Chapter 10 Blog Instructions

This weeks blog question:

Read the Brief Case “Attacks on the Net” on page in this chapter.   Describe one computer crime law and discuss why or why not to make it tougher.

Two blog entries are required this week.  The question is based on topics in this week’s reading assignment but you may have to do some web research to complete your blog entries.

  • First blog entry:  Add a comment to this blog answering the question.
  • Second blog entry:  Add a comment to this blog providing feedback on one of this week’s blog entries posted by other students in the class.

Add your comments here:

97 Responses to “Chapter 10 Blog Instructions”

  • Paola Beltran:

    Along with the development and expansion of the Internet emerge regrettably the problem of hacking. In its attempt to control the emergence of cybercrimes like this, the US government considered necessary to implement computer criminal laws into its Constitution. Signed in October 1996, the National Information Infrastructure Act (NIIPA) condemned for instance “anyone who intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization and as a result of such conduct recklessly causes damage.” I believe this was a very pertinent and necessary criminal law that needed to be implemented as hacking increases each day in our digital world. Having this stipulation endorsed it is possible today to legally prosecute criminals who enjoy inflicting harm on people’s computers. Although it might be difficult to bring to an end this problem of hackers, I think it is significant that the government is looking for ways to protect our communication systems while punishing malicious teens and hackers for their wrong actions!

    • Jong Hyuk Lee:

      I partly agree with Paola that the government is doing something to protect our communication from cybercrimes. However, hackers and crackers become more intelligent and their cybercrimes become diverse as time goes by, but the government has not made laws immediately and diversely. They regulate cybercrimes in an old way and so they need to be evolved to take them. In my opinion, whether the law should be tougher or not must be considered in many different ways and regulations should be more diverse.

      • Vaishali Rawal:

        I agree with the posts above. I think no matter how hard the government tries to prevent cyber-crimes, hackers will always find an “alternative way” and continue to commit these crimes.For example, Apple comes out with new software updates every couple of months for their iphone and ipods, and each of those times hackers find their way in. Altough, the above example is not “cyber-crime” it just shows how hard it is to prevent these crimes and how determined hackers are.

        • Xiao Liu:

          I partly agree with you. Even though hackers will continue to commit these crimes, we still need cybercrime law to protect us. We don’t want hackers commit these crimes without punishment. Punishment is a way to reduce cybercrime rate.

          • Joseph A Davidson:

            I agree with you as well. However, I feel that since hackers were able to crack the system in the first place, they soon will be able to get around being caught. I think as technology expands and more criminals are being able to get away with crimes in the real world, they too will start to find ways to not get caught in the digital world.

          • Courtney R Galiber:

            I agree i think hacking is always going to be an issue there is no way around it unless we change everyones moral thoughts

          • Natasha V Wilkins:

            I agree that cybercrime will always be existent as long as the internet is. They are always going to find new ways to get around security. However, the laws are definitely essential because the consequences will scare many hackers and therefore the amount of them will be lessened.

        • Clayton E Corley Jr:

          Hackers and crackers will definitely be around as long as this technology is around. Ways to manipulate the system will always be there just as loops and patches that can be removed by the hacker. This will just motivate some of the brightest minds in the governemnt to continue to update the system in order to protect the citizens from this outbreak.

      • Christopher N Needs:

        The laws the government has in place I believe are sufficient, but the ways they find the hackers and cybercrimes needs to be updated to keep up with the ever changing hacker and increasingly effective ways they commit their crimes. To keep up with hackers the government must constantly update its tactics and security measures/laws.

  • Jong Hyuk Lee:

    The US government implemented computer criminal laws into Constitution. So under the National Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996, DoS attacks are federal crimes punishable by prison sentences and fines. Actually,under the act, a teenager who had been using hacking tools when DoS attacks were launched was sentenced to 18 months in prison. Someone might say it is harsh to sentence a teenager to prison for that kind of reason, but the problem is that we are not much aware of danger of cybercrimes and laws to protect them. Sometimes cybercrimes are much more dangerous than any other terror because they can paralyze whole systems of the countries. Also, they are so rapid that they can bring about tons of losses in few seconds. Therefore, we need to be well educated about cybercrimes and laws related to them. Also, laws should be more strict to reduce rates of cybercrimes.

    • Paola Beltran:

      As the problem of cybercrime rises, I do believe the government needs to implement more and severe cyberlaws as well as exemplary punishments. As Jong Hyuk mentioned above, some people might think it is harsh to sentence to prison a teenage accused of hacking. In my opinion, all hackers regardless of their age should be penalized as any other adult responsible of invasion of privacy, stealing, and trespassing. There is no excuse or age for not condemning crime. Hackers need to understand that attacking others’ computers is a serious crime that must be strictly sentenced.

      • Susanna I Arntz:

        While I agree that more severe laws could definitely help decrease cybercrime, I firmly believe the most effective way to combat cybercrime is to update the laws as technology moves ahead so that the content of the laws is kept current and restrictive to emerging cybercrimes.If the U.S. government could keep up with these updates than computer criminals would have more to worry about than they do now.

    • Nicholas D Mortimer:

      I agree. Everyone should be aware that everyday, whether it is through spam emails or popup ads, hackers are trying to get through to you. They also use multipple methods to make you “click this link”. The more we are aware about cybercrime and the more concious we are of it, the less people will be victiums.

