Incident Response – Recovery and Maintenance: A Summary

The prompt identification of susceptibilities within computer networks and the related countermeasures to alleviate any damage or risk are critical for organizations in any industry. Whitman et al. discuss approaches regarding effective incidence response, including contingency planning for marketing leading content, preventing data losses after security breaches, and the appropriate techniques that can minimize emergency-related downtimes. Chapter eight, titled “Incident Response: Recovery and Maintenance,” provides a crucial insight into practical approaches to averting network intrusion.

The recovery and maintenance of networks involve associated processes such as the preservation of technical data, forensics and anti-forensics, and eDiscovery mechanisms, which collectively help in retrieving compromised systems and preventing future attacks. highlight that the recovery phase is part of the broader incident response process which begins with figuring out the source of the security breach or cyber-attack, how the affected systems were compromised, and why there are no incidental protection mechanisms in place to prevent such incidents. posit that applying Deming’s cycle can ensure adequate recovery and maintenance process while lowering the susceptibility of systems to future attacks. Planning for recovery is best based on the expert understanding of the security incident at the moment, while doing involves trying the recovery plan on several devices at a time. On the other hand, checking entails assessing the effectiveness of the plan, followed by acting, which is implemented only if the solution works, thus expanding its application to entire networks and devices. The approach is crucial for developing future security solutions that can fend off similar or multifaceted attacks.

Overall, the recovery and maintenance process should be practical and strategic to reduce system susceptibilities. Accordingly, the approaches employed should focus more on reducing or eliminating the source/vulnerability as opposed to containing the attack. The source of the attack(s), the extent of breach or damage of systems, and the reasons the organization lacks modalities to prevent such incidents should also be assessed using Deming’s cycle. By employing this approach, future system vulnerabilities can be reduced significantly.

Are the outlined processes and procedures practical and applicable to all types of multifaceted organizational systems in a highly dynamic cyber security world?

Relationship between Canada and its aboriginal population. Detailing the start of the racial discrimination in the Indian Act, the systemic concern in the residential schools and ending it with the sixties scoop including facts. All information discussed in the first part of the question is referred back from class lectures and the textbook. The hostile abuse towards the Aboriginal population began through the Indian Act.

The Indian Act is the most significant piece of racist legislation that has even been produced. The act was established in 1867 and it gave legal power to the Canadian government to fully control the lives of Aboriginals. Aboriginals were not considered "people" under the laws of Canada. The Indian Act was passed because the government wanted to civilize and assimilate the "Indian".

In other words, to exterminate the culture, tradition and language in the mainstream Canadian society. It was produced as an Indian "problem" within the country and in doing so the government renounced their rights and privileges. The act created the figure of paternalism, the term paternal means a relationship of dependency and/or a parental figure.

The government as the "parent" creates a we know what is best for you, situation for the Aboriginal community. By the design, it creates a dependency from the government and teaches them the difference of right versus wrong.

The pros and cons of the advisory system often reveal the clues of the individual’s style in policy making.Whether a decision-maker elected or constructed an authoritarian regime, they cannot be an expert on every social issue. Therefore, this policy maker is usually surrounded by an expert group named the advisory group that allows the decision-making process more efficient in a flow of numerous issues. Since decision-makers adopt a different advisory system based on their preference of organizational structure.

The formalistic approach is the advisory system favored by policymakers who endeavor to make for an orderly decision process (Breuning, 2007). The approach is advantageous when decision-making is relatively prompt. Advice that reaches the decision-maker is usually censored by the leader of the department, there is less chance of dispute over the advice. However, most formalistic decision-making is established in the bureaucratic system, there exists an inherent hierarchy between advisors. Leaders of the bureaucratic system often screen out decisions that reach the decision-maker. This censorship limits the options of decision-makers and leads to the distortion of the decisions.

On the other hand, the competitive approach is the advisory system chosen by policymakers who rather like to use multiple channels of information that can avoid distortion. There is little cooperation between advisors in this type of advisory system (Breuning, 2007). This allows more variety of information that reaches the decision-maker. This system, however, has the drawback of eliciting conflicts between the experts and may result in biased information of high staff turnover.

Breuning, M. (2007). Foreign Policy Analysis: A Comparative Introduction (2007th ed.). Palgrave Macmillan.

