Text Reveiw

Title: Bibliographical details of the text you are reviewing
I will need 80+ for this piece so please follow the guidance and the marking criteria.
Overall there needs to be 5 references, including the main text.
The main text to analyse: Nissenbaum, Helen. 2005. “Where computer security meets national security.” Ethics and information technology 7 (2):61-73
(PDF version attached below)

Assessment guide:
Write a 1000 word review essay.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Review essays are not the same as a review. They will bring in other resources, for example to support a weakness identified or to place a piece in relation to a wider debate and they will usually focus on what the text under review contributes to a particular political or academic debate.

IMPORTANT! You need to draw on at least FOUR additional resources FROM THE READING LISTS PROVIDED.
Use the additional sources substantively and not just as a gesture. For example, use them
• to highlight the contribution the main text makes to our understanding of security;
• to elaborate a central point you picked up in the text you are reviewing by contrasting or comparing the authors’ analysis with another source;
• to support your evaluation by showing what the author is missing or by reinforcing the importance of the text under review for our understanding of contemporary security politics;
• to use an additional illustration that applies similar insights to another situation or site

Template for the review essay:
Title: Bibliographical details of the text you are reviewing
Part 1. Summary of the content (500 words)
Use the following questions as guidance for this section: (All these questions do not have to be answered in the essay, they are a guidance to help you get started, but try to answer 1-2 of them please.)
• What is the security problem – or problems – in world politics that the text address?
• What is its main contribution to our understanding of the politics of security?

• What are some of the key challenges for security policies that the text highlights?

• Which security policies and practices do the author(s) criticize and how?

• What alternative response(s) to the problem do the author(s) propose, if any?

Part 2. Evaluation (500 words)

Use the following questions as guidance for this section:
• What are the main strengths and shortcomings of the analysis of security?
(For example, do you agree with how the author(s) define and analyse security? Do you see any problems with the solutions or policies that the author(s) propose? Do the author(s) ignore important factors or issues?)
• What is the contribution the author(s) make to our understanding of the contemporary international politics of security? Or, put slightly differently: do you recommend the text to readers interested in contemporary security issues or not and why?