Cyberlaw tasks

TFT Task 4

	value: 0.00	value: 1.00	value: 2.00	value: 3.00	value: 4.00	Score/Level
Articulation of Response (clarity, organization, mechanics)	The candidate provides unsatisfactory articulation of response.	The candidate provides weak articulation of response.	The candidate provides limited articulation of response.	The candidate provides adequate articulation of response.	The candidate provides substantial articulation of response.
A1. Laws or Regulations	The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how 2 laws or regulations apply to the case study.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no support, of how 2 laws or regulations apply to the case study.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited support, of how 2 laws or regulations apply to the case study.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate support, of how 2 laws or regulations apply to the case study.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial support, of how 2 laws or regulations apply to the case study.
A1a. Legal Jurisdiction	The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how VL Bank will work within the parameters of appropriate legal jurisdiction with specific bodies of law enforcement to resolve the situation.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no support, of how VL Bank will work within the parameters of appropriate legal jurisdiction with specific bodies of law enforcement to resolve the situation.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited support, of how VL Bank will work within the parameters of appropriate legal jurisdiction with specific bodies of law enforcement to resolve the situation.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate support, of how VL Bank will work within the parameters of appropriate legal jurisdiction with specific bodies of law enforcement to resolve the situation.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial support, of how VL Bank will work within the parameters of appropriate legal jurisdiction with specific bodies of law enforcement to resolve the situation.
A1b. Legal Considerations	The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of legal considerations for preparing the digital evidence VL Bank will need to provide law enforcement and attorneys.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no support, of legal considerations for preparing the digital evidence VL Bank will need to provide law enforcement and attorneys.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited support, of legal considerations for preparing the digital evidence VL Bank will need to provide law enforcement and attorneys.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate support, of legal considerations for preparing the digital evidence VL Bank will need to provide law enforcement and attorneys.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial support, of legal considerations for preparing the digital evidence VL Bank will need to provide law enforcement and attorneys.
A1c. Coordination	The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of what coordination should take place between the CISO and VL Bank’s lawyer.	The candidate provides a logical explanation, with no detail, of what coordination should take place between the CISO and VL Bank’s lawyer.	The candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited detail, of what coordination should take place between the CISO and VL Bank’s lawyer.	The candidate provides a logical explanation, with adequate detail, of what coordination should take place between the CISO and VL Bank’s lawyer.	The candidate provides a logical explanation, with substantial detail, of what coordination should take place between the CISO and VL Bank’s lawyer.
A2. Cybercrime Effects	The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of how the cybercrime could affect VL Bank’s enterprise continuity.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no support, of how the cybercrime could affect VL Bank’s enterprise continuity.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited support, of how the cybercrime could affect VL Bank’s enterprise continuity.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate support, of how the cybercrime could affect VL Bank’s enterprise continuity.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial support, of how the cybercrime could affect VL Bank’s enterprise continuity.
A2a. Technology	The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of how VL Bank could use technology to prevent the cybercrime in the case scenario.	The candidate provides a logical explanation, with no support, of how VL Bank could use technology to prevent the cybercrime in the case scenario.	The candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited support, of how VL Bank could use technology to prevent the cybercrime in the case scenario.	The candidate provides a logical explanation, with adequate support, of how VL Bank could use technology to prevent the cybercrime in the case scenario.	The candidate provides a logical explanation, with substantial support, of how VL Bank could use technology to prevent the cybercrime in the case scenario.
A3. Controls	The candidate does not provide a logical discussion of information security and assurance controls that could mitigate future attacks of this kind at VL Bank.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with no detail, of information security and assurance controls that could mitigate future attacks of this kind at VL Bank.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of information security and assurance controls that could mitigate future attacks of this kind at VL Bank.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with adequate detail, of information security and assurance controls that could mitigate future attacks of this kind at VL Bank.	The candidate provides a logical discussion, with substantial detail, of information security and assurance controls that could mitigate future attacks of this kind at VL Bank.
A3a. Alignment	The candidate does not provide a logical explanation of how the controls align to regulatory requirements and standards.	The candidate provides a logical explanation, with no support, of how the controls align to regulatory requirements and standards.	The candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited support, of how the controls align to regulatory requirements and standards.	The candidate provides a logical explanation, with adequate support, of how the controls align to regulatory requirements and standards.	The candidate provides a logical explanation, with substantial support, of how the controls align to regulatory requirements and standards.
B. Sources	When the candidate uses sources, the candidate does not provide in-text citations and references.	When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides only some in-text citations and references.	When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and references with major deviations from APA style.	When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and references with minor deviations from APA style.	When the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and references with no readily detectable deviations from APA style, OR the candidate does not use sources.