What does the author(s) hypothesize is the relationship between the independent and dependent variables? OR, What are some alternative explanations for explaining variation in the dependent variable?What is the dependent variable  What is the independent variable

• How does the author test their/her hypotheses?
• What does the author find?
• What is the connection between the two articles? Why does one cite the other?

MCQ questions:

1. What is the dependent variable examined by Sachweb and Sthamer (2019)?

• a. Rising levels of income inequality
• b. Perceptions of procedural justice
• c. Perceptions of social injustice
• d. Outcome-related justice assessments

2. How do Sachweh and Sthamer operationalize the dependent variable?

• a. With a survey question that asks whether the respondent perceives whether political institutions operate fairly.
• b. With a survey question that asks whether the respondent perceives the social differences in the country to be just.
• c. Self-described household income.
• d. Objectively and externally assessed household income

3. Which of the following is not used by Sachweb and Sthamer as an independent variable?

• a. Perceptions of procedural justice
• b. Outcome-related justice assessments
• c. Individual levels of wealth
• d. Having friends or family earning less money

4. Sachweh and Sthamer arguably use an inductive approach. Rather than hypothesizing and then gathering variables, they test quite a few variables, in several combinations, and then run multivariate regression analyses to see which independent variables seem to explain the most variation in the dependent variable. What data do Sachweh and Sthamer use to better understand variation in the dependent variable?

• a. Using panel data from Germany over the last 30 years (the same respondents interviewed repeatedly over time)
• b. Using pooled data from German over the last 30 years (different respondents asked the same questions repeatedly over time)
• c. Using data from a recent survey conducted in Germany
• d. Using data from a variety of surveys (panel & pooled), plus economic data.

5.  Why do Sachweh and Sthamer cite Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019*- they use 2018)?

• a. Sachweh and Sthamer cite Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) to illustrate some of the different explanations scholars have suggested that Sachweh and Sthamer will then include in their model.
• b. Sachweh and Sthamer cite Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) to highlight previous scholarship that Sachweh and Sthamer think arrived at an incorrect or incomplete conclusion.
• c. Sachweh and Sthamer cite Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) to justify their use of a particular set of data or the way they employ a particular type of analysis of that data.
• d. Sachweh and Sthamer cite Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) to highlight recent research on issues of inequality

6.  What is the dependent variable in Roez, Huijts and Sieben’s (2019A) study?

• a. The extent to which people think that income inequalities in a country are too high.
• b. The extent to which people recognize that income inequalities are high
• c. The extent to which people think that political institutions do not treat everyone fairly.
• d. The extent to which people believe that income inequalities are the result of meritocratic processes.

7.  Which of the following is not an independent variable Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) use in their model?

• a. A national measure of income inequality
• b. A survey respondent’s self-reported income level.
• c. A survey respondent’s employment status.
• d. A national measure of unemployment.

8. What do Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) hypothesize?

• a. Individuals with lower income or education will be more likely to resent individuals with higher income or education when they perceive their society to be meritocratic.
• b. Individuals with lower income or education will be less likely to resent individuals with higher income or education when they perceive their society to be meritocratic.
• c. Individuals with lower income or education will be more likely to support social inequalities when they perceive their society to be meritocratic.
• d. Individuals with lower income or education will be less likely to support social inequalities when they perceive their society to be meritocratic.

9. How would you summarize the rationale Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) provide for their hypothesis?

• a. The Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) rationalize their hypothesis by arguing that in meritocratic societies, income or education indicate talent and diligence, lower-status individuals are more critical of the status quo since they are so adversely affected by such perceptions of their laziness or lack of ability.
• b. Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) rationalize their hypothesis by arguing that systemic oppression, discrimination or racism are often present and, as a result, many people support social inequalities of those who they think deserve to be lower-status individuals.
• c. Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) rationalize their hypothesis by arguing that settler-colonial societies often justify systemic inequalities by claiming that they are a meritocracy, but the discrimination that affects lower-status individuals makes them more critical of society than comparable individuals in countries without as much inequality.
• d. Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) rationalize their hypothesis by describing research into how lower-status individuals grow to resent those in their country who believe that higher-status individuals have talent and diligence  that lower-status individuals lack.

10.  Which of the following is NOT a possible explanation for variation in the dependent variable explored by Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019)?

