The security risks faced by Parliaments, legislatures, elected representatives, and the officials who support them, differ greatly according to their evolving national and local circumstances, among other things. For some, the biggest security risks may stem from disruptive protesters and cyber criminals, but terrorism may pose the most concerning risks for others. In fact, threat actors differ enormously in their intentions and capabilities, which also change over time.

    Given that risk is a product of threat, vulnerability, and impact, it follows that ultimately there are only three ways to reduce security risk — namely, by reducing the threat, reducing the vulnerability, or reducing the impact (or some combination thereof). Reducing the threat element of security risk is difficult, especially in the case of determined and capable threat actors. Responsibility for reducing threats tends to lie mainly with national law enforcement, security, and intelligence agencies. That said, parliaments and other organisations can contribute to threat reduction through deterrence — in other words, by influencing the intentions of threat actors. Carefully crafted security-minded communications can convey a discouraging message to potential attackers, to the effect that they should expect to confront professional security measures and face a substantial risk of being caught. For instance, a parliamentary website might advertise that visitors will undergo ‘airport-style screening’, without explaining precisely what that entails. The public should be reassured by such message, whereas some threat actors might be deterred.

Paul Martin. Parliamentary security: an introductory guide.

Internet: <www.cpahq.org> (adapted).

    The security risks faced by Parliaments, legislatures, elected representatives, and the officials who support them, differ greatly according to their evolving national and local circumstances, among other things. For some, the biggest security risks may stem from disruptive protesters and cyber criminals, but terrorism may pose the most concerning risks for others. In fact, threat actors differ enormously in their intentions and capabilities, which also change over time.

    Given that risk is a product of threat, vulnerability, and impact, it follows that ultimately there are only three ways to reduce security risk — namely, by reducing the threat, reducing the vulnerability, or reducing the impact (or some combination thereof). Reducing the threat element of security risk is difficult, especially in the case of determined and capable threat actors. Responsibility for reducing threats tends to lie mainly with national law enforcement, security, and intelligence agencies. That said, parliaments and other organisations can contribute to threat reduction through deterrence — in other words, by influencing the intentions of threat actors. Carefully crafted security-minded communications can convey a discouraging message to potential attackers, to the effect that they should expect to confront professional security measures and face a substantial risk of being caught. For instance, a parliamentary website might advertise that visitors will undergo ‘airport-style screening’, without explaining precisely what that entails. The public should be reassured by such message, whereas some threat actors might be deterred.

Paul Martin. Parliamentary security: an introductory guide.

Internet: <www.cpahq.org> (adapted).

    The security risks faced by Parliaments, legislatures, elected representatives, and the officials who support them, differ greatly according to their evolving national and local circumstances, among other things. For some, the biggest security risks may stem from disruptive protesters and cyber criminals, but terrorism may pose the most concerning risks for others. In fact, threat actors differ enormously in their intentions and capabilities, which also change over time.

    Given that risk is a product of threat, vulnerability, and impact, it follows that ultimately there are only three ways to reduce security risk — namely, by reducing the threat, reducing the vulnerability, or reducing the impact (or some combination thereof). Reducing the threat element of security risk is difficult, especially in the case of determined and capable threat actors. Responsibility for reducing threats tends to lie mainly with national law enforcement, security, and intelligence agencies. That said, parliaments and other organisations can contribute to threat reduction through deterrence — in other words, by influencing the intentions of threat actors. Carefully crafted security-minded communications can convey a discouraging message to potential attackers, to the effect that they should expect to confront professional security measures and face a substantial risk of being caught. For instance, a parliamentary website might advertise that visitors will undergo ‘airport-style screening’, without explaining precisely what that entails. The public should be reassured by such message, whereas some threat actors might be deterred.

Paul Martin. Parliamentary security: an introductory guide.

Internet: <www.cpahq.org> (adapted).

    The role of the police in a healthy democracy is radically different from their role in authoritarian societies. In autocratic regimes, the police serve mainly to protect not the people, but the regime. The police are therefore typically politicized, with appointments being part of the patronage system that rewards regime loyalists. Police officers spend a great deal of time spying on the populace to unmask political opposition; crime against citizens is less of a concern. Abuse and corruption are usually rife, because police are not held accountable for their actions. Rather, political leaders tolerate abuses by the police in return for police loyalty to the regime.

    By contrast, in democratic societies the primary mission of the police is to protect citizens against crime and disorder, including illegal or corrupt behavior by officials. In democracies, police have carefully circumscribed roles that require close and positive relations with ordinary citizens. The use of arms and pursuit of criminals are rare and take up only a tiny fraction of police time. Instead, police officers spend the vast bulk of their time building relationships with the community through patrols, community-enhancing activities, and listening to citizens. The goal of democratic policing is to build a web of relationships between the community and the police that helps to control crime by making police aware of the persons and activities in the communities that they are assigned to protect and by inclining citizens to trust and cooperate with police. This also achieves the primary goal of making citizens feel secure in their daily activities, thereby fostering a climate that encourages increased legitimate business activity, investment, and planning for the future.

