Joel, a former employee of NetworkBank, an online bank, decided to exact some re

Question

Joel, a former employee of NetworkBank, an online bank, decided to exact some revenge. Though his official access to the bank's records was removed, he was able to hack into the bank's database of customer information, obtaining passwords associated with customer debit cards. Using debit card numbers and passwords, he purchased merchandise online from various venders, including online auction sites, such as eBay. Among the bank customers whose accounts he raided was Elle, a consumer, and Pet Products, Inc., a business that sells pet products online. Joel took $85 from Elle's checking account the first time, which she didn't notice until a week later, at which point she notified NetworkBank. Joel took $350 from Elle's account a few weeks later, which she noticed the next day and immediately reported to the bank. Joel accessed Pet Products, Inc., just once, for $3,450, which the company noticed the next day and reported to NetworkBank.

Joel also wanted revenge against a former NetworkBank employee, Gwen, who he believed to be responsible for his firing. She left the bank and was working elsewhere. Using Internet search engines, he found postings that Gwen had made to chat rooms on various Internet sites. Using this information, Joel contacted PrivateI.com, an Internet based information and investigation service. He paid the fee required for an investigation on Gwen, and obtained her home and work addresses and telephone numbers. PrivateI.com did not inquire why Joel wanted the information about Gwen. Joel followed Gwen as she exited her workplace one night and attacked her, injuring her severely. Joel is now under arrest.

A. What remedies do Elle and Pet Products, Inc. have against NetworkBank for the unauthorized fund transfers? What law applies?

B. What is the extent of liability for the consumers in this scenario?

C. May Gwen hold PrivateI.com liable for her injuries? Why or why not?

D. What preventative actions should the businesses mentioned in this scenario have undertaken to prevent what occurred here?

Explanation / Answer

The issue in given question is ruled under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

A.

Since, Elle and Pet Products, Inc. have reported and notified their complaints to NetworkBank well within the time limits prescribed under the said Act. Therefore, they have a right to file a plaint for claim for recovery of damages and losses suffered due to unauthorized access to NetworkBanks' database by an ex-employee. The NetworkBank shall be liable to make good the losses and damages suffered by Elle and Pet Products. However, at the same time NetworkBank has legal right to file a suit against their ex-employee Joel

B.

Liability for the consumers in this scenario is limited to the quantum of loss or damage suffered by the consumer due to hacking and unauthorized dealings through their account.

C.

Privatel.com have had access to confidential information of its customer and they are responsible to keep them confidential. They cannot provide such confidential information to anyone without the permission of the customer or under some legal obligations to do so. In the given case they have disclosed such confidential information about Gwen to Joel against receipt of some fees without enquiring on the need to know and right to know of Joel. Therefore, Privatel.com can be very well held liable for injuries caused to Gwen for their inappropriate action.

D. The Businesses mentioned in this scenario should have undertaken following preventive actions to prevent what occured here;

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse J
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.