  • Vaishali Rawal:

    Computer related crime is an unavoidable risk that all IT professionals have to face and protect their networks against. Internet has spawned new forms of crimes and made old crimes easier to commit. These crimes include; cyber-stalking, identity theft, child pornography, fraud and scams, copyright violations, and hacking. In a 2003 survey conducted by the CSI with the participation of the San Francisco Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Computer Intrusion Squad, of the 530 respondents made up of U.S. corporations, government agencies, financial institutions, medical institutions and universities, 56% reported unauthorized use of their computer systems. Through new laws, the legal system is trying to deal with computer related crimes. These laws do need to be better implemented and perfected; however it is a step in the right direction. If these laws are better perfected, the internet will be a safer place to do business or for general use.

    • Paul A Kowit:

      You can update all the laws you want, but it all depends on how you enforce them. You can make laws more strict, but there will always be hackers.

      • Elizabeth K Bucker:

        I agree with Paul, the only way the government can begin to solve cybercrimes and the problems with hacking is if they can completely prevent it from happening and are constantly catching and penalizing people who are doing it. This sounds good but it could also be impossible. There is always someone who can get around better than the person before them. There will always be hackers who are finding new ways to get around the cyber world so even if the laws are stricter who is to say someone will catch it to begin with?

      • Steven T Jacobs:

        This is what I was thinking when reading over the laws. With the lack of organization in law enforcement over cyber crimes, there is really little fear preventing hackers and online criminals from committing their crimes.

    • Baiba Berze:

      I agree with Vaishali. Nowadays, with such easy access to the Internet, technology advancements as well as the abundance of the information available on how to commit computer crimes, it is necessary to enforce laws and punishments for committing crimes related to cyberspace. With such an easy access to all of the things I mentioned before, the crime rate is bound to increase and the cybercrimes will do more damage. Therefore, I think that it is necessary to implement enforce strict and detailed laws as well as harsher punishments, and make sure that these cases and the criminals are known to public as such knowledge will most likely make someone change his/her mind about whether or not to commit a computer crime.

      • Thomas J Morris:

        I agree with you Baiba. To make the the person who committed a serious computer crime known to the public, that would cause much embarrassment and maybe stop that person from doing it in the future. My only problem with that is that there might end up being so many people still committing crimes, and if millions of people’s faces end up being shown online or newspapers for computer crimes, then people won’t feel as embarrassed due to the mass amount of people they are categorized in.

    • Anthony J. Alvarez:

      I agree Vaishali. Although the government have taken steps to punish cybercriminals constant monitoring needs to be done. With the quick changing technology new ways to hack and commit cybercrimes arise. Therefore, the laws must evolve with the technology as well. If the laws coincide with the changes in technology the will be easier to implement, enforce and deter criminals. Ultimately leading to our protection.

  • Paul A Kowit:

    I will discuss the computer crime, “Phishing or Spoofing.” Phishing or spoofing is a way to track or obtain personal financial data. Hackers do this by posting false look-a-like websites to trick people into giving away personal information. I believe that it would be advantageous for all websites that require an user name and password to access a site, to scan the web for look-a-like websites. This should be done so customers do not run into trouble and accidentally give away private information. This can only help increase consumer confidence in your product by preventing inconveniences for your customers.
    I recently had an encounter with one of these look-a-like sites. this cite had an address of http://www.facebooc.com. It looks like Facebook but is a survey service that exploits the information that you give it to third parties. You will probably start receiving a lot of junk mail if you fill out the survey.

    • Nhung T Ha:

      Thanks for sharing that website. I have never encounter, or so I know, a look-a-like website. I think that its really scary for such things to be going on. I never double check what I have typed in, and now I know that every little mistake can make a difference.

  • Susanna I Arntz:

    As internet related technologies are continually advancing, computer crimes such as hacking and cracking are becoming more widely ranging in type as well as depth or detail to each crime. The U.S. government has reacted by investigating through the FBI as well as implementing crime laws such as the National Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996. But do protective acts such as this one, do enough to punish and put an end to computer crimes and attacks? I think the federal punishments are not strict enough when it comes to simply administering fines to hackers. Additionally, since these technologies are ever-advancing, the government needs to continually make updates and amend their cybercrime laws, and they have failed to do so. I dont think the computer crime laws need to be tougher, but I do think they need to be updated actively and often.

  • Kayla J Shaffer:

    There is a cyber defamation law that is currently in use by China and South Korea is in the process of introducing this law as well. Cyber defamation is intended to capture people on the web who may be defaming others with comments/activites that would hurt other users. This law allows enforcement to track down people without any reports from the victims of these crimes. I think that if the U.S. implemented this law, it would help protect businesses as well as people from unnecessary comments, and may even crack down on the internet bullying that has been widely publicized. Although there are already laws enacted to prevent such crimes, the numbers seem to be increasing. Perhaps this law could halt these rates.

