Internet Homework

Minimum 350 Words

Discussion Points (Use your browser to conduct research on the following):

1) Should employees have the right to the expectation of privacy while using an employer's computer workstation? Why or why not? How far should an employer be able to take their investigation of off-work but online habits of employees? Should off-work but online behavior have an impact on employment? Why or why not? What is the difference between a hacker and a cracker? 2) In terms of securing data, what reasonable practices should consumers be able to expect when submitting personal information, such as credit card information, social security information, physical and e-mail addresses? How might P2P sites, such as Kazaa, create unforeseen problems with data security? 3) How should copyrighted material, such as music, be handled online? Should P2P sites, where music can be easily and freely downloaded, be made illegal? How might this be handled fairly for artists and consumers both? 4) Provide the URL of at least one site that discusses the impact of the Internet on online criminal activities and provide a brief review of the information contained there. Did you learn anything new? Were you surprised by any of the information presented on the site? How will the Internet impact the future of crime and the solutions for combating it?

Provide Credible sources as well

Respond to Discussion Minimum 150 Words

1) Should employees have the right to the expectation of privacy while using an employer's computer workstation? Why or why not? How far should an employer be able to take their investigation of off-work but online habits of employees? Should off-work but online behavior have an impact on employment? Why or why not? What is the difference between a hacker and a cracker?

Right to privacy while on a company network is usually not protected by privacy laws (Privacy in the Workplace: Overview, n.d.). There should be no right to privacy when on someone’s else’s network. Even at home, as soon as one’s information leaves their network they should not expect the data to stay private while traversing public infrastructure. The reason for my stance on this is because if you’re using another person’s or organization’s stuff why should they not know what is going on with their equipment? Someone could be using their infrastructure for illegal activities or simply just wasting company money mining bitcoin, generating noncompany traffic, etc. The only exceptions I could see is if the traffic is protected by HIPPA, attorney client privilege, etc. 

It is totally up to an employer to take off work behavior into accountability. An individual is an employee even after hours so I could see this factoring into an employment prospect. Whatever is available to the public shouldn’t be off limits.

Crackers are from outside an organization (malicious) whereas hackers are security professionals to penetrate test a network (Shethna, 2018). 2) In terms of securing data, what reasonable practices should consumers be able to expect when submitting personal information, such as credit card information, social security information, physical and e-mail addresses? How might P2P sites, such as Kazaa, create unforeseen problems with data security?

Always make sure when submitting sensitive data, one has a HTTPS connection. This ensure the traffic is encrypted. P2P site can have trojan horses in their files or just be a virus. This can give someone personal data entered on one’s computer.

3) How should copyrighted material, such as music, be handled online? Should P2P sites, where music can be easily and freely downloaded, be made illegal? How might this be handled fairly for artists and consumers both?

These sites are already illegal in the US however, this media can be stored on sites in countries where their copyright laws are more lenient. P2P can be used for legitimate purposes so, the service itself shouldn’t be illegal however, law enforcement tracking illegal sharing would be beneficial. The free market has adapted well to this by offering Spotify, Netflix, etc. to generate revenue. People are willing to pay if it is convenient. 4) Provide the URL of at least one site that discusses the impact of the Internet on online criminal activities and provide a brief review of the information contained there. Did you learn anything new? Were you surprised by any of the information presented on the site? How will the Internet impact the future of crime and the solutions for combating it?

For my article I choose the Nazi Pug (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-43478925). While this isn’t your run of the mill internet crime this man taught his girl friend’s pug how to do a Nazi salute and was found guilty of a hate crime (and now online criminal activity). Hate speech is a crime and largely unregulated in the US unless there is an action associated with it due to the first amendment. I do agree with cracking down on real hate speech by racist groups (without violating the first amendment) this was obviously a joke. While it is in poor taste I was surprised that something so silly yielded jail time in the UK. I think this type of humor really isn’t funny nor would I agree with spreading it but, time in prison is a little too harsh.

