****Read and respond to student post. At least 150 words per response.****Discussion 1:“Delinquency is the product of a complex set of factors and that juvenile justice exists within a complex social context that has real and profound effects on the practice of juvenile justice” (Elrod, 2014, p. 50). The development, distribution, and management of economic and political resources not only has an impact on “the behavior of young people in society, but also influences the operation of important social institutions, including those institutions that comprise the so-called juvenile justice system” (p. 73). Political decisions made within juvenile justice agencies also can affect “the allocation of monetary and human resources, the amount and types of training given to staff, as well as the types of programs that are operated by those agencies” (p. 73).“So much of who we are depends on our contact with other people, the social context in which we function, and when you remove people from that context, they begin to lose their very sense of self” (Ramlagan, 2014), states Craig Haney, psychology professor at the University of California Santa Cruz. Taking a juvenile out of their social context, and placing them in seclusion, can cause them to lose their sense of self. It was noted in a 1993 report by the National Commission on Children that economic security is essential to a child’s well-being “because of the goods and opportunities they provide to places, such as, schools, programs for youth, and support for family and individual problems; furthermore, economic status is an important factor from a juvenile justice perspective, because it appears to be strongly related to delinquent behavior” (Ramlagan, 2014, p. 55).The outcome of this evaluation could show that the practice of seclusion is unethical on the grounds that it is psychologically damaging and promotes institutional misconduct.Before starting this discussion, I believed that the seclusion policy was beneficial, as it removed the misbehaving juvenile, thereby ensuring the safety of him/her and others. Putting a juvenile in ‘time out’ for a short period does tend to give the juvenile time to reflect on what he/she did, and maybe stop their disruptive behavior. However, after doing research on this subject, I have learned of its unethical use, and the many detrimental effects this practice has had on juveniles and have, therefore changed my opinion.Discussion 2:Put your selected topic (Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986) in its appropriate social context and identify important ethical considerations inherent in the evaluation. Identify and explain the impact of political issues associated with the proposed evaluation. Focus both on political factors such as socio-economics, race, or gender, as well as political nuances that might include issues about city or state government. The impact of relevant issues and cultural constraints associated with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act would be an individual charged under the Act for hacking that could have been beneficial to computer security. The hacking community or culture may be different than when the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was established. “Hackers are driven by more benign motivations such as curiosity, a feeling of power, and the camaraderie of belonging to a community. Crackers hope to profit from their computer crimes, although this does not mean that personal enrichment is their sole motivation” (Skibell, 2003, p. 937). If an individual or group is working to improve the computer security and trying to prevent a cyber-attack, cybercrime, cyber-terrorist, cyber-warfare, identity theft or cyber fraud, then these individuals should have some securities regarding prosecutions under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Also, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act does not define if an individual can be exempt under the Act. “Another problem with deterrence is that it ignores the makeup the hacker community, hackers do not intentionally damage networks or commit fraud, do not see themselves as criminals, and enforce a code of conduct that functions as a form of self-regulation” (Skibell, 2003, p. 937). The cultural issue with the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is that many companies use hackers to test the security of their networks. If an individual was to test or access the wrong network or unauthorized data within a network the individual could face charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. “Hackers have been successful in pointing out security problems and suggesting improvements. Hacks are often discovered, reported, and patched by hackers without compromising someone else’s computer or security” (Skibell, 2003, p. 938). The criminalization of all individuals that have accessed digital data, programs, or networks without authority hinders the digital security community and the hacker culture from being able to help improve computer security from fear of facing long prison sentences under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Regarding socio-economics, race, or gender and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is that anyone can be charged under the Act. Examples, an underage individual could be charged for sharing hacked information onto a social media outlet. A young to middle age adult could be charged for accessing sensitive data on a website that did not properly secure the data. An elderly individual could be charged for downloading a file that was on a sharing website. Educated computer users to the average computer user of any age could be charged for any of the above examples. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is a federal statute that gives the federal government and federal agencies like the FBI the authority to investigate cybercrimes and prosecute cybercriminals, which means the CFAA has limited effects on state or local law enforcement agencies. Also, identify and discuss the most surprising thing you found in your research that caused you to reevaluate a previously held opinion. One of the most surprising things that I have learned regarding the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act was how it allowed for prosecutor discretion. “Prosecutorial discretion/lack of resources, most cybercrime goes unpunished, a small number of high profile cases are prosecuted for political reasons and deterrent effect. That prosecution efforts of the CFAA are focused on making examples out of headline-grabbing, ideologically motivated hackers” (Holloway, & Glapa, 2017, slide. 14 & 25). Also because of prosecutorial discretion limited cases have been prosecuted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. “CFAA case breakdown for the past 30 years: total cases 442, 89% of total cases were civil (374 cases), 11% of the total cases were criminal (48 cases), 57% of the total cases involved an employee or former employee (242 cases), only 18% of the cases were about hacking (74 cases)” (Hollow, & Glapa, 2017, slide. 19). The CFAA has been inactive for over 30 years now, and data shows that the Act has had limited success achieving its intended goals. Some other factors about the CFAA that are surprising are that an individual can be charged under the Act for sharing digital data even if the individual does not realize or know the data has been hacked. “Once an individual has downloaded or distributed hacked information without specific permission or a fair use license, they have exposed themselves to potential criminal liability under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. An individual who retweets or forwards a link to a website containing hacked information could potentially be viewed as an accessory to the hack after the fact. A hack after the fact not only leads to criminal penalties but a civil cause of action under the Act” (Wolfe, 2015, p. 301). This was surprising that individuals that may be trying to prevent a cyber-attack may fear to speak about something they have found out of fear of facing long term prison sentences under the CFAA. Some more ethical issues regarding the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is it hinders individuals that may prevent a data breach from notifying third parties of any form of security issues within a company’s network. “A security researcher had warned Equifax months before its catastrophic data breach that it was vulnerable to the kind of attack that later compromised the personal data of more than 145 million Americans. The security researcher who discovered the vulnerability in Equifax’s system in 2016 should have been empowered to bring their findings to someone else’s attention after Equifax ignored them. If they had, the breach might have been avoided. Instead, they faced the risk of a CFAA lawsuit and potentially decades in federal prison” (Williams, 2017, para. 5 & 6). Security researchers are handicapped by the CFAA in notifying anyone that may not have authorization to a digital network or computer that the system is at risk of an attack by cybercriminals.