Michael D. Wiatrowski and Jack A. Goldstone. The ballot and the badge: democratic policing. In: Journal

of Democracy, Volume 21, Number 2. Internet: <muse.jhu.edu>  (adapted).

    The role of the police in a healthy democracy is radically different from their role in authoritarian societies. In autocratic regimes, the police serve mainly to protect not the people, but the regime. The police are therefore typically politicized, with appointments being part of the patronage system that rewards regime loyalists. Police officers spend a great deal of time spying on the populace to unmask political opposition; crime against citizens is less of a concern. Abuse and corruption are usually rife, because police are not held accountable for their actions. Rather, political leaders tolerate abuses by the police in return for police loyalty to the regime.

    By contrast, in democratic societies the primary mission of the police is to protect citizens against crime and disorder, including illegal or corrupt behavior by officials. In democracies, police have carefully circumscribed roles that require close and positive relations with ordinary citizens. The use of arms and pursuit of criminals are rare and take up only a tiny fraction of police time. Instead, police officers spend the vast bulk of their time building relationships with the community through patrols, community-enhancing activities, and listening to citizens. The goal of democratic policing is to build a web of relationships between the community and the police that helps to control crime by making police aware of the persons and activities in the communities that they are assigned to protect and by inclining citizens to trust and cooperate with police. This also achieves the primary goal of making citizens feel secure in their daily activities, thereby fostering a climate that encourages increased legitimate business activity, investment, and planning for the future.

Michael D. Wiatrowski and Jack A. Goldstone. The ballot and the badge: democratic policing. In: Journal

of Democracy, Volume 21, Number 2. Internet: <muse.jhu.edu>  (adapted).

    The role of the police in a healthy democracy is radically different from their role in authoritarian societies. In autocratic regimes, the police serve mainly to protect not the people, but the regime. The police are therefore typically politicized, with appointments being part of the patronage system that rewards regime loyalists. Police officers spend a great deal of time spying on the populace to unmask political opposition; crime against citizens is less of a concern. Abuse and corruption are usually rife, because police are not held accountable for their actions. Rather, political leaders tolerate abuses by the police in return for police loyalty to the regime.

    By contrast, in democratic societies the primary mission of the police is to protect citizens against crime and disorder, including illegal or corrupt behavior by officials. In democracies, police have carefully circumscribed roles that require close and positive relations with ordinary citizens. The use of arms and pursuit of criminals are rare and take up only a tiny fraction of police time. Instead, police officers spend the vast bulk of their time building relationships with the community through patrols, community-enhancing activities, and listening to citizens. The goal of democratic policing is to build a web of relationships between the community and the police that helps to control crime by making police aware of the persons and activities in the communities that they are assigned to protect and by inclining citizens to trust and cooperate with police. This also achieves the primary goal of making citizens feel secure in their daily activities, thereby fostering a climate that encourages increased legitimate business activity, investment, and planning for the future.

Michael D. Wiatrowski and Jack A. Goldstone. The ballot and the badge: democratic policing. In: Journal

of Democracy, Volume 21, Number 2. Internet: <muse.jhu.edu>  (adapted).

    The role of the police in a healthy democracy is radically different from their role in authoritarian societies. In autocratic regimes, the police serve mainly to protect not the people, but the regime. The police are therefore typically politicized, with appointments being part of the patronage system that rewards regime loyalists. Police officers spend a great deal of time spying on the populace to unmask political opposition; crime against citizens is less of a concern. Abuse and corruption are usually rife, because police are not held accountable for their actions. Rather, political leaders tolerate abuses by the police in return for police loyalty to the regime.

    By contrast, in democratic societies the primary mission of the police is to protect citizens against crime and disorder, including illegal or corrupt behavior by officials. In democracies, police have carefully circumscribed roles that require close and positive relations with ordinary citizens. The use of arms and pursuit of criminals are rare and take up only a tiny fraction of police time. Instead, police officers spend the vast bulk of their time building relationships with the community through patrols, community-enhancing activities, and listening to citizens. The goal of democratic policing is to build a web of relationships between the community and the police that helps to control crime by making police aware of the persons and activities in the communities that they are assigned to protect and by inclining citizens to trust and cooperate with police. This also achieves the primary goal of making citizens feel secure in their daily activities, thereby fostering a climate that encourages increased legitimate business activity, investment, and planning for the future.

Michael D. Wiatrowski and Jack A. Goldstone. The ballot and the badge: democratic policing. In: Journal

of Democracy, Volume 21, Number 2. Internet: <muse.jhu.edu>  (adapted).

