Web. 29 Oct. 2015