Data Protection Case

Company must also develop a clear structure for granting employees access to sensitive information. Not all employees need such data in order to fulfill their everyday job responsibilities. For those who need admission to sensitive information, a strong authentication mechanism must be developed, which cannot be bypassed. This will ensure that only authorized users are accessing compromising data.

On December 2, 2015, two shooters opened fire at holiday party, killing 14 people and injuring 22. During a gun battle with law enforcement both shooters were killed. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.) had recovered a locked and encrypted iPhone that was in the possession of one of the shooters as part of the evidence. The F.B.I. was unable to access any data on the phone and so they turned to Apple for assistance.

citizens a common law right to privacy against publications (Murray, 1997). The common law right to privacy has evolved through time, and the United States had reacted differently to specific information privacy concerns. Dimov (2013) reported, interestingly, that on the federal level, the United States sustained a sectorial method towards data protection legislation in which certain industries are protected and others are not (p. 4). The following are three federal data protection laws indicated as of great importance in the United States: (1) Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) - governs the collection and distribution of health and financial data; (2) Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA) - protects

This legislation protects people’s data and information stored on databases. Data subjects are people whose personal data is stored, the rights given to data subjects are: right of subject access, right of correction, right to prevent distress, right to prevent direct marketing, right to prevent automatic decisions, right of compliant to the information commissioner and right to compensation.

On May 3, 2006, a data analysis at a Veterans Affairs took home a laptop which included an external hard drive. Both items were unencrypted it contained information of 26.5 million Veterans; the item was stolen in a burglary of the analysis home took place in Montgomery Country, MD. He immediately reported the theft to both Maryland police department and his supervisors at Veterans Affairs. The analyst was taking this laptop for three years, with his supervisor knowing of the analysis actions. Unfortunately, the supervisor knew of the thief but did not tell of the data theft until May 16 to Veterans Affairs Secretary R. James Nicholson. The next day, Secretary Nicholson informed the FBI, which is working with the Montgomery Country police on the theft. Later on May 22, Veterans Affairs issued a statement about the robbery; it states that the data stolen included the names, Social Security, date of births, for the 26.5 million veterans and spouses.

You may choose to restrict the collection or use of your personal information in the following ways:

In this article by Alyssa Newcomb, distinguished technological experts take stands on the defense of personal privacy. In December, two Muslim Americans, who had been radicalized by terrorists, attacked a public area using several high-power weapons. They killed fourteen and injured twenty-one people. Later, police chased them, and they were killed. The FBI has not ruled out a third conspirator; however, it is using every resource to figure out exactly what happened in this tragedy. Now, the FBI wants Apple to give it access to a shooter’s iPhone because the FBI cannot get through the phone’s security. The problem is that this unlocking may provide a “backdoor” for the FBI “to crack every iPhone.” Tim Cook, Apple’s CEO, believes that some

Computer forensics (which applies to personal computers, mobile phones, pagers, etc.) has been indispensable in cracking cases involving terrorism, sexual predation, and even murder . Unfortunately, though, more recently technology has become more secure, password-protected, and encrypted, which causes intense difficulty in the use of computer forensics in investigative work. There have been dozens of crimes committed where technology, if it were accessible, would have played a critical role in its solution. Yet due to the passwords on these phones, information that might be so crucial is unavailable to police. In particular, there was a murder committed in Baton Rouge in April 2015, where a pregnant woman named Brittney Mills was shot by—law enforcement cannot tell. They believe that it was someone she knew, but were incapable of getting many leads, and they were not able to access the young woman’s phone, though they strongly believe that Mills’s iPhone could hold the key to unlocking the mystery of her death. The victim’s mother shared that she knew Brittney had a diary on her phone, recording all the negative things that happened to her, and perhaps this would have held some clue to the woman’s killer. Alas, her phone had not been backed up to iCloud for a few days, and nobody knew Brittney’s phone’s password. The intelligence on the phone could not be recovered for

Explain how the website works and when they will hand the phone back to you. The explanation we used is below.

The use of phones has become such a vital part of our lives, they contain so much of our life’s information, should this be open to the government in some cases? The main questions to be asked about the F.B.I’s request to apple. How open would the use of a master key expose other citizens who are not terrorists? Why the government doesn’t solely investigate Syed Farook iCloud data? Why doesn’t the government get their information from just 3rd party applications that the user downloaded on his iPhone? Could this “backdoor” be used by foreign countries such as china for not as justified reasons, such as what would be viewed as treason in non-democratic countries? Why the government cannot access the information being stored on the iPhone? This sensitive information should not be opened using a backdoor, due the vulnerability it would open to hackers. Through the answering of these questions supported by direct quotes and facts, it will become apparent the dangers and risks associated with the “Brute Force” technique.

There has been on ongoing battle between the United States governments and Silicon Valley for years and the battle is only going to grow. These battles between these entities involve the security of iPhones and other devices and the government's desire to access these devices in certain cases. With the advancement of technology in the last decade there has been a valiant effort made by these Silicon Valley companies such as Apple to secure their devices and ensure to their customers that their data is secured.

As business practices/operations grew, the collection, retention, maintenance and data utility requirements grew, particularly in the United States. This task became more manageable with the advancement of technology in the decades of 1960 and 1970. The public’s ‘concern’ of personal information/data abuse began to grow, as well, particularly in light of quick and easy computer searches and file sourcing. To address this growing operational trend and public concern, the Privacy Act of 1974 was passed December 31, 1974.

On June 10th, 2016 at approximately 10:00 am I, Investigator James Poffel spoke with Roger Hilfiger, who is the attorney for Bradley Meeks. He was inquiring about getting phone messages off of Bradley’s cell that were possibly stored in his Facebook Messenger Application. Roger was stated he was going to ask for the case to be stricken to the next docket so we could possibly view the Facebook Messenger messages between his client and the victim, Samantha Goodman. Bradley Meeks provided me with a possible pattern lock pattern to unlock his Facebook Messenger App.

Any predominantly sensitive or vulnerable information will be encrypted and/or securely stored to prevent unauthorized access or tampering. This encryption will be done in a way, so as not to prevent access (accidental or deliberate) by all appropriately authorized parties.

When most people leave the house everyday they are not considering the multiple ways they are being monitored. They are not contemplating whether the personal e-mail they just sent using their company’s seemingly secure private e-mail service is being screened by their employers or whether their banking activity is being monitored for patterns aligned with terrorism. Many would assume that simply having a password to access your e-mail would keep out unwelcome eyes. With technology becoming such an increasingly important aspect of our daily lives, personal and work related, many are starting to debate whether or not it is correct for an employer or the government to be able to access someone’s personal information. This includes, but is not limited to, as outlined in Charles J. Sykes essay, medical information, personal e-mail correspondence, social media account information, a person’s voice mail, what you have stored on your computer, and your credit reports (Sykes 19). Some argue that this is an infringement on a person’s right to privacy while others argue that businesses and government officials have the right and need to monitor personal information.