1. Should big tech platforms be regulated as utilities?

2. Do you agree with the NSA's PRISM program?

3. Should internet threats be taken for granted, or should something be done to eliminate or minimize the threats? What can be done, and by whom?

PRISM was a clandestine surveillance program, launched in 2007, under which the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) collected certain online communications from major U.S. Internet companies. Its existence was first revealed by whistle-blower Edward Snowden. The technology companies subject to the PRISM pro- gram included Google, Facebook, Apple, and Microsoft. When asked by the government, these companies were required to turn over to the government communications (such as e-mails or posts) containing certain court-approved search terms. The purpose of the program was to track terrorist activity and protect the United States against attack. But critics of the program called it an unwarranted intrusion by Big Brother (the government) into the lives of citizens and a violation of peoples' privacy rights. How did the companies involved respond to the government's demands? Although most of the companies complied with legally man- dated sharing of information, they asked the National Security Agency if they could make public government requests for information about their subscribers and users. The companies wanted their customers to know the extent and scope of the government's inquiries. Six months later the federal government agreed to allow the technology companies to make more information public about how often the government monitored Internet usage. However, the data released by the companies, the government said, had to be in broad ranges, and the agreement did not grant the companies any new ways to block government demands for information that the companies viewed as intrusive. Yahoo! chose to challenge the NSA orders, refusing to provide information and claiming that the govern- ment was spying on certain foreign users of their site without a warrant. In what was described as a secret court in Washington, D.C.," the judges disagreed with Yahoo! and ordered them to hand over the data or be accused of breaking the law. While handing over of the data was private, it was presumed that Yahoo! com- plied with the judges' decision since no criminal charges were filed against the company