    • Jillian J Incognito:

      I agree that it is a good idea to enforce a cyber defamation law that is currently being used in China and South Korea. I think one of the biggest problems on the Internet is that people can post and do malicious things to one another and feel safe doing so because it can be anonymous or untraceable. If you look at current events where a male student was harassed and had videos posted in regards to his sexual orientation and he ended up taking his own life. Horrific outcomes can become of these defamatory crimes over the Internet—and bullying is a huge one. “The use of the Internet has fostered other types of criminal activity such as the stalking of minors by sexual predators through news groups and chat rooms. Those who buy, sell, and distribute pornography have also found in the Internet a new medium for carrying out their activities” (pg. 409 in text). These criminally based activities can be monitored and enforced through this act because any type of incriminating activity can be monitored and stopped. I think this law would be very beneficial for Americans.

    • Jennifer Shim:

      I agree with Kayla that it is a good idea to adopt the cyber defamation law that is in place in China and South Korea. It would definitely stop many people from posting inappropriate things to one another if they had to do so with their identity known. While I do think that it would stop some internet bullying, I do not think this would stop completely. Even in Korea where this law is in place, there are still many instances of bullying on the web sometimes ending in suicide. Of course, if the law was in place, those guilty could be found easier and prosecuted.

  • Kayla J Shaffer:

    I agree with Paola, by having the NIIPA enacted, it can help to create a more secure web base. Although there is no way to fully eliminate hacking, a law that prosecutes hackers will and has eliminated some as these activities. The more this law is enforced, the more it will scare hackers and hopefully will eliminate future attacks.

  • Baiba Berze:

    Computer crime (cybercrime) is a crime that evolves both a network and a computer, where computers may or may not have played a crucial part when the crime was actually committed. The US Computer Crime Statute 18 USC § 1030 prohibits unauthorized access to any computer operated by the U.S. Government, financial institution insured by the U.S. Government, federally registered securities dealer, or foreign bank.
    I my opinion, computer crimes must be dealt with very seriously because it causes a lot of damage to businesses and government agencies that protect the US citizens, and the punishment should depend on the type of fraud committed. An act of trying to gain access to a system, which is a protected system by the government, can result in imprisonment for 10 years and a heavy fine. I think that it is logical to have more severe punishments for crimes that can cause more damage. I also think that implementing such a harsh punishment and making it known to the public will decrease the rates of the computer crimes, as more criminals will become aware of such penalties.

    • Gregory A Javardian:

      I agree that more severe punishments must be dealt for computer crime. Also, as you said, these punishments must be well-known by the public to strike fear into potential hackers and computer criminals. Whether by advertising or setting examples of others, the punishments must be well-known and feared or else computer crime and technological crime will continue to rise as technology expands.

    • Tho Nguyen:

      I agree with this post completely. Only when the consequences are harsh, the hacker’s will think twice before doing anything. Although there will be some possible drawbacks. Some hackers will think that they are too smart to get caught and that’s inevitable. However, if they get caught, the punishment will be harsh. The only TRUE effective way to drastically decrease the number of cyber crimes would be capital punishment. Although very harsh and severe, it will definitely get the attention of many individuals. Realistically, 10+ years in jail may also be effective.

      • Michael J Esguerra:

        I agree that if the situation calls for harsher punishments then so be it. If it were a perfect world we can say that about any crime. Unfortunately, like most crimes, there are certain things, like money and time, that ultimately cannot be completely devoted to determining how serious of an offense a situation truly is. The only thing that can really be done is to make examples out of these criminals in hopes it sets the tone for people who may want to try the same thing in the future. One thing that definitely has to be done with these types of laws is they must be kept up with the times, especially considering the speed of which technology advances.

  • Nicholas D Mortimer:

    Under the National Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996, DoS attacks are federal crimes punishable by prision sentenses and fines. According to the book, DoS attacks have become popular with cybercriminals. In February 2000, web giants such as Yahoo!, Amazon.com, and Ebay were all victiums of DoS attacks where they were brought down under the weight of thousands of bogus messages. And FBI investiagtors found that it had been a teenager using simple hacking tools. In this case, I really don’t see the need to punish a teenager to 18 months of prison for messing around with “simple” hacking tools. If a kid can hack into websites that are making huge amounts of transactions everyday with peoples’ money, why can’t an advanced hacker do it? And for the people who use DoS hacks to order to distrupt networks, hold information and computer systems hostage, and launch cyberthreats, these are the people who should be punished much more than a teenager using simple hacking tools.

    • Steven N Collins:

      I agree with Nicholas here. If these Web giants really dont have the technology to prevent teenagers from performing simple hacking tools to infiltrate their messages, then it should be on them to improve their security. You don’t need to throw a kid in jail for a year and a half for using simple hacking tools.

  • Xiao Liu:

    Computer crime (cybercrime) is defined as the act of using a computer to commit an illegal act. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 protect people’s private information and business confidential information. The hackers who use computer commit this kind crime would be punished in order to reduce cybercrime rate. In this case, a teenager was sentenced to 18 months in prison because he was using hacking tools to attack institutions. We have to be aware of the dangerous of cybercrimes. Laws are made to protect our rights. People who break the law must be punished. I think the government must improve the law of cybercrime because of fast digital world developmen.

    • Andrew J. Kelly:

      I agree that the government should change the cybercrime law and make it more tough. With today’s society and the information that is now posted on the internet, such as a persons credit card information, computers need to be protected. Identity can be stolen, money can be stolen, peoples lives are at risk. It is the governments job to protect the people and the crime should be tougher. The magnitude of the crime should be also taken into consideration when determining the length of jail time.

