Cybercrime Legislation, Ramification of legislation science

Cybercrime Legislation
A gap exists between current trends in cybercrime and the government’s response via legislation and regulations. In the face of jurisdictional issues, constitutional issues, and a complex maze of federal and local statutes, it is difficult to identify a cohesive and efficient legal response to the ever evolving nature of computer related crimes. Rapidly advancing technology and its use in criminal behavior makes it difficult for legislation to keep pace in efforts to prevent and address cybercrime. There is a pressing need to implement strategies to better prepare for emerging trends in crime and to coordinate with a variety of business, social, and educational institutions; all levels of government; and other nations around the world.
For this Discussion, consider the ramifications of legislation being unable to keep pace with emerging uses of technology for criminal behavior.

Post by Day 4 a description of two possible ramifications of legislation being unable to keep pace with emerging uses of technology for criminal behavior. Then provide possible ways to address each ramification. Finally, explain any impacts on society of legislation being unable to keep pace with emerging uses of technology for criminal behavior.

One and a half page with at least two references….

It is important that you cover all the topics identified in the assignment. Covering the topic does not mean mentioning the topic BUT presenting an explanation from the readings for this class

To get maximum points you need to follow the requirements listed for this assignments 1) look at the page limits 2) review and follow APA rules 3) create subheadings to identify the key sections you are presenting and 4) Free from typographical and sentence construction errors.

Readings

Course Text: Taylor, R. W., Fritsch, E. J., & Liederbach, J. (2015). Digital crime and digital terrorism. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Chapter 10, “Digital Laws and Legislation” (review)

Article: Carucci, D., Overhuls, D., & Soares, N. (2011). Computer crimes. American Criminal Law Review, 48(2), 375–419.Article: Coakley, M. (2009). Privacy protection, safety and security: A state law enforcement perspective. The Computer & Internet Lawyer, 26(4), 1–11.Article: Kahn, S. (2010). “Apps.Gov”: Assessing privacy in the cloud computing era. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology Online Edition, 11, 259–289. Retrieved from http://ncjolt.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/V11_On_Khan.pdf
Article: Lorentz, D. (2011). The effectiveness of litigation under the CAN-SPAM Act. The Review of Litigation, 30(3), 559–605.Article: Rees, A. (2006). Cybercrime laws of the United States. Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from http://www.oas.org/juridico/spanish/us_cyb_laws.pdf
Article: Shekhter, S. (2011). Every step you take, they’ll be watching you: The legal and practical implications of lifetime GPS monitoring of sex offenders. Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 38(4), 1085–1111.
Article: Stansky, L. (2009). Internet law and cybercrime: The future is here. Student Lawyer, 37(6), 8–10.