The department of taxation in your state is developing a new computer system for processing individual and corporate income-tax returns. The new system features direct data input and inquiry capabilities. Taxpayers are identified by social security number (for individuals) and federal tax identification number (for corporations). The new system should be fully implemented in time for the next tax season.
The new system will serve three primary purposes:
Tax return data will automatically input into the system either directly (if the taxpayer files electronically) or by a clerk at central headquarters scanning a paper return received in the mail.
The returns will be processed using the main computer facilities at central headquarters. Processing will include four steps:
Verifying mathematical accuracy
Auditing the reasonableness of deductions, tax due, and so on, through the use of edit routines, which also include a comparison of current and prior years’ data Identifying returns that should be considered for audit by department revenue agents Issuing refund checks to taxpayers
Inquiry services. A taxpayer will be allowed to determine the status of his or her return or get information from the last 3 years’ returns by calling or visiting one of the department’s regional offices or by accessing the department’s website and entering his or her social security number.
The state commissioner of taxation and the state attorney general are concerned about protecting the privacy of personal information submitted by taxpayers. They want to have potential problems identified before the system is fully developed and implemented so that the proper controls can be incorporated into the new system. Required
Describe the potential privacy problems that could arise in each of the following three areas of processing, and recommend the corrective action(s) to solve each problem identified:
Data input Processing of returns Data inquiry (CMA examination, adapted)
People have a significant aching to know their underlying foundations. In the broadest setting, this aching conveys what needs be as a craving to see how the universe itself came to exist, in a more specific system, the cause of living things. Different models endeavor to disclose how life becomes. These questionable issues settle on by two perspectives. The evolutionists contend life advanced, while the defenders of wise outline contend that life is a result of a wise reason. At that point there are creationists who view life as made by a god or divinities. By and by, creationism isn't of significance since creationism centers around shielding the holy messages, having no logical proof to how life becomes. The petulant issue is whether keen plan is science or not. As Charles Darwin wrote in the On the Origin of Species, "A reasonable outcome can be acquired just by completely expressing and adjusting the certainties and contentions on the two sides of each inquiry." Presently, there is by all accounts a lot of disarray among the general public on what precisely advancement and smart outline is. As per the online word reference, development is the "adjustment in the hereditary creation of a populace amid progressive ages, because of characteristic determination following up on the hereditary variety." Therefore, advancement is for the most part a procedure happening starting with one age then onto the next, which results in heritable changes in a populace. All the more precisely, advancement is any adjustment in the "recurrence of alleles inside a quality pool" over succeeding ages. Like development, astute plan is on the online word reference as well. The online word reference states, smart outline is, "the affirmation or conviction that physical and organic frameworks saw in the universe result from deliberate plan by an astute being instead of from possibility or undirected regular procedures." Therefore, savvy configuration contends that a smart reason as opposed to an undirected procedure best clarify certain highlights of the universe. On the off chance that a canny reason best clarify certain highlights of the universe, at that point astute outline supporters must concur that specific highlights are best clarified by the advancement hypothesis. Shrewd plan supporters like Stephen Meyer say that astute outline supporters are not against development per say. Development can mean change after some time or basic heritage, which are not implications of the term they debate. They do challenge the "particular Darwinian perfect, that life is the consequence of an absolutely undirected process that just imitates the forces of planning knowledge." Charles Darwin's hypothesis is that every single living thing developed from a straightforward living being over vast ages. Notwithstanding the innumerable ages, irregular transformations or changes in the qualities and regular determination occurred, with just the fittest of species surviving and recreating. As pointed out previously, shrewd outline supporters don't dismiss development, nor do they trust that the universe was made in six days. Nonetheless, advocates of clever plan do state an astute planner made life. Despite the fact that they are quiet about the character of the originator, most expect it the God of Christianity. Wise plan advocates tend to avoid characterizing outline. Stephen Meyer, a shrewd outline advocate says there are two highlights to what this insight is. Meyer cites, "you can't tell from the science alone the character of the creator. It resembles having a work of art that was not marked. You can tell from the trademark mark of knowledge, to be specific the nearness of data, that some mind assumed a job, yet we can't tell from the science the character." Dr. Micheal Ruse, an evolutionist states "if a sketch isn't marked, a great workmanship history specialist could take a gander at the artistic creation and say I believe it's a 13 century painting or this canvas is an impressionist." Defenders of astute plan contend that even the most straightforward of living things have various intricate and modern structures that not in any case common determination can create. Therefore, how