Privacy in the Workplace: Overview. (n.d.). Retrieved March 26, 2018, from http://employment.findlaw.com/workplace-privacy/privacy-in-the-workplace-overview.html

 

Shethna, J. (2018, March 21). Hackers vs Crackers: Easy to Understand Exclusive Difference. Retrieved March 26, 2018, from https://www.educba.com/hackers-vs-crackers/

Respond to Discussion Minimum 150 Words

A#1: No. The employees have no right for privacy as long they are using the company computers. First, this is stipulated in the Rules and Regulations. Second, it is a matter of security from the enterprise point of view. Even if an employee uses the enterprise wi-fi, he or she has no reason for privacy expectation. The employer could take investigation to any limits. The employer could monitor what the employees posting on social media. Everything which they post and is against the company policy could be subject fortermination. Yes, even off work online behavior could have impact on employment. If an employee posted on social media something detrimental for his or her company, that could affect negatively the image of the company. The best way to avoid that is do not post anything (good or bad) about your company. The difference between a hacker and a cracker is very thin, "a cracker is a malicious hacker" and "there is no final authority on who determines when or how a hacker becomes acracker" and "here is no clear way to cross the line back to hacker, either" (Taylor, Fritsch, Liederbach, 2016, p. 77). Rouse claim that "a hacker is an individual who uses computer, networking or other skills to overcome a technical problem" and in the mean time "it often refers to a person who uses his or her abilities to gain unauthorized access to systems or networks in order to commit crimes" (Rouse, 2017). 

A#2: A consumer should know before any submission of his/her personal information who is the consignee. Some webs are secure and the first idea if one site is secure it has the lock icon (and Secure) before the web address. Some webs do not have that but it doesn't automatically mean they are fake webs, or hackers are behind the screen waiting for the new prey. Could be a lack of a secure layer. Consumers should make their own research about a person or a company in terms of security. Questions as: is this company a real one? How should I know that? Does it have a physical location? For how long this company is in business? There other people who can confirm that? Does this company has its own registration? And so on. P2P sites could create problems when its servers are hacked, or one or more of their servers become a zombie computer(s). Hackers could use personal data for his own benefits. It is notorious the OPM attack on 2016 and shocking the comment of FBI Director James Comey who declared “Just imagine if you were a foreign intelligence service and you had that data” (Nakashima, 2015).

A#3: In the P2P case - Warner Bros Records, Inc v. Walker - Walker used Ares (a P2P) and downloaded 19 songs and he was guilty by violation of the reproduction right and for distribution right because Areas had a shared folder feature where anyone could place files and other people could download (Ferrera, Reder, Bird, Darrow, Aresty, Klosek, Liechtenstein, 2012, p. 140). The best way is to buy the music from authorized retailers and never upload what you already purchased.  

A#4: The URL is:

http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/2013-impact-cybercrime/#gref

and has the title 2013 - The Impact of Cybercrime. The article discussed the economic impact of cybercrime in 2013. Even the article is not exactly a new one, I was surprised by reading the InfoSec Institute post that "nearly 80% of cybercrime acts are estimated to originate in some form of organized activity" and the "average cost to resolve a single attack totalled more than $1 million" (2013 - The impact of cybercrime, 2013). The future of the internet will be different than the today internet because technologies become more elaborate. The new trend for internet business perspectives are mobile platforms, clouds (clouds which few years ago were not even a dream) could be next target for cyber attacks. The technology is more and more sophisticated and so are the cyber attacks. Best defense is innovative defense combined with latest technology (software, hardware and firmware). Collaboration between law enforcement, business and education institutions is the key for better and safer results on the realm of combating cyber crime.

Mircea

 

References

Ferrera, G., R., Reder, M., E., K., Bird, R., C., Darrow, J., J., Aresty, J., M., Klosek, J., Liechtenstein, S.,D. (2012). CyberLaw: Text and Cases.3rd Edition. South-Western, Cengage Learning (Ed.). Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/1133173500/cfi/6/2!/4/2@0:0.125

2013 - The impact of cybercrime (November 1, 2013). Retrieved from http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/2013-impact-cybercrime/#gref

Nakashima, E. (July 9, 2015). Hacks of OPM databases compromised 22.1 million people, federal authorities say. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/federal-eye/wp/2015/07/09/hack-of-security-clearance-system-affected-21-5-million-people-federal-authorities-say/?utm_term=.4e5bdb1f3130

Rouse, M. (August 2017). Hacker. Retrieved from http://searchsecurity.techtarget.com/definition/hacker

Taylor, R., W., Fritsch, E. J., Liederbach, J. (3rd Edition). (2016). Digital Crime and Digital Terrorism. Retrieved from https://bookshelf.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781323288689/cfi/6/2!/4/2@0:46.9