    The role of the police in a healthy democracy is radically different from their role in authoritarian societies. In autocratic regimes, the police serve mainly to protect not the people, but the regime. The police are therefore typically politicized, with appointments being part of the patronage system that rewards regime loyalists. Police officers spend a great deal of time spying on the populace to unmask political opposition; crime against citizens is less of a concern. Abuse and corruption are usually rife, because police are not held accountable for their actions. Rather, political leaders tolerate abuses by the police in return for police loyalty to the regime.

    By contrast, in democratic societies the primary mission of the police is to protect citizens against crime and disorder, including illegal or corrupt behavior by officials. In democracies, police have carefully circumscribed roles that require close and positive relations with ordinary citizens. The use of arms and pursuit of criminals are rare and take up only a tiny fraction of police time. Instead, police officers spend the vast bulk of their time building relationships with the community through patrols, community-enhancing activities, and listening to citizens. The goal of democratic policing is to build a web of relationships between the community and the police that helps to control crime by making police aware of the persons and activities in the communities that they are assigned to protect and by inclining citizens to trust and cooperate with police. This also achieves the primary goal of making citizens feel secure in their daily activities, thereby fostering a climate that encourages increased legitimate business activity, investment, and planning for the future.

Michael D. Wiatrowski and Jack A. Goldstone. The ballot and the badge: democratic policing. In: Journal

of Democracy, Volume 21, Number 2. Internet: <muse.jhu.edu>  (adapted).

    The role of the police in a healthy democracy is radically different from their role in authoritarian societies. In autocratic regimes, the police serve mainly to protect not the people, but the regime. The police are therefore typically politicized, with appointments being part of the patronage system that rewards regime loyalists. Police officers spend a great deal of time spying on the populace to unmask political opposition; crime against citizens is less of a concern. Abuse and corruption are usually rife, because police are not held accountable for their actions. Rather, political leaders tolerate abuses by the police in return for police loyalty to the regime.

    By contrast, in democratic societies the primary mission of the police is to protect citizens against crime and disorder, including illegal or corrupt behavior by officials. In democracies, police have carefully circumscribed roles that require close and positive relations with ordinary citizens. The use of arms and pursuit of criminals are rare and take up only a tiny fraction of police time. Instead, police officers spend the vast bulk of their time building relationships with the community through patrols, community-enhancing activities, and listening to citizens. The goal of democratic policing is to build a web of relationships between the community and the police that helps to control crime by making police aware of the persons and activities in the communities that they are assigned to protect and by inclining citizens to trust and cooperate with police. This also achieves the primary goal of making citizens feel secure in their daily activities, thereby fostering a climate that encourages increased legitimate business activity, investment, and planning for the future.

Michael D. Wiatrowski and Jack A. Goldstone. The ballot and the badge: democratic policing. In: Journal

of Democracy, Volume 21, Number 2. Internet: <muse.jhu.edu>  (adapted).

Read Text V and answer the question that follows.

    Three out of four teachers in Brazil show support for the use of artificial intelligence (AI) as a teaching tool. They also say that the technology has impacted education both positively, with faster access to information, and negatively, as students lose their focus.

    The data can be found in an unprecedented survey by Semesp Institute, an organization that represents higher education providers. The study was carried out between March 18 and 31 with 444 public and private school teachers from kindergarten to high school located in all regions of Brazil.

    In the study, 74.8 percent of respondents partially or totally agree with the use of artificial intelligence in teaching. Despite this, just over a third (39.2%) of them said they always use it as a teaching tool.

    Even though educators believe it is important to use AI, they also report structural and pedagogical problems that prevent or hinder its employment. Further issues were reported in connection with its excessive use, especially by pupils. Among these problems are the lack of internet at school, the lack of training for teachers and also greater difficulty in holding students’ attention.

    “I sense students have become more dependent on research tools and immediate answers and have a hard time having resilience and patience and acting as problem solvers,” an anonymous teacher who took part in the survey said.

    Another one said: “Technology has advanced, but sometimes access to it at school is not satisfactory. Poor internet connection. The computer lab is a restricted space. No Microsoft Office in the mobile lab. The use of cell phones is impractical as students have no internet. Now, even the internet is restricted to teachers.”

    Just under half of the teachers (45.7%) declared that both teachers and students have access to computers and the internet where they teach. Another seven percent answered there is still no access to technology in their schools. 

    Teachers also report that technology has made students lose their focus. “The school can’t keep up with the use of new technologies at the speed that the students can, which leads to a mismatch between the lesson taught and the lesson that the students want. The unbridled use of social media and the high level of exposure of young people to these networks have undermined teachers’ contact with students,” one of the teachers stated.

From: https://agenciabrasil.ebc.com.br/en/educacao/noticia/2024-05/three-outfour-teachers-brazil-advocate-ai-teaching-tool