  • Gregory A Javardian:

    While the development and possession of harmful computer code is not a criminal act, using the code can be. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) [18 U.S.C. Section 1030] states that “it is illegal for anyone to distribute computer code or place it in the stream of commerce if they intend to cause either damage or economic loss”. I believe that computer crime laws must go beyond this and deem the development and possession of harmful computer code as illegal. With this action, there will be less harmful computer code out there available to disperse, which in effect will cause less harmful activity.

    • Kevin M Severson:

      I agree, making the creation of harmful code illegal would be a huge improvement in cyber liability. Unfortunately, I cannot think of a way to effectively implement this law. Hopefully in the near future a way could be discovered and the internet would be a much safer place for everyone.

  • Kevin M Severson:

    The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 aims to protect organizations and agencies from the harmful attacks of hackers. Within this law, violating data belonging to banks or other financial institutions is prohibited. I think that this law should be made tougher. Should a hacker or a ‘cyber terrorist’ have the ability to see a bank’s financial information, especially in tougher economic times, the results could be very dangerous. I do not know of any specific successful attacks on banks, but if financial information were to be released, large amounts of people could lose significant amounts of money and the economy would be affected negatively. Because of this I think that this law should be tougher.

    • Catherine Rojas:

      I agree with Kevin. Many other cybercrime laws should also be made to be “tougher.” By “tougher” I mean that more funding should go into programs specifically targeting cyber criminals or terrorists so that progress can actually be made and people actually get protected. Preventative measures must be put in place to stop it from happening in the first place.

    • Blake A Guss:

      I tottaly agree with Kevin these crimes are very serious. They are just as serious real bank roberies. These hackers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If these crimes did not have a serious penalty the internet would be running rampid with hackers stealing money. Ofcourse you are still going to have criminals, but the propper punishment is a must.

  • Andrew J. Kelly:

    A computer crime that has affected the net is denial of services (DoS). Denial of services is when a code writer charges for his or her abilities to launch a denial of services. The code writer sends out messages of access denied and therefore the user cannot use the website. Companies have been majorly affected by this crime and it leads to the loss in business and customers. An example of DoS occurred in February 2000 with companies such as Yahoo and Amazon.com. The criminal was found and convicted of the charges and sent to jail for 18 months. I believe that this sentence does indeed fit the crime and should not be extended or reduced. Two years seems a little extreme and one year does not seem like long enough. The multitude of the offense must also be taken in consideration when determining the length.

  • Catherine Rojas:

    Like many of my classmates have mentioned, the National Information Infrastructure Act (NIIPA) was legislation stating basically that anyone who intentionally accesses a protected computer without permission and causes damage. Honestly, the law is simple enough however, I believe that it is way too broad to truly be enforced correctly. Legislation against specific crimes have always been more successful to enforce — and tend to be more helpful to the victims. Furthermore, cybercrimes in general are just very hard to enforce because the internet is so vast and anonymous it’s easy to get away with a lot that harms others.

  • Nhung T Ha:

    Cyber-stalking refers to the use of internet, either email or other electronic device, to stalk. It is the most dangerous type of cyber harassment, and could bring the most potential harm. Laws due to cyber-stalking exists at federal and state level. Although there are laws set out due to this problem, they should make it tougher to be able to commit this crime. Due the the advance knowledge of people towards technology, information is easily accessible nowadays and threat towards other are at a higher risk.

    • Daniel G Zantzinger:

      Cyber stalking should be taking much more seriously then it is today. Criminals can find out too much information about their victims by doing a basic google search. This is a way that criminals find out where people live and plan their crime. Laws should be put in place to protect peoples privacy online. It might not be a bad idea for the government to implement internet police to track what people are doing and if they are harassing others via the internet. This would be very controversial but it might save people lives.

      • John W Rutecki:

        I agree with Daniel that cyber stalking needs to be taken much more seriously. It is not right for people to go search out personal information about others and harass them with it. Victims of harassment will be changed for life and can even contemplate suicide. I do not know if internet police are possible but something needs to be done to protect people who get harrassed from hackers over the internet and tougher laws need to be put into place.

    • Francis W Westerfer:

      Personal Information is easily accessible through social networking sites, and if hackers are successful they could get into personal computers. Hackers could view what sites you look at and even read emails. If on Social Networking Sites, be careful who you become “friends” with. I believe cyber stalking is a serious issue, and I agree.

  • Jillian J Incognito:

    One computer crime law is the National Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996. This law basically states that DoS attacks are federal crimes punishable by prison sentences and fines. This law can help punish the crackers and hackers who attempt or do DoS attacks, but because technology is changing and expanding faster than the creation of laws and the understanding of these malicious attacks, there will always, I believe, be serious cyber threats and attacks. A perfect example is the 2005 attack noted in the article where a teenage boy was infiltrating and sending bogus messages to large and prominent online sites (CNN.com and Yahoo! are a few). I feel that we need to make the laws themselves tougher where it’s more than a fine and short prison sentence to give stronger message that these crimes are serious and will implicate serious consequences. If we employ some of these hackers and crackers to form a “cyber-squat” alliance that may help police the attacks.