would you clarify the many-sided quality of plan? The inquiry that seems, by all accounts, to be asked frequently is, "is the outline of science a deception created by a characteristic system, to be specific regular choice that can mirror the intensity of planning insight or is the presence of plan, which all researcher perceive the result of genuine knowledge, a mind not a material procedure." Hence, defenders of smart plan, specifically Michael Behe contend the test of final many-sided quality, recommending the presence of a clever originator behind the deliberate structures of each living cell. Final multifaceted nature infers a "solitary framework made out of a few very much coordinated, cooperating parts that add to the essential capacity, were in the expulsion of any of the part makes the framework adequately stop working." Michael Behe's well known regular case of an unchangeably mind boggling framework is a mousetrap. In the event that one of the bits of a mousetrap is inaccessible, never again will the mousetrap be powerful. An unchangeably mind boggling framework is like this model. Every one of the segments must be set up before you can get a mouse or have a working framework. Michael Behe views an unchangeably mind boggling framework as exceptionally troublesome or exceedingly far-fetched to shape by various, progressive adjustments, as well as on the grounds that any basic part could stop to work if a piece from the previous ages was absent. Michael Behe bolsters his point how normal determination can't elucidate the multifaceted nature that is inside a cell by recognizing a statement Darwin said. "In the event that it could be exhibited that any intricate organ existed which couldn't in any way, shape or form have been framed by various, progressive, slight alterations, my hypothesis would totally separate." The nature of an unchangeable unpredictability acts like a risk to the Darwinian hypothesis since frameworks which are altogether working can then just normal determination be available. A precedent in a living cell is the plan of how proteins can explore to the exact goal where proteins do their "particular assignments, for example, assimilation of supplements and discharge of squanders. This consistent, controlled activity stream in the cell involves another amazingly unpredictable, final framework." In request for a framework to work fittingly, a framework should no separate and the framework's parts ought not separate. Kenneth R. Mill operator counters the contention of unchangeable many-sided quality; a complicated framework can't be created by development. Kenneth Miller demonstrates his contradiction by clarifying the blame he finds in Michael Behe's own model, the mousetrap. Michael Behe states how expelling a piece of the mousetrap makes it quit working, yet Kenneth Miller expresses that you might not have a mousetrap taking without end certain taps, but rather you can have another completely useful machine. A mousetrap is made out of a base, a metal sledge, a spring, a catch and a metal bar. "Take away the catch and the metal bar, [there is] a practical paper cut. Take away the spring, and you have a two-section key chain. The fact of the matter is that odds and ends of evidently unchangeably complex machines may have extraordinary, yet at the same time helpful capacities." Kenneth R. Mill operator contends that Darwinian components could have masterminded the various complex framework that exists inside living things. "Advancement produces complex biochemical machines by replicating, changing, and consolidating proteins beforehand utilized for different capacities." Kenneth Miller utilizes again one of Michael Behe's very own model. As made reference to previously, Michael Behe contends how a clever outline is behind the multifaceted nature of how the proteins move from one "subcellular compartment" to another. The diary called Cell has an article where working analysts noticed "these systems propose normally how the numerous and various compartments in eukaryotic cells could have developed in any case." Overall, clever plan does not prevail with present any biochemical proof. William A. Dembski puts forth another intriguing wise outline articulation. Dembski attracts consideration regarding how neither shot nor need can clarify the production of the universe. The inception of every single living thing more likely than not had assistance from a planning knowledge. Scientists get an adequate measure of irregular flag from space for a lot of years. Dembski states, "If a grouping needs multifaceted nature, it could without much of a stretch occur by possibility." In other word, on the off chance that it is mind boggling, it must have not happened by shot or haphazardness. Along these lines, analysts must derive an extraterrestrial insight is the hotspot for such "complex, sequenced designs" (arbitrary signs). "Insight deserts a trademark or mark [called] determined multifaceted nature." Specified unpredictability isn't like the term unchangeable intricacy. The both have diverse definitions. Determined multifaceted nature shows that it is an occasion "in the event that it is unexpected and consequently a bit much, in the event that it is perplexing and in this manner not effectively repeatable by shot, and on the off chance that it is indicated in the feeling of displaying a freely given example." Slim odds of impossible occasions to happen don't lessen possibility. For example, in the event that you roll a shakers for a satisfactory measure of time, you will have the capacity to see a "very mind boggling or unrealistically occasion." Another engaging contention is that "details be dispassionately given and not simply forced on occasions afterward." For instance, if a soccer player kicks a soccer ball onto the field and after that we put the soccer net, "we force a patter sometime later." Alternatively, if the soccer net is "set up ahead of time (indicated)" and afterward the soccer player shoots the ball into the net, "we know it was by outline." Robert T. Pennock presents his counterargument to Dembski contention. Pennock claims that defenders>GET ANSWER