SS7 networks affect aspects of daily life as well as the activities of business and government. Each time you make a call for information, medical emergency assistance, or the physical location of someone using a mobile phone, the SS7 network is used as the underlying data communications mechanism to enable these services. Business and government today also rely heavily on SS7 networks to deliver information quickly and reliably to support a critical and time-sensitive decision-making apparatus. As a result, SS7 is the global standard for telephony.
For this discussion, explain the reasons SS7 was developed and explain its advantages over SS6. Which features does it support today? What SS7 features could be exploited by a hacker, and why?
Sample Solution
framework with which to analyse economic development in the periphery from the viewpoint of the peripheral countries, dependency has since the early 1950s become the dominant paradigm, colouring much of the analysis relating to development. Formulated as a critique of the inability of orthodox theories to explain the causes of the economic-backwardness of Latin America, it attempted to serve as a historical and dialectical explanation of how capitalist penetration into those areas resulted in their underdevelopment and increased dependency on foreign capital. Dependency theorists, such as Mahbub ul Haq and Raul Prebisch, argue that the origins of the inequality between developed and underdeveloped countries was rooted in their historical past, in which the disparities between the rich and poor countries were exacerbated by the era of colonialism (Haq, 1976). While Haq emphasised the impact of colonialism, Prebisch was more concerned with the impact of western industrialisation on the position of the poor states. As its proponents note, the main crux of dependency theory is that western imperialist and capitalist expansion into pre-capitalist areas was the major cause of underdevelopment, in that traditional structures (economic, cultural and political) were disrupted and distorted to suit the interests of the developed countries. Furthermore, underdevelopment was seen as the result of the integration of colonised societies into the world capitalist system, whereby development and underdevelopment are partial, interdependent aspects of one global system (Culley, 1977), that is the world capitalist system. This borrows from the Hegelian-Marxian concept of totality (i.e. the whole being greater than the sum of its parts), leading the radicals, Immanual Wallerstein and Andre Gunder Frank to argue that capitalism is inextricably linked to the world capitalist system through capitalist relations of exchange or market relations, and therefore cannot exist as a separate, national entity. Thus, in this sense, it is impossible to analyse various states separately from the context of the single integrated system. This idea of world capitalism contradicts basic aspect of Marxâs critique of political economy. Capitalism, for Marx, is a system of class power which manifests itself economically, politically and culturally-ideologically (Milios and Sotiropoulos, 2009). It claims, therefore, that capitalist power has been constituted in its adequate forms only on the level of the separate capitalist society. A world economy, on the other hand, is the result different capitalist societies embedded into a single system, which historically takes the form of what Lenin calls the âimperialist chainâ. The core assumption of Mar>
framework with which to analyse economic development in the periphery from the viewpoint of the peripheral countries, dependency has since the early 1950s become the dominant paradigm, colouring much of the analysis relating to development. Formulated as a critique of the inability of orthodox theories to explain the causes of the economic-backwardness of Latin America, it attempted to serve as a historical and dialectical explanation of how capitalist penetration into those areas resulted in their underdevelopment and increased dependency on foreign capital. Dependency theorists, such as Mahbub ul Haq and Raul Prebisch, argue that the origins of the inequality between developed and underdeveloped countries was rooted in their historical past, in which the disparities between the rich and poor countries were exacerbated by the era of colonialism (Haq, 1976). While Haq emphasised the impact of colonialism, Prebisch was more concerned with the impact of western industrialisation on the position of the poor states. As its proponents note, the main crux of dependency theory is that western imperialist and capitalist expansion into pre-capitalist areas was the major cause of underdevelopment, in that traditional structures (economic, cultural and political) were disrupted and distorted to suit the interests of the developed countries. Furthermore, underdevelopment was seen as the result of the integration of colonised societies into the world capitalist system, whereby development and underdevelopment are partial, interdependent aspects of one global system (Culley, 1977), that is the world capitalist system. This borrows from the Hegelian-Marxian concept of totality (i.e. the whole being greater than the sum of its parts), leading the radicals, Immanual Wallerstein and Andre Gunder Frank to argue that capitalism is inextricably linked to the world capitalist system through capitalist relations of exchange or market relations, and therefore cannot exist as a separate, national entity. Thus, in this sense, it is impossible to analyse various states separately from the context of the single integrated system. This idea of world capitalism contradicts basic aspect of Marxâs critique of political economy. Capitalism, for Marx, is a system of class power which manifests itself economically, politically and culturally-ideologically (Milios and Sotiropoulos, 2009). It claims, therefore, that capitalist power has been constituted in its adequate forms only on the level of the separate capitalist society. A world economy, on the other hand, is the result different capitalist societies embedded into a single system, which historically takes the form of what Lenin calls the âimperialist chainâ. The core assumption of Mar>