  • Joseph A Davidson:

    I think every cybercrime should be cracked down on much harder. I think severe penalties should be enforced on these actions in order for the hacker to possibly think twice. I feel as if the world revolves around money and people will do anything they can in order to get it, so legal or not legal, people will be on the pursuit of wealth. Because of this although penalties may be harsher I think individuals will still commit the crime. Regardless of whether or not stricter penalties will be effective, I think they should be imposed for at least the possibility of being affective. I think by doing so, the younger population which still may have a future with a real job are being targeted and possibly will think twice about going the extra mile to earn their money legally instead of hacking.

  • Tho Nguyen:

    In the mid 1980’s the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 was put into effect. It prohibited actions such as stealing or compromising data about national defense, foreign relations, atomic energy, or other restricted information, gaining unauthorized access to computers, and even threatening to damage computer systems in order to extort money. These actions are not tolerated by the government and is subject to law. Although the USA Patriot Act helped with toughening laws and what the government can do, I feel that the government should make the consequences even harder. According to the law, if a break-in is classified as reckless disregard but cause no damage, the offence may be classified as a misdemeanor. We need to change this. Rather then a misdemeanor, any break-in or hack should be charged with a felony. All hackers need to know that if you get caught, you will go to jail.

  • Daniel G Zantzinger:

    Cyber theft is a serious issue and is becoming more common in today’s society. Cyber theft is defined as the stealing of financial or personal information for fraudulent use via the computer. Cyber thiefs are targeting banking information and open credit cards in other peoples name, which makes the victims financial reputation a disaster. This problem should be addressed by authorities and stricter punishments should be implemented to those who are caught. I believe more actions should be taken by banks who offer online banking to assure that their customers have the most protection offered. It would not upset me if there was someone “watching” the site to follow the users and track what they are doing. Both the internet service providers and authorities have work to do to make sure the internet is a safe place to do business.

  • Thomas J Morris:

    Computer crime, or cybercrime, refers to any crime that involves a computer and a network, where the computers may or may not have played an instrumental part in the commission of a crime. This, obviously, is a crime being committed on a daily basis and i believe the government has more power than they’ve shown in stopping computer crimes as a whole.With stricter laws against computer crimes and a way to get the most advanced computer fraud criminals known to the public, it could really help us feel safer on computers today. the NIPA of 96 didn’t have as big of an effect as the government may have thought.

  • Michael J Esguerra:

    The text discusses the 1997 No Electronic Theft (NET) Act, which made copyright infringement a criminal act even when no profit was involved. After some further research, max penalties can even include 5 years in prison and $250,000 in fines. It is tough to say if this law should be made any tougher, considering parts of it were amended to get it where it is now. The penalties for breaking this law are already as strict as it is, so i guess in a sense I would be leaning towards keeping these penalties the same. I just feel that with the speed that technology is moving, it makes it more difficult to catch criminals who partake in activities like this.

  • Anthony J. Alvarez:

    In hopes to limit the unauthorized inception of any type of electronic communicaiton the United States Passed The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986. This law allowed those caught of hacking into communictions to be punished. However, this fell short because of its limitations of not being able to monitor voice communication or stored communication of a suspected hacker. In hopes to account for this law the controversial Patriot Act was passed in 2002. Under The Patriot act the government can access and monitor communications easier. Although The Patriot Act was passed to make The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 tougher i feel it violates and creates many privacy issues.

  • John W Rutecki:

    Computer hacking has been around since the 1960′s, but each and every day it is getting more complex. To combat the hackers, the US Government has enacted some laws to protect people from the hackers. The brief case talks about the National Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996. This act makes DoS attacks federal crimes that are punishable by prison terms or large fines. These DoS attacks send bogus messages and requests to overflow a server and crash a system. I feel like it will have to be made tougher because hackers are constantly finding ways to get around the rules and create new problems, so if the jail time and fines get increased to rediculous amounts, it could hopefully persuade hackers from doing things.

  • Clayton E Corley Jr:

    While observing the video played in class on identity theft, I came across the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act which was created in 1984 and modified again in 1994. This was to deal with
    the problem of “malicious code” such as viruses, worms and other programs designed to alter, damage or destroy data on a computer.The previous law only focused on access of the computer system and not on how that computer system was used. The lady in the video had her identity stolen by a young women with the same name and for years she is still fighting to regain her identity due to the various codes and other things related to the theft.

    • Jamieson M Conway:

      This is something that especially worries me about the internet and making purchases on the internet, I could not imagine what it would be like to have to regain my own identity and the struggle that would come along with it. With that being said, I believe that people who are found guilty of identity theft should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and then some. I think that the penalties in place, up to 2,000 dollars worth can be stolen through identity along with the personal burden it would cause is only a misdemeanor in PA, which i think is ridiculous, the consequences for these actions must be more sever.

