Intellectual Property (IP) refers to the mind creations including inventions, art and literary works, designs, and commercial symbols, images, and names. There are two main categories of IP: industrial property and copyright. Industrial property refers to the patents for trademarks, inventions, geographical indications, and industrial designs (Bradner " Contreras, 2017). Copyright, on the other hand, entails literary works such as plays and poems, music, films, and artistic works including sculptures, drawings, and paintings. All property owners have their rights protected by the law. However, many businesses produce counterfeit goods which affect the economy of a country. Counterfeit harm companies through revenue loss and reduced incentives to innovate as a result of potential theft (Bently " Sherman, 2014). On the other hand, such goods may result in the loss of government tax revenues and increased enforcement costs. Counterfeits also reduces the innovation incentives which result from infringed IP, thus, reducing economic growth, decreasing job creation, and weaken the competitiveness of a nation.
What safety and health concerns are posed by counterfeit products?
In regards to health and safety, counterfeit products that contain harmful chemicals and poisonous ingredients may result in injury or death. Consumers may be affected when they purchase such goods with poor quality which in certain instances, like counterfeit medicine, may expose individuals to allergic reactions, burns, infections, or poisoning (Bradner " Contreras, 2017). Counterfeit products like electronics may have substandard value which results in explosions, fire, accidents, or even deaths. In addition to the health risks, reports of cybercrime, hackers, and crooks who attempt to steal information has always been on the rise. This has resulted in the loss of secretive information of companies or individuals as well as loss of security data for the government (Bently " Sherman, 2014). If such critical data is stolen, the perpetrators can cyber-attack against security of the nation and safety of the people, critical infrastructure, and destroy computer networks.
How does IP theft pose an existential threat to national security?
IP theft poses existential threat to the national security. Every single day, cybercrimes entail stealing of personal information, financial data, company top performance secrets, and other important information (Bently " Sherman, 2014). The concept of national security threat come into play if the stolen information is classified government security data which can expose the strategic plans of security, location of security equipment, and even access to computers that control military weapons such as missiles and bomb that are automated (Bently " Sherman, 2014). This can result to increased terror threats within the country or to other regions which may affect the relationship of the international community.
Discuss the action that prompted the "border control offensive" and made the issue of illegal immigration a priority.
The introduction of the border control offensive was witnessed in the 1980s and 1990s when a large influx of illegal immigrants was witnessed in the country which resulted in an increase in population. This change was greatly felt in California where a state crisis of inadequate housing and unemployment rates would be felt as the state accounted for almost half of the total immigrant population (Boyce, 2016). In order to respond to this influx, border agents were forced to quickly act towards protection of the borders. The agents had to increase their manpower as well as modernized technology including computer processing systems, seismic sensors, X-ray scanning, scopes, and infrared night-visions (Salter, 2004). To further control the immigration, the government introduced various policies. The first law introduced was the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 which targeted employers who considered illegal undocumented workers. They were forced to dismiss the workers who were then allowed to go through the legalization process.
What are "Smart Borders"?
“Smart Borders” is a program that had been introduced in the United States to ensure that crossing the border becomes a secure and faster process for individuals and companies (Leese, 2016). The declaration of the “concept” was signed in 2001 between Canada and United States to protect borders from engaging in illegal activities and prevent individuals from accessing the country with harmful weapons or materials that may endanger national security (Salter, 2004). The agreement required that all individuals crossing the border enter the country legally with updated passports and individuals from the third world countries be screened with demand for more details than in the past especially after the attacks of 9/11.
How have the SMART Port Security, the SAFE Port Act, the Small Vessel Security Strategy, and the Marine Transportation Security Act impacted port security?
The introduced security measures at the ports have enhanced the national security. The SMART Port Security Act had been put in place to improve the port laws by improving security measures overseas prior to the occurrence of any threats on the U.S soil (Boyce, 2016). This Act was intended to improve the cooperation of foreign countries in maintaining maritime security through enhanced coordination will different levels of the government as well as the private sector. The Security and Accountability for Every (SAFE) Port Act of 2006 provides the strategies that assist in keeping ports safe with increased training and enhanced law enforcement. The Act re-enforces the procedures used at land borders crossings, but it employs the procedures at coastal ports through the use of layered defense methods (Boyce, 2016). It enhances the security of the ports, thus, preventing threat that could affect the nation. Furthermore, the Act compels the DHS department to provide appropriate schedules to utilize radiological and nuclear detection systems in all ports. This is achieved through the coordination of all local, state, and federal departments as well as private sectors.
The Small Vessel Security Strategy was introduced to prevent the threats of small vessels used by criminal entities to smuggle drugs, humans, or contraband goods that may cause mass destruction to the U.S. the strategy helps in developing partnership with the small vessel community in order to create maritime area awareness and utilize technology that can help detect border threats (Leese, 2016). Through coordination and enhanced communication, the strategy aids in the hardening of maritime security. After the 2001 September attack, the U.S introduced the Maritime and Transportation Security Act (MTSA) to address the ports and waterway security. It ensures that all vessels entering the port undergo vulnerability assessments to prevent any form of security breach. It ensures that security plans are developed by maritime law enforcement including screening procedures on people, vehicle, and goods; security patrols, personal identity procedures, and surveillance.
What are the similarities and differences of the external borders of New Europe compared to that of the U.S. - Mexico border?
Both Europe and U.S have experienced influx of migrants over decades and as such, are both at risk of national security breach. A difference in the two borders, however, is the freedom provided to the immigrants (Leese, 2016). In the New Europe, individuals who access the countries have the freedom of moving freely through the EU states. However, in the U.S-Mexico border the movement is very restricted due to the rising cases of illegal activities associated with immigrants (Boyce, 2016). In Europe, there is low security levels compared to the U.S-Mexico border due to the low crime rates witnessed in the country. A common similarity, however, is the adoption of the SMART system to manage the borders. This approach permits proper management of the border by enhancing the screening processes, thus, preventing any form of illegal activities or merchandise.
References
Bently, L., " Sherman, B. (2014). Intellectual property law. Oxford University Press, USA.
Boyce, G. A. (2016). The rugged border: Surveillance, policing and the dynamic materiality of the US/Mexico frontier. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 34(2), 245-262.
Bradner, S., " Contreras, J. (2017). Intellectual Property Rights in IETF Technology (No. RFC 8179).
Leese, M. (2016). Exploring the Security/Facilitation Nexus: Foucault at the ‘Smart’Border. Global Society, 30(3), 412-429.
Salter, M. B. (2004). Passports, Mobility, and Security: How smart can the border be?. International studies perspectives, 5(1), 71-91.
