代寫 會員中心 TAG標簽
網站地圖 RSS
PEST分析法 literature review Research Proposal 參考文獻格式case study presentation report格式 Summary范文
當前位置: 主頁 > 論文格式 > case study >


時間:2019-08-01 10:57來源:未知 作者:anne 點擊:


其中一個應用程序,對象,它給Lori發了一封信,聲明她不再被授權監視進出Befit的數據流。洛里在收到信后繼續監視befit。在此之前,根據《計算機欺詐和濫用法》(CFAA),18 USC 1030(a)(2)(c)起訴Lori。本節規定:(1)未經授權故意訪問計算機(2),(3)從而獲取信息是違法的。假設監控應用程序的數據流被視為根據《計算機欺詐和濫用法》對其進行訪問(以及對計算機的訪問)。

1. Give what you take to be the strongest argument for the claim that Lori violates the CFAA. 給出你認為最有力的理由來證明洛里違反了CFAA。
Lori使用Wireshark查看智能手機上的醫療和健身應用程序發送數據的位置。然而,Wireshark讓她可以看到無線網絡上的所有流量。這不是一個預期的事件。其中一個應用程序,befit,反對并向lori發送一封聲明反對意見的信,最后根據《計算機欺詐和濫用法》(以下簡稱“CFAA”),18 USC 1030(a)(2)(c),起訴lori,該法案規定“任何人故意未經授權或超過授權訪問計算機,從而從任何受保護的計算機獲取信息“…“應按照本節第(c)小節的規定處罰。”CFAA將Lori的行為視為非法行為,因為她“(1)未經授權故意訪問計算機(2),(3)由此獲取信息”。
Lori uses Wireshark to see where medical and fitness apps on smart phones send their data. However, Wireshark lets her see all traffic over the wireless network. And this was not an anticipated event. One of the apps, BeFit, objects and sends Lori a letter stating the objection, and finally sues Lori under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (hereinafter “CFAA”), 18 USC 1030 (a)(2)(C), which states “Whoever intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, and thereby obtains information from any protected computer”... “shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section.”  CFAA makes Lori’s conduct illegal as she “(1) intentionally access a computer (2) without authorization, and (3) thereby obtain information”. 
If I defend Befit, I will take “without authorization” to be the strongest argument for the claim that Lori violates the CFAA. “Without authorization” means lack of consent, it is unauthorized access and undesirable intrusions, which are indictable cyber intrusions under CFAA. 
In the United States, undesirable intrusions into the other person's computer systems without the consent of others are restricted by computer access laws, such as CFAA.Therefore, the scope of the plaintiff's permission granted to the defendant is directly related to whether the intrusion was infringing or constituted "unauthorized access".
According to the general rules of the contract, limiting personal access to a web page, a database, a software, or other intangible valuable information can be carried out through a contract mechanism (such as click on the effective contract). Individuals or other automated search programs may be allowed to view, download, edit, and engage in acts related to web pages, data, computer programs, and the range of granting behaviors based on contracts with the owner or administrator of a Web site or database. The court may accordingly determine the scope of the authorization.The plaintiff's technical filtering or blocking inferred that he did not agree.
In this case, even BeFit did not conduct technical filtering or blocking, it sends Lori a letter, stating that she is not authorized to monitor data flows in or out of BeFit. And the Terms of Use Agreements and Privacy Policies prohibit monitoring data flows using technologies like Wireshark. Therefore, the strongest argument for the claim that Lori violates the CFAA might be “unauthorized access”. 
2. Give what you take to be the strongest argument for the claim that Lori does not violate the CFAA. 
Under CFAA 18 USC 1030 (a)(2)(C), it is prohibited to obtain information from any protected computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access. If I defend Lori in this case, below reason might be the strongest argument, that is, monitoring data via Wireshark is not obtaining information from any protected computer. 
CFAA requires the protection of the "protected computer”. The United States is one of the few countries to ratify the system. According to CFAA, protected computers refer to computers used by financial institutions, the United States Government, or intercontinental commerce.
The CFAA regards the following acts as federal offenses: unauthorized or over-authorized intrusion into a computer and access to classified information on diplomatic relations and national defence by hacking into the computer. Unauthorized or unauthorized access to a computer, if the act involves intercontinental or national exchanges, access to information about financial or credit institutions, information about government departments or agencies, or information from protected computers. Unauthorized and wilful intrusion into any non-public computer of the United States Government, or a dedicated computer of a non-United States government department or agency, for the purpose of influencing the use of it by the United States Government. Unauthorized access to protected computers and knowingly and intentionally committing fraud of  $5000 or more lasted for a year. It is an offence not to require the injury to occur if the following acts are committed: modify, destroy, or attempt to modify medical records or medical information, cause or may cause a threat to public safety,  cause or may cause damage to computers used in the course of justice, national defence  or national security. Buying and selling passwords or other information used to illegally invade protected computers, if such illegal transactions affect intercontinental or external commerce, or if the computers involved are used by the United States Government. Dissemination of information that causes damage to protected computers and attempts to extort money or other valuable goods.
Offending one of the above acts (or its combination), if prosecuted, will result in imprisonment for up to 20 years. In 2000, the court's decision in the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MIDDLETON et al interpreted CFAA as requiring the offender to pay compensation to cover the victim's maintenance costs. Back to our case, though Lori monitors the data, these data can be got by anyone who visit these apps via Wireshark. Lori’s conduct did not cause any financial loss or resulted in any consequence stated above. And more importantly, BeFit’s data cannot be regarded as “protected computer” according to CFAA. Therefore, monitoring data via Wireshark is not obtaining information from any protected computer. And this argument will be the strongest argument for the claim that Lori does not violate the CFAA. 
3. Evaluate which argument is better. 
I go for the second argument that Lori does not violate the CFAA. 
The CFAA stipulates that whoever shall bear the corresponding civil liability in the following circumstances:
(1) Anyone who intentionally accesses a computer system without authorization or beyond the authorized scope and obtains information from a protected computer system.And this action involves communications between the states of the United Statesor with foreign countries. The term "protected computer” systemrefers to a computer system connected to the Internet. However, the CFAA does not clearly define the meaning of "unauthorized access", but defines "exceeds authorized access", which refers to the person authorized to access a computer system to obtain or modify the information therein beyond the authorized scope. 

  • 英國作業
  • 新西蘭作業
  • 愛爾蘭作業
  • 美國作業
  • 加拿大作業
  • 代寫英國essay
  • 代寫澳洲essay
  • 代寫美國essay
  • 代寫加拿大essay
  • MBA Essay
  • Essay格式范文
  • 澳洲代寫assignment
  • 代寫英國assignment
  • 新西蘭代寫assignment
  • Assignment格式
  • 如何寫assignment
  • 代寫英國termpaper
  • 代寫澳洲termpaper
  • 英國coursework代寫
  • PEST分析法
  • literature review
  • Research Proposal
  • 參考文獻格式
  • case study
  • presentation
  • report格式
  • Summary范文
  • common application
  • Personal Statement
  • Motivation Letter
  • Application Letter
  • recommendation letter
  • cba赛程表2014-2015 贵州11选5分布走势图 香港六和开奖现场直播 辽宁35选76月最新开奖结果 网上免费赚钱软件 pk10官网直播 管家婆期期准精选资料大全 天津麻将技巧 特马用什么公式算 安徽宣城乐乐麻将血战到底 意甲1819赛季