  • Elizabeth K Bucker:

    Congress enacted the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act in 1997 to facilitate prosecution of copyright violation on the Internet. Before this act was passed the government had a hard time prosecuting people for copyright violations because of the fact that if there was no proof they were doing it for financial gain or “commercial purpose” because the law in place before did not pertain to “non-commercial infringements.” Now the NET Act makes it a federal crime to reproduce, distribute, or share copies of electronic copyrighted works such as songs, movies, games, or software programs, even if the person copying or distributing the material acts without commercial purpose and/or receives no private financial gain. The penalties for committing this crime can be up to five years in prison and up to $250,000 in fines. This seems like a very harsh punishment, however it is something that I believe should stand in place because without a serious punishment people will never obey this act and there will be not stopping it.

  • Christopher N Needs:

    In the book they discuss the No Electronic Theft Act, that made copyright infringement a criminal act even when no profit was involved for the person committing the crime. Max penalties include 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine, which is a pretty strict penalty. The penalties for breaking this law are already strict as it is, and there is, in my opinion, no reason to change them based on its current severity. So i would be behind keeping the law the same and just updating the ways in which the government finds these criminals with the ever advancing technology.

    • Adam Moser:

      This act is important and will only become moreso in the future as the piracy of movies and music increases. Many people think that because they are not selling the movies or music that they download that they should not be punished, however they are still stealing from the artists/producers. I agree with Christopher however that the penalties imposed for this crime are more than enough, as any jailtime at all seems like a huge punishment for downloading a movie or two.

    • Christopher i do agree with everything you say, I believe that the maximum prison time is appropriate for the crimes but i believe the maximum fine is to high of a price to pay depending on the circumstance. I think they should limit the fine to whatever amount of cost damage they do through hacking, with prison sentences reaming the same. also i believe if they hack into a system without damaging anything but only making it better there should be no penalty involved.

  • Blake A Guss:

    The US government made computer criminal laws in the Protection Act of 1996, attacks are federal crimes, The violaters can be subject to jail time and fines. I believe that the laws against hackers should be very strict. The crimes they commit are just as serious robberies done in real time life. To secure the internet these Laws need to be safe in order to protect the all of the peple who use the web.

    • Daniel E Sims:

      I completley agree with Blake. I think that the laws against hackers should be very strict and they should not loosen up at all. These laws have to stay intact if we want to have a clean and virus free future for our computers.

    • Sophia Pelullo:

      I agree, I do believe that these crimes are very serious, and if there is a way to make these laws thougher and the consequences then it should be done.

    • Alicia M Gladney:

      I can agree with Blake. The consequences of cyber crime should have the same sentences as physically committed crimes. The results are just as serious or more serious for large companies. Hackers believe they can get away with it or that they are justified in their crimes when it comes to large corporations. Also, there is a sense of anonymity when you cannot see the person you are affecting. The government should step in and make serious punishments out of those offenders.

  • Steven N Collins:

    The government reformed the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act in 1994, preventing hackers from using the computer system to create worms and viruses alike. This Act paved the way for future laws to be designed, most notable after the teenager hacked into the Web giants in 2000 as discussed in the reading. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act wanted to ensure that computer systems were being used in proper ways.

  • Adam Moser:

    The law that I will discuss is the National Infrastructure Protection Act of 1986. This act makes all DoS attacks a federal crime (a felony). By making all DoS attacks a felony, it brings the threat of jail time and substantial fines to the table for anyone who is caught. As mentioned in the text and seen through stories in the news, DoS attacks have become increasingly popular among cybercriminals today. The threat of these DoS attacks is the ease at which even an unskilled hacker can cause major damage. The evidence for this is shown through the disabling of major sites such as Yahoo! and Ebay in the year 2000 by what turned out to be a teenager messing around with only basic hacking tools and knowledge. The teenager received a year and half in prison. This may seem too harsh a punishment, however with financial consequences this could cause it is important to set a harsh standard to deter future attacks.

    • Douglas A Houck:

      I agree that the punishment does not seem very harsh when the possible destruction that could have occurred is realized. These are huge companies that were hacked and held up which could have cost them an incredible amount of money just because a teenager was messing around and thought it would be cool. If more serious hackers end up doing this the consequences could be very severe for the companies involved. Sentences for crimes like this should not be taken lightly, especially with the increasing availability of information on the internet.

  • Douglas A Houck:

    The Cyber Security Enhancement Act reminds me about what was discussed in the “No Place to Hide” video because it deals with the government being able to obtain personal information when they feel that a serious crime is committed. As was stated in the video, this can greatly help when dealing with terrorist attacks by picking out the terrorists before or after the attack is committed. Being able to prevent terrorist attacks on a large or small scale would be a huge advancement. The penalties involved with this Act range from 20 years to life which seems reasonable to me because it deals with the lives of innocent citizens and should not be taken lightly.

  • Cybercrime is the act of using a computer to commit an illegal act. The US government believed that it was mandatory to apply computer criminal laws into its Constitution.In October of 1996 the NIIPA signed an act that stated, anyone who intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization and as a result of such conduct recklessly causes damages. I believe that the NIIPA had to make this apart of the constitution to make it necessary in order to stop the further development of cybercrimes in the on going emaciation of the internet. Without this law in affect Hackers would be able to freely infect peoples computer and destory software and systems.

  • Daniel E Sims:

    I definitley beleive that the Computer Fraud act that was set in the 90′s is the most important law ever made for computers. Without it, nothing would be safe over the Internet. I think that people caught violating this law should face the full penalty. This law is very important in keeping our computers safe.

