Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Perfectessay.net coursework sample #4 apa style
Perfectessay.net coursework sample #4 apa style
Perfectessay.net coursework sample #4 apa style
Perfectessay.net coursework sample #4 apa style
Perfectessay.net coursework sample #4 apa style
Perfectessay.net coursework sample #4 apa style
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Perfectessay.net coursework sample #4 apa style

685

Published on

This is coursework sample in apa style

This is coursework sample in apa style

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
685
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Summary 1 Running head: SUMMARY Summary [Author’s Name] [Tutor’s Name] [Class]
  • 2. Summary 2 Abstract Computer forensics emerged as a scientific response to the increased used of computers and information technologies, as well as the legal response to the growing number of crimes involving computer and information solutions. A whole set of legal and administrative laws and guidelines govern computer forensics, but the USA Patriot Act is fairly regarded as the first and probably, the major legal aspect of computer forensics today. In his article, Null (2005) provides a detailed observation of what computer forensics is and how the USA Patriot Act refers to the current system of computer forensics principles.
  • 3. Summary 3 Summary Computer forensics emerged as a scientific response to the increased use of computers and information technologies, as well as the legal response to the growing number of crimes involving computer and IT solutions. A whole set of legal and administrative laws and guidelines govern computer forensics, but the USA Patriot Act is fairly regarded as the first and probably, the major legal driver of computer forensics today. In his article, Null (2005) provides a detailed observation of what computer forensics is and how the USA Patriot Act governs the current system of principles in computer forensics. According to Null (2005) in 2004 alone companies reported more than $377 million losses because of computer related crimes. Given that more and more courts turn to computers and information as the major sources of evidence in criminal cases, computer forensics is gradually becoming the key element of successful crime investigation. Generally, computer forensics is defined as “the process of scientifically examining and analyzing data anywhere from computer storage to media so that the data can be used as evidence in court” (Null, 2005). Computer forensics involves a range of computer investigation and identification processes, from extracting and preserving the data up to interpreting and presenting this data in court. Although the U.S. market for computer forensics constantly grows, there is still a shortage of professionals and experts, as well as the lack of practical experience and knowledge in different computer subjects (Null, 2005). However, not the state of science and art in computer forensics but its legality attracts special attention. In this context, Null (2005) suggests that the USA Patriot Act is “one of the most influential federal statutes to be put in place because of the use of computer forensics in law enforcement”. Null (2005) believes that the USA Patriot Act has completely changed the way professionals in computer forensics operate when gathering and interpreting digital evidence. Null (2005)
  • 4. Summary 4 asserts that sections 202 and 209 of the Patriot Act have caused the major shifts in the current professional attitudes to computer forensics. Section 202 of the USA Patriot Act makes it possible for forensic professionals to access and gather wire communications that involve voice in hacking situations (Null, 2005). As a result, this evidence can also be presented in court. By capturing wire communications, law officials can monitor and record threatening communications, which can also be used against defendants in court (Null, 2005). Null (2005) discusses section 209 of the USA Patriot Act, which changed the way and rules forensic professionals should follow to access stored voice communications. Earlier, when law authorities had to access stored voice communications with a third-party provider a wiretap order was required, while accessing voice communications on an answering machine required a search warrant; now, the term ‘electronic storage’ no longer exists, and with a search warrant officials can gain access to any kind of stored voice communications (Null, 2005). It should be noted, that the USA Patriot Act was designed to fit the legal requirements of the U.S. Constitution, namely, its Fourth Amendment. That law officials can readily gain access to Internet files and stored computer information is clear, and for this reason both the Fourth Amendment and the USA Patriot Act had to delineate forensic practices that are acceptable and unacceptable in specific crime situations. Where forensic criminals could not balance security with privacy, the USA Patriot Act had to fulfill this role (Null, 2005). As a result, both the Act and the Fourth Amendment became a kind of a legal barrier on forensic professionals’ way to evidence gathering. Unfortunately, the Patriot Act did not resolve all forensic issues: for example, forensic professionals often fail to properly document the process of gathering digital evidence or cannot trace the process of changing digital data due to its relative invisibility (Null, 2005). Nevertheless, the USA Patriot Act lays the foundation
  • 5. Summary 5 for the development of appropriate rules and guidelines necessary to manage the process of gathering and interpreting digital data for the purposes of computer forensics.
  • 6. Summary 6 References Null, J.D. (2005). Computer forensics: The modern crime fighting tool. The Journal of Computer Information Systems, 46 (2): 115-119.

×