• a. Individual social position
• b. Beliefs in the causes of social inequality
• c. People’s sense of fairness
• d. Individual ideology (left/liberal or right/conservative)

11.  What kind of data do Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019) use to test their hypothesis?

a. Survey data from many industrial countries only

b. Survey data from Europe only

c. A mix of survey data and aggregate national data from Europe.

d. A mix of survey data and aggregate national data from many industrial countries.

12.  What sentence best describes Roez, Huijts and Sieben (2019)’s findings?

a. In countries where there are prevalent meritocratic perceptions, there are large differences between low- and high- income individuals, but not differences by education.

b. In countries where there are prevalent meritocratic perceptions, there are large differences by education, but not between low- and high- income individuals.

c. In countries where there are prevalent meritocratic perceptions, there are large differences between low- and high- income individuals, and by education.

d. In countries where there are prevalent meritocratic perceptions, there are large differences between low- and high- income individuals, and by education, but not where there are prevalent meritocratic perceptions.

13.  What sentence best describes the relationship between the two articles about meritocracy and inequality?

a. Both articles come to similar conclusions, but differ on what country or countries are explored, and on some specifics of the demographic groups that are most concerned about inequality.

b. Both articles come to similar conclusions, only differing on which country or countries are explored.

c. The two articles come to very different, contradictory conclusions about the causes and consequences of the observed variation.

d. The two articles share a methodology and a subject matter, but each explores different, but complimentary aspects of related questions about inequality and meritocracy.

REFERENCES:

1. Sachweh, Patrick, and Evelyn Sthamer. “Why Do the Affluent Find Inequality Increasingly Unjust? Changing Inequality and Justice Perceptions in Germany, 1994-2014.” European Sociological Review 35, no. 5 (2019): 651-668. PLUS
2. Roex, Karlijn LA, Tim Huijts, and Inge Sieben. “Attitudes towards income inequality:’Winners’ versus ‘losers’ of the perceived meritocracy.” Acta Sociologica 62, no. 1 (2019): 47-63.

The Institute of Politics at the Harvard K. Campaign for President. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017. This book results from a conference sponsored by the Institute of Government at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government that brought together key campaign leaders from the 2016 presidential campaigns to discuss the campaigns and the election. In that light, remember that they are political professionals discussing their strategies and tactics and are not researchers building an argument and compiling empirical evidence.

INSTRUCTIONS

Review in 3 main sections: summary, critique and evaluation, and application. Do not summarize or critique the chapters chronologically; consider the book as a whole. State the contributors’ viewpoints in your words.

1- Summary

1. Summarize the central theme and purpose of the book.
2. What are the overall perspectives, objectives, and arguments of the contributors to the conference that ultimately produced the book?
3.  If the conference organizers that yielded the book wanted you to acquire one idea from the book, what would it be?

2- Critique and Evaluation

Discuss the book’s strengths and weaknesses; balance them in your critique and assessment in the areas below. Provide concrete evidence for the assertions, and support the claims with references from the textbook. The evaluation should be balanced, respectful, and fair. Control the tone of your critique, and do not evaluate the contributors’ statements and arguments from a merely partisan perspective.

1. What strikes you as noteworthy? What has the book accomplished? In what ways was the book effective or persuasive?
2. Challenge the assumptions, approaches, or arguments made by the contributors. Do their explanations and arguments make sense?
3.  Identify where your contributions are exemplary or deficient in their knowledge, judgments, or organization.
4. Consider the role of the non-campaigning experts in the narratives; did they effectively provide nonpartisan evaluations or challenges to the claims of the campaign professionals?

Application

1. Apply the information gained from the Shaw and Burton et al. textbooks to fully assess the significant 2016 presidential campaigns’ strengths and weaknesses.
2. Include a thoughtful and well-supported assessment of why it is essential to analyze past campaigns today.

References:

1. School, The Institute of Politics at the Harvard K. Campaign for President. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2017. https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781538104491/Campaign-for-President-The-Managers-Look-at-2016
2. Shaw, Catherine. The Campaign Manager,  6th Edition. Routledge, 2018. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9780429491740/campaign-manager-catherine-shaw
3. Burton, Michael J., William Miller, Daniel Shea. Campaign Craft: The Strategies, Tactics, and Art of Political Campaign Management, 5th Edition,  5th Edition. Praeger, 2015. https://is.muni.cz/el/1423/podzim2018/POL256/um/Burton-Shea_23-51_.pdf