  • Sophia Pelullo:

    The computer fraud and abuse act of 1986, is against stealing information from the government and foreign countries. And it also doesn’t tolerate extortion’s. Stealing information from the government and foreign relations is a very serious crime which could hurt many people. I think if there is room to make a law thougher then they should and also the consequences should be thougher

    • Colin McGrail:

      I agree with Sophia. Cyberspace is going to be a major part of any future world conflicts and it is important for us to have laws that will protect us. Information is such a critical aspect of modern life that we can’t afford to have it be vulnerable to foreign enemies.

  • Francis W Westerfer:

    Accessing a protected computer without authorization is criminal activity, and just 15 years ago, the issue was not top priority. The National Information Infrastructural Protection Act of 1996 is a revision of the U.S. computer crime law. Cyber crimes are a threat when personal and protected information is taken by hackers through computer systems and radio frequency. As technology becomes more advance, the Federal Government will need to increase the complexity of the NIIPA.

    • Shantel C Belton:

      I agree with Francis because our world is definately evolvong as the days go by and peopl are getting smarter about many things. So I would say that the government does need to increase their complexity of the NIIPA. Also they have to figure out ways on how they can get a better control or hold on these people out there in cyber world trying to destroy people computer systems.

  • Shantel C Belton:

    One computer crime law is the National Infrasture Protection Act Of 1996. What this is suppose to do is protect people’s software from being hacked into or from these hacking tools that people have come across. If someone is using hacking tools when DoS attacks are launched or are in effect,then that person or person’s will be sentenced to jail time and or penalties and fines against them. While some may not agree with this act, others feel as though it is a great thing because that way, the hackers getvwhat they deserve. People may not be aware but cyber crimes are at a very high level and are as serious as any other crime that may be committed, or even greater. If someone gets into computer systems they can basically killmpeople’s, companies, industries, countries, etc. whole systems and could wipe out a huge amount or even all of their data that is much needed and important. While we have many laws to protect us from such thing happening, I believe that there should be a much tougher and tighter watch about these cyber crimes and laws inorder to try to reduce the rates of them.

    • Colin J McCarry:

      I agree that there should be a tighter and tougher watch on these crimes but it is sometimes so hard to find and prosecute the people doing these things. The hackers have such a reputation for being elusive and sneaky. In the act, there is one clause that caught my attention…”recklessly causing damage.” I like the phrasing of this because it depicts a disregard for any morals or principals, which is exactly what is being done.

  • Shantel C Belton:

    Sorry I spelled the act’s name wrong its The National Infrastructural Act Of 1996

  • Alicia M Gladney:

    DoS attacks: Denial of Service, sounds to me like an old mafia move, where businesses had to give “protection” money to the mafia in the area so there store was left alone. This, I believe is another form of extortion and should be a felony. I agree with the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996. There should be severe punishment for extorting businesses. The heftier the fine or prison sentence, the more of a deterrent it will be to commit these crimes. The only thing that is lacking is the resources to catch most of the offenders. Too many can be anonymous and wreak havoc on innocent people and businesses. It’s too easy for them to slip in and out of computer systems or use public ones for their crimes.

    • Jessica Cho:

      I agree that if the consequence of breaking this law is harsher, it will deter more people from committing those crimes. It is a good idea that more effort should be given to trying to catch as many offenders as possible.

    • Tyler S Lucchese:

      This definitely sounds like something that is becoming a problem. If its too easy to extort a business over the Internet by remaining anonymous, the government really needs to step up their enforcement pertaining to this law. If they have to, the government should invest more money and hire more people to work on stopping these criminals that extort over the Internet. I know if I had a business and somebody was extorting it, I would be very angry over the amount of money i would be losing by having to give it to someone just to keep my business alive.

    • William J Hagstotz:

      I also agree. Monitoring responsibilty on the internet is one task, however enforcement is another. Governmet cant chase everyone, the world is too big. When cyber criminals feel the pressure they simply keep off computer and live as an ordinary person, which cant be found.

  • Priya Varghese:

    No matter how hard the government tries to stop this hackers cybercriminals but they still find a way do the crimes.we still need law to protect us from this cybercriminals. no matter how many laws we make there is always a hacker.

  • Jamieson M Conway:

    In 1996 cyber crimes were added to the constitution and became part of law, there are some penalties that are up to 18 months in prison for first offenders and they can get worse from there. Some people argue that these are to steep of a punishment, especially if these first time offenders are young, between the ages of 18-22. In my opinion though I believe that the punishment is not steep enough, if there is not a hard crack down on the first time offenders then there will be no reason to deter the criminals from choosing the same path again 18 months later. I believe the punishments need to be more sever because this is a crime that is so hard to really keep tabs on and to catch people.

    • Tiffany V Hoang:

      I agree with Jameison because cyber crimes will happen more if the government to not take action and have tougher punishments. People will tend to do more evil if they can get away with it. The topic I chose was hackers because I will hackers are a version of cyber crimes. Cyber crimes involves a computer and a network . People use cyber crimes to get information from the government’s top secret and can sell it on the black market which in return is bad for the US government.

