a. Some people argue that a hacker who defaces a Web page of a government entity

Question

a. Some people argue that a hacker who defaces a Web page of a government entity such as the White House, Congress, or Parliament should receive harsher punishment than a hacker who defaces a Web page of a private company or organization. Give some arguments for and against this view

b. The term of use of the website for a major concern ticket seller prohibit automated purchases. Should a person who used a software program t purchase a larger number of tickets be prosecuted for exceeding authorized access to the site? why or why not?

c. Identify several issues raised by this scenario: Someone in California posts on amazon.com a very critical review of a new book written by a British author. The review says the writer is an incompentent fool without a single good idea; he can’t even express the bad idea sclearly and probably did not graduate from grade school; he should be washing dishes in stead of wasting paper and the reader’s time.The author files a lawsuit for libel in England agaist the reviewer and Amazon.

Please answer eack question one by one with Proper details

Explanation / Answer

“Some people argue that a hacker who defaces a Web page of a government entity such as the White House, Congress, or Parliament should receive harsher punishment than a hacker who defaces a Web page of a private company or organization. Give some arguments for and against this view”

The term “Webpage dege defacement” is an impact to the website. Its will change the visual apperance of the website. As per my understand on the same, hacker having specific goal on each defacement.

Usually hacker mostly focus on religious and government websites as per the UNO current statistics based on 2016.

Coming to our main concept, in favor of both situations

          “Hacker involved in defacement is generalized wether its government website or private company website. Defacement happended in either of websites runes the public privacy and leads to uncertanity , so we need to be figure out based on the how much impact by particular defacement of website instead of differentiating the private or government website. Hacker punishment should proportional to the imapct range”

In favor of government entitys,

          “As we can understand that, public without thinking 1 sec, they’ll provide complete information to the government because trust worthy. But for private sector it’s difficult to get the data from public. What I mean to say here is, under the government sector huge public data is avaiable. So if hacker invloved in the defacement of public website will more chance to harsher punishment”

The term of use of the website for a major concern ticket seller prohibit automated purchases. Should a person who used a software program to purchase a larger number of tickets be prosecuted for exceeding authorized access to the site? why or why not?

“Purchasing the with certain limit (will vary from website to website) is legalized, if that limit exceeds no allowed to book anymore.We need to understand main theme under this activity is , “giving fruit to the public irrespective of rich or poor and meet their basic requirement”. If a person using illigal activity to purchase more ticket, its like taking from other person, which is not in lawsuit. So such person should be prosecuted”

Identify several issues raised by this scenario: Someone in California posts on amazon.com a very critical review of a new book written by a British author. The review says the writer is an incompentent fool without a single good idea; he can’t even express the bad idea sclearly and probably did not graduate from grade school; he should be washing dishes in stead of wasting paper and the reader’s time.The author files a lawsuit for libel in England against the reviewer and Amazon.

          “Giving review by someone is purely his right, nobody need to be involved in that wether the owner or product seller. Sharing opnion on specific thing is public right, he done his job properly. In our scenario, author files a lawsuit agaist the reviewer is not good thing. Extend the communicatio with reviewer to find the fitfalls in his book. So as generalized to say that “Giving a review is basic right and best marketting strategy , if files lawsuit against means to say that trying to take back the public right and it’ll reduce business activity”

          “Suggestion to the reviewer, instead of critising the author on the same, please list out the fitfalls so he has chance to correct it ”

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse A
• Subjects

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