Mobilisa Inc. V. Doe Summary

Facts: Mr. Masciale was introduced to government agent Marshall by a government informer, Kowel. Mr. Masciale and Kowel had known each other for about four years and Mr. Masciale was unaware that Kowel’s was a part of some undercover activities. Therefore, Kowel introduced Marshall to Masciale as a big narcotics buyer. At the trial both Marshall and petitioner had testified concerning the ensuring conversation (supreme.justia.com. n.d.). Marshall stated in his testimony that he wanted to talk about buying a large quantity of high-grade narcotics and that if Masciale was not interested, then their conversation would be over.

The parties in this lawsuit are: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (plaintiff) and Mims Distributing Company, Inc (defendant), the EEOC is the plaintiff on behalf of Christopher Alston (Lally, 2015). Christopher Alston was a potential employee of the Mims Distributing Company, Inc.

Facts: This is a Title VII action alleging harassment based on national origin and religion. The facts are set forth in the light most favorable to Rafiq. On May 11, 2001, Mohommed Rafiq was hired as a car salesman. Rafiq was born in India and is a practicing Muslim. The alleged harassment began on September 11, 2001. When he arrived for work that afternoon, his co-workers were watching news coverage of the terrorist attacks and one of them asked him in a mocking way, "Where have you been?", as if to infer that he had participated in the attacks.

Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that each of the Defendants was the agent and employee of each of the remaining Defendants and was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency and employment.

A1. The Nature of the incident was that an employee was able to hack into the computer system and gain access to the financial payroll system, human resources and even email system. This employee used several methods in order to gain access into the system: IP spoofing, Data modification, Man in the middle attack and compromised-key attack. As a result the employee was able to tamper with payroll system. An auditor discovered the discrepancies and tried to make upper management aware of the situation through email, but the email was intercepted by the hacker. The hacker impersonated an employee and persuaded the auditor into granting him more access into the system which resulted in additional sabotage into the payroll system. Hacker

Facts James Olis hired Terry Yates to represent him in the criminal proceedings that he was involved in while working at Dynegy. Olis acknowledge that he was responsible for his legal fees and his written fee agreement with Yates stated that “all fees are due when billed unless other specific arrangement have been made.” However, Olis told Yates and Mark, Yate’s associate, that Dynegy would be paying his legal fees, which is also confirmed by Cristin Cracraft, an attorney of Dynegy, through a telephone call with Clark, provided that Olis acted in good faith, in Dynegy’s best interest and in compliance with applicable law. Dynegy’s paid Yate’s initial invoice for $15,000, and the succeeding bill for $105,176 after Olis’

The investigator did random search of John Doe in the computer system and our victim was able to give a positive identification of John Doe as her stalker. The investigator learned that John Doe has prior charges of trespassing, ID theft, and stalking. The investigators were also able to receive the IP address responsible for the email sent to the victim. However, the due process system illustrates that a suspect is innocent until proven guilty. The investigators need to search Doe’s computer and confirm the IP address and also try to locate the evidence of the pictures that our victim has been receiving from Mr. Doe’s computer. John Doe’s computer is the crime scene and it’s vital for the investigators to preserve the evidence making certain that any potential evidence isn’t tainted. The investigator has to follow proper protocol in the due process system as it pertains to the 4th amendment in assuring that all evidence will be admissible in a court of

I. Defendant Miranda Burr is guilty of committing computer crime under H.R.S. § 25.377(4) because she was not authorized to access the lottery terminal and defraud Hip Hop 2 It.

After receiving the anonymous tip Principle Lyon pulled Cruman into his office and pressured him to sign in to his facebook account for two and a half hours. This course of action took by the principle is unlawful and therefore the evidence obtained should not be used in court. In the case Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel Inc. Moreno had posted her personal views on her private social media account. Hanford reposted Moreno’s views and this lead to threats to Moreno. When this happened Moreno sued Hanford because when Hanford reposted such things it violated Morenos privacy. Crumans facebook account was a very private and exclusive account and when principle Lyon Pressured Cruman for two and half an hours to sign in was a serious violation. In the Moreno v. Hanford Sentinel Inc. case they said in order to prove a violation of privacy on social media you must establish 1. A legally protected

I chose these entries because they were the most challenging for me to complete. I feel

FACTS: The defendant, Peter Junger, a computer law professor at Case Western Reserve University challenged the United States government's regulations of encryption software. The regulations in place prevented U.S. citizens from being able to export encryption source code (or publishing/disseminating) over the internet. Junger was concerned that international students might not be able to join his encryption technology class that he taught and that any encrypting software he creates and wants to post on his

Issues: Will Paul prevail in suing the FTC on the “Do-Not-Email Registry Act? Other issues concerning Paul and affiliated company is fraud, money laundering, drug trafficking.

This implies that the companies that are implicated in the wrong doing were actually in talks with the government long before the lawsuit was filed. This could have been for the purposes of mediation or to determine just how far outside the law the companies were operating.

Cyber Law was the first step taken by the government against the cyber-crime. According to this law if any one tries to destroy, alters or delete any data or damage it without any permission of the owner of the computer, shall be punishable offense. Similarly if any corporate body is maintaining or protecting data of the person or company and if any negligent act or failure found in protecting the data shall be liable to pay