1.Denial of Service Attack
A DoS all denial of service attack is an attack of any type that has been performed or attempted by the attackers are hackers for preventing the legitimate users while accessing to the normal services. In a denial of service attack excessive messages are sent by an attacker to the network or the server for identification requests which are ultimately not authenticated and that is why they return invalid addresses (Bonaci et al., 2015). In a situation like this where two dozens of major websites have been shut down due to a denial of service attack including retail services, stock broker charges and large corporate entertainment and information sites, it is appropriate that the attackers are charged with different penalties depending on every attack they have made. This is because the major websites used by the authenticated and genuine users fall under their right to internet services law. Any unauthorised user manipulating the website is legally punishable. However, the situation under which the hacker or the attacker is making the denial of service attack can be taken into consideration before imposing different penalties on them. The different penalties depending on considerable situations can be described as follows:
(a) A foreign terrorist who launched the attack to cause billions of dollars in damage to the U.S. economy.
Any case where a foreign terrorist has launched an attack causing a loss of about billions of dollars for the United States economy is in need a punishable offence since it falls under cyber terrorism attack that is a punishable offence in the United States (Yan et al., 2016). The use of internet for conducting attacks that can result in the loss of us economy is considered as internet terrorism in the United States and as per the state legislation established in 2017 a cyber attack performed by an external terrorism body or individual terrorist demands huge punishment.
(b) An organization publicizing its opposition to commercialization of the Web and corporate manipulation of consumers.
In this case an organisation is trying to publicise the opposite competitors for the commercialization of the web. However this is also form of Internet crime since it manipulates the corporate consumers in a way that will provide their business with Benefits but not their opposite competitors (Qin et al., 2018). As per the cybercrime law in United States, manipulating the internet to gain political or monetary benefits by causing harm to others is also a punishable offence.
(c) A teenager using hacking tools he found on a website.
Although in this case, the teenagers who is trying to use hacking tools that he or she has learnt over the internet is a punishable offence, but this holds a lesser degree of severity then what is done by any other form of denial of service attack (Yu, 2014). A teenager trying to use the hacking tools that he has found on a website on the internet does not understand that these kind of activities over the internet falls under cyber crime. To make him understand this, a lesser degree of punishment could be allowed. He should be made to know the seriousness of his activities in later times. Other than that describe does not fall under a heinous crime to be offered a severe punishment.
(d) A hacker group showing off to another hacker group about how many sites it could shut down in one day.
In this case the hacker group that has been showing off to another hacker group about the number of websites that can shut down within a day is a share display of responsibility over talent. This is also a punishable act but for this it is to be clarified first if the hacker group belongs to ethical or unethical hacking services (Moore et al., 2017). Both of these groups can be punished but if the ethical hacking group does these acts, the punishment could be less severe than the unethical hacking group. The unethical hacking group can be order to get dissolved after offering the punishment.
2.University Student Policy about reading emails
According to the university policy about the access to student Computer accounts in emails on the computers provided by the University to access the content by the professor and the University administrative body describe that any student cannot perform accessing anything else other than the university content from the computers that has been provided by the University itself. The portal needs to be opened only by the authorised students to access the content described by the professors and the university administrators (Gotterbarn, 2017). The same policy would be appointed to the professors and the university administrative body as well.
This is a good policy as this would prevent a lot of unethical usage of the university internet server Android also prevent unauthorised users to gain access to the university portal (Siegel & Worrall, 2018).
However, changes can be made in securing the university portal more so that even within the university, people cannot access the portal with online shopping hacking attitudes.
3.Lawsuit on employee
It is not reasonable at where a lawsuit was embellished on an employee who was fired because a photos and other materials that the employer has found on employee's social network pages. First and foremost is needed to be found out if the images and other materials found on the social network pages of when was attacking harming the organisation he was employed in in any manner (Cressey, 2017). If it had been, then the employee would be at fault and the decision taken against him would be justified. However, if the photographs and other materials are the employer had found on the social network pages of the employee do not have any link to causing harm to the organisation then the decision should be nullified since a social network page of an employee would not be an identification of the kind of work he performs in the company.
Bonaci, T., Yan, J., Herron, J., Kohno, T., & Chizeck, H. J. (2015, April). Experimental analysis of denial-of-service attacks on teleoperated robotic systems. In Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Sixth International Conference on Cyber-Physical Systems (pp. 11-20). ACM.
Cressey, D. R. (2017). The poverty of theory in corporate crime research. In Advances in criminological theory (pp. 31-56). Routledge.
Gotterbarn, D. (2017). The use and abuse of computer ethics. In Computer Ethics (pp. 57-62). Routledge.
Moore, R. L., Murray, M. D., Farrell, M., & Youm, K. H. (2017). Media Law and Ethics. Routledge.
Qin, J., Li, M., Shi, L., & Yu, X. (2018). Optimal denial-of-service attack scheduling with energy constraint over packet-dropping networks. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 63(6), 1648-1663.
Siegel, L. J., & Worrall, J. L. (2018). Essentials of criminal justice. Cengage Learning.
Yan, Q., Yu, F. R., Gong, Q., & Li, J. (2016). Software-defined networking (SDN) and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks in cloud computing environments: A survey, some research issues, and challenges. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 18(1), 602-622.
Yu, S. (2014). Distributed denial of service attack and defense(pp. 15-29). Springer New York.