Reaction Paper on Cybercrime Act of 2012

The bill then went to the senate where there was much debate and procrastination. Many senators opposed to the bill tried to use the “filibuster” technique, which basically is an extended talk for the purpose of killing a bill or getting drastic modifications. In fact, it was the longest debate in Senate history lasting 534 hours in total. The final vote in the Senate was 76 to 18 to pass their version of the bill since they made minor amendments to it (Bureau of National Affairs 18-21). A quote from Senator John Lesinski, democrat, showed why some were opposed to the bill, “There are still many private rights in America that under our Constitution are beyond the power of government to regulate and one of these is the right to pick and chose one’s associates, one’s friends and one’s customers in a private business” (Calls Bill Unconstitutional 33). The final vote in the House over the amendments the senate made was 289 to 126. This set the way for the bill to be signed by the President to become a law.

The First Amendment has high importance and guarantee coming from our founding fathers. The Constitution promises its citizens that those rights will never be taken away, regardless of what is said. It is too significant to overlook. Cyberbullying also may contain its own positives. Not only would it be seen by powerful and disapproving adults but also influential peers for both the bully and the bullied. It could lead to independent fixing. Although many believe in government consequences, education itself could finish the pressing problem in today’s youth. What, if any, prosecution such as jail led to the termination of the one thing it was meant to stop? So then, why would prosecution for cyberbullying be any

The court declared Section 13 unconstitutional. This marked the first time the United States Supreme Court declared a federal law unconstitutional. It established the supremacy of the Constitution over laws passed by congress and the right of the court to review the Constitutionality of legislation” (Kutler, 193). “Marshall stated the powers of the legislature are defined and limited…It is emphatically the province and the duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. The Constitution was thus established as a legal document subject to interpretation only by the courts” (U.S. Law, 883).

However, the same technology that empowers the general public also empowers criminals and terrorists. Is it worth it to compromise the privacy of the general public in order to monitor the behavior of a select few potential criminals? Thus far, the consensus has been 'no'; every publicized effort by law enforcement to introduce general surveillance to the Internet has been met by loud public outcry. [Riley] The public simply will not permit law enforcement to do any form of monitoring that is not accompanied by probable cause and a search warrant.

The First Amendment doesn’t give U.S citizens the right to say anything about anyone at any time using any medium. Social media misuse can lead to potential

People might not think about being watched when they’re posting personal experiences in their life on social media. The government has the ability and justification to go through a person’s social media site, listen to phone calls, and read text messages as a way of narrowing down possible suspects for terrorism. The privacy laws in America are what allows the U.S. government to search the digital world for possible threats to the country. Although some say that privacy laws help American citizens keep their confidentiality for medical reasons, also as benefits for social security, I still maintain that privacy laws gives the government undeserved power and can give the impression of being watched .

I read the article What Makes cyber crime laws so difficult to enforces by Deb Shinder of the Tech Republic . The article talks about why it is so hard to control cyber crime and enforce laws that will help prevent and protect people from cyber crime. The article starts about talking about how at first when the internet got mainstream it was not regulated at all, but over the coming years we have passed law that regulate things that you can do on the internet. Even though we have these laws that are not working in protecting people against cyber crime, it even states in the article that “It can be frustrating for the victims of such crimes, when the perpetrators are never brought to justice”. The article goes into different subdivision on what they believe is causing the laws to not be effective. It split into judicial issues, Anonymity and identity, Nature of the evidence.

Every day, millions of people use social media to either converse with their peers or to post pictures. There has been much discussion on whether or not individuals should be prosecuted for rude statements made on social media. Individuals should not be prosecuted for derogative statements made on social media. Although some may say that prosecuting cyberbullies for statements made on social media is beneficial, it would have many negative consequences. Prosecuting individuals for statements made on the internet would discourage personal responsibility, be a violation of the first amendment, and squander tax payers' money.

The government has been monitoring and regulating an every day’s persons website history and what we buy and look at on the Internet. With the Internet growing rapidly and the amount of users on the Internet increasing, the easier it is for the government to find out peoples’ interests. Many people argue whether or not we should have vigorous rules and regulations when it comes to the Internet. One of the main concerns people have when it comes to their Internet is their privacy. There are many people who want to do harm using the tools that the Internet provides us with. The Internet should be regulated but not as harsh as some

This idea was easier to uphold in earlier years when technology was still in its prime and not many people had access to it. In the era of technology today, the internet and new technology are quite accessible for almost anyone on the planet, thus making it quite easy to look up information about any human being. The advancement of technology has eased the burden on governments and corporations when trying to learn about the online activities of citizens. outdated privacy laws aid in the government’s ability to monitor like never before. For example, corporations, today, sell their technology to the highest bidder, expanding the surveillance apparatus for one company.

Cybercrime: to stop serious computer intrusions and the spread of malicious codes; to identify and thwart online sexual predators who meet and exploit children and deal in child pornography; and to dismantle criminal enterprises engaging in Internet fraud.

In this paper, the topic being discussed is how technological surveillance has evolved through the courts. Laws have been in place since the beginning of time. With all the new technological advances being made in the world, questions have arisen in court cases. For example, how much privacy can we expect to get if we disclose information on our networking sites? Is posting something on our wall protected as much as a message? What part of our calls are protected? These are questions the courts have been trying to answer and with technology advancing, questions will continue to increase.

The Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is a federal law enacted by Congress to address concerns about access to offensive content over the Internet on school and library computers (Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)). This act like Children’s Online Privacy Act was implemented due to the advances of today’s internet technology. Because these sites allowed children to gain access to sites that contain media that is harmful to minors, and also allow predators to access the email of minors it was deemed necessary that they be blocked on computers that gave minors access to the internet in public schools and libarays (Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), 2011).

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

In accordance with many decades of cyber evolution, a cybercrime is shown in different ranges of crimes, which depend on the spread of technology and law. From the introduction of computer in the 1960s to the rise of personal computer in 1980s, cybercrime began to appear. The crimes can vary from piracy of software to patent-related crimes. This caused a surge in the introduction of relevant legislation in many countries and international organizations involved. In late 1990s, when Internet and transnational crimes were born, the international community cooperated in many instances such as the passing of the UN General Assembly Resolution 45/121 in 1990 and the manual for the prevention and control of computer-related crimes issued in 1994. Despite all the