  • Courtney R Galiber:

    I believe that all computer crime laws need to be inforced. All of our personal information and work information is stored in cyberspace.To many intellegent people and some not so intellegent people are gaiing access to our personal information and doing damage with it.

    • David Vasylkiv:

      Agreed. With more and more people doing wireless transactions more and more information is flowing through the interweb. Our information needs to be protected.

  • David Vasylkiv:

    The National Information Infrastructural Protection Act of 1996 is a revision of the U.S. computer crime law. I believe that this act is good the way it is. It should not be made any tougher or easier. T has been working perfect since 1996. It’s plain and simple and easy to follow. If you break it you go to jail. There are plenty of hackers out there that get away with braking this act. But with cyber forensics become more sophisticated on a daily basis it is only a matter of time until they get caught.

    • Andrew A Tucker:

      I disagree with this somewhat. I believe the law is a very good law but could come down even harder on these criminals. Internet hacking only continues to get worse and as it does these law need to become even harsher. As these hackers find more and more ways to hack networks it also become harder to catch all of them. Therefore when we do catch them we need to make an example of them and make sure people think before cyber hacking.

  • Colin McGrail:

    The National Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996 states that DoS attacks are federal crimes punishable by prison sentences and fines. I think that the law should only be tougher if the attacks are against important websites, such as banks or government websites. I believe that if somebody were to attack these websites, they would be effecting a lot more people and would warrant a tougher sentence.

  • Colin J McCarry:

    Spoofing and Phishing, despite their funny spellings, are not as funny as they sound. Both of these crimes are crimes against the person. Hackers can get into personal information like your financial info, or even personal information. A lot of ways that these phishers get people to fall for their tricks is through rigged websites or pop-ups that can be very convincing. The web surfers see the familiarity of the sites and fall into putting down personal information like credit card numbers or social security numbers. The only way to deter these sites is to first off have a pop-up blocker that can prevent users from even seeing these windows. But another way to stop the spoofing is by having access codes, like the ones we use here at temple.

  • Natasha V Wilkins:

    I believe that hackers and crackers have the potential to be very dangerous criminals in today’s technologically advanced society. The National Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996 made DoS attacks a federal crime punishable by prison sentences and fines. The government must be serious about this law and not take it lightly as hackers can have so much power, even over the government. I think the laws should definitely be more enforced than they are currently. The punishment should be determined by the severity and damage caused by the crime. Hackers need to be scared and discouraged from these evading acts.

  • Tyler S Lucchese:

    I think an Internet law that needs to be made tougher is the Economic Espionage Act. Many people overlook and do not realize how important the health of a nation’s economy is. This law, also known as the EEA, is put into place to prevent the copying, duplicating, uploading, photocopying, downloading ect. of trade secrets that benefit a foreign government or agent. It also makes it illegal to steal trade secrets and deals with all aspects of trade secret misappropriation in general. The more the Internet grows and becomes more prevalent in our lives the more applicable and important this law should be.

  • Jessica Cho:

    The National Information Infrastructure Protection Act of 1996 sends hackers and other types of cyber attackers to jail if caught. I believe that this is a good way to lower the rate of cyber crimes, even though it will not eliminate all of them. If anything, the law should be harsher towards those who are breaking this law.

  • Tiffany V Hoang:

    A computer crime that I believe in is “hacking”. People hack other computers and databases for the information they are seeking. I think that hackers should be dealt with in a serious manner because it its violating someone’s privacy and reading information that is not public to anyone. I believe the government should be tougher on hackers because with technology increasing so often now, all the information of a company or a firm can be easy for a hacker to get to. They just need to know few techniques and methods of how to get around the system.

  • William J Hagstotz:

    Cyber Crimes extended beyond authorized webpages, it exist now on sites as Craiglist.com, facebook.com, twitter, etc… Now that the internet is so accepted in todays world, they use it to share and sell information. It is a crime to harass an individual via networking sites, or to sell stolen merchandise in cash markets such as craigslist. There is really only so much the government can do to monitor every internet user, however i believe the effort to deter hacking has been succesful. The government protects what is neccesary for our country to strive. Examples: Online banking, Corporate documents, and exploit imagines and videos. I feel safe, and i feel goverment is doing what it can do without stepping on toes.

  • Andrew A Tucker:

    The National Information Infrastructural Protection Act of 1996 is a revision of the U.S. computer crime law. This law states that DoS attacks are federal crimes punishable by fines and even prison sentencing. I believe that this law was very necessary and could actually be even stricter than it already is. Internet hacking increases in our digital world every day and will only continue to get worse. Hackers need to see that there is a harsh penalty in place for them if they get caught because as of now there is nothing else doing a good job of stopping people from hacking over the internet.

  • Jennifer Shim:

    Phishing is the act of stealing personal information from a user to be used for identity theft. They can get this information by pretending to be a legitimate company and asking people to fill out a form including their credit card information, login credentials, social security, or bank account numbers. The penalty for phishing needs to get tougher. Many people fall victim to phishing scams and inboxes continue to be spammed with them! To protect yourself from phishing scams, you should not use links provided in e-mails. Instead go directly to the website and make any necessary changes there. If you receive an e-mail from a site that you are not a customer of, you should delete it right away. If you are not sure if an e-mail is official, you could always try calling the company or website to make sure.

Leave a Reply

*