Answer

Cyber Security

#1.1. a

Fred Felony committed computer misuse crimes when he hacked into the e-commerce site in Los Angeles to steal credit cards and sell them for $800 to another user. The law handling computer network scrutiny is mainly statutory, and the law controlling evidence retrieval from stand-alone computers is mainly constitutional. The physical crime Fred Felony committed of stealing gold from the jewelry stores is a traditional crime whose charges are presented under the state’s criminal codes where the offense happened, which is in Phoenix, Arizona. However, computer crimes alter the manner and where felonies are done and how and where proof is gathered. When the details alter, the law must adjust with it. Hence old rules must revise, and new laws must appear in restoring the operation of the pre-existing legislation (Kerr, 2018). since digital crimes can happen over different countries or states and the evidence is located in different places, the regulation must describe every sovereign what behavior types outside its boundaries can and should be criminalized, and what measures control extraterritorial proof gathering.

#1.1b

The laws presently developed create many offenses because executing the criminal legislation and procedures policy goals with legal directives relies on the facts. The digital crimes facts constantly challenge the suppositions of existing substantive, procedural, and jurisdictional legislation. The old legal rules can be started with, but after some time, some of the old directives need to bow, and others need substitution (Kerr, 2018). The law as presently developed has some gaps since digital crime law is the search for and learning of new answers to timeless criminal law questions when the facts shift from a physical setting to a digital one.

#1.2 a

Under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), accessing a computer to defraud and get value as Fred Felony did attract a prison sentence of five years and ten years maximum for a second conviction. The federal anti-hacking law gives civil remedies for hacking victims such as property seizure, injunction relief, and confiscation of stolen data and the electronic devices utilized in performing the invasion.

#1.2 b

The punishments are just about right for that digital crime because the law comprises causes of action for civil suits together with criminal prosecution.

#2.1a

Equifax failed in patching its network after being notified in March 2017 by the Homeland Security Department of a crucial security vulnerability impacting its ACIS database, which handles clients’ inquiries concerning their personal credit information. Although the Equifax IT team ordered that each of its vulnerable systems is patched in forty-eight hours after getting the notification, Equifax never implemented this to guarantee the responsible workforce executed the order. Also, Equifax had a fiduciary duty of notifying affected clients that their personal information was compromised and try to remediate the situation. Equifax’s absence of patch management attentiveness and bland reaction to the directives to apply the patch to manage a known vulnerability was particularly accountable for the attack. Also, Equifax attempted to restrict the clients from seeking legal redress and damages.

2.1. b

The law as presently developed has the right number of such actions covered under section five of the FTC Act (Solove& Schwartz, 2021).  However, the law as presently developed has gaps because the FCRA falls short of executing detailed data security processes, necessitating only that credit reporting agencies be responsible for verifying persons’ identity requesting clients credit reports.

#2.2 a

The law’s remedies for data breach offenses are a $125 compensation and ten years free credit monitoring and $1,000,000 of identity theft insurance for the affected consumers.

#2.2 b

The remedies are just about right because these are the personal information of citizens. If accessed, the criminal uses the information to imitate somebody for different reasons like making fraudulent transactions or filing false income tax returns to embezzle tax refunds.