In review of discussion postings or writing, it is clear there are areas in need of improvement. The most important area to focus on is clarity and succinctness. Clear and concise openings with the research area topic, the problems, the research strategy, how the three topics fit together and quickly present the three articles that relate to the subject. Uncovering, or writing that leads to more discovery and a shift to a more important and in depth theory or area of research is also a problem.
The challenge in presenting the topic is conveying the acceptance and use of existing systems have created a money making industry called cyber security, when a more secure design would solve most of the problems. Presenting the problem to be understood on industry levels and not technical levels of quantitative scientific proof is the goal, in order to see how insecurity results in jobs and profits, when all the while it is comparable to actual feelings of human inadequacy, which can be viewed as comparable to our view of computer or internet systems. Because of subjective perceptions, it is difficult to communicate the problem, therefore, there not only needs to be improvements in writing to enable the understanding, but also a better way to present statistical proof that perhaps leads to a more refined research question and the formulation of a testable theory. Systems are not adequate, yet we continue to build on top of what we have, rather than perfecting the area of most human importance: identity, the unique human distinction, which should be comparable to the device enabler. If the design can be made more efficient by following a relational structure, but was not allowed to because of an outcome from an Anti-Trust law, then it’s valuable to explain the correlation of ‘trust,’ relational structure, identity, and compare it to the human psychological understanding, rather than to assume the underlying system (or infrastructure) cannot be changed and humans are forced to adapt to what is.
Also what needs to be eliminated are the inner thoughts attached to the topic selected; a false assumption that students or others might not understand or be interested in the topic and therefore convincing them or anyone else is not a priority because nothing is going to change or that the writer and readers themselves are inadequate or insecure.
Some responses to other postings should be more poignant and shorter.
Is the Internet forcing us to prepare for an Identity Crisis, using Cyber-Security as the contingency plan and loss prevention strategy?