Cyber security

(a) Federal Substantive Power. Consider notes 5 and 6 at p. 734 (and think about the concerns raised in notes 1, 2, 4, and 7 at pp. 732-35). Briefly state what you believe the answer should be to the question posed in note 6. Explain and defend your answer.
(b) Federal Procedural Limitations. Consider the bullet points at pp. 735-37 (concerning the territorial scope of federal court orders). Comment on any issue that strikes you.
2. State Power.
(a) The Dormant Commerce Clause. Consider note 2 at p. 755, and the other notes at pp. 755-60. Briefly describe or define: federal preemption, and the “dormant commerce clause.” Briefly explain how you think the question posed in note 2 is likely to be answered, and then briefly explain how you believe it should be answered.
(b) State Procedural Limits: Extraterritorial Collection of Evidence. Consider the text at pp. 760-61 and notes 4-9 at pp. 769-73, then answer the questions posed in note 11 at p. 773-74.
3. International Computer Crimes.
(a) How Far Should the U.S. Go? Consider p. 774, and notes 1-7 at 780-84, and then briefly answer the questions posed in notes 1 and 2 at p. 780-81, giving reasons to support your conclusions.
(b) What About Process—statutory? Consider the text at p. 784 and notes 1-5 at pp. 791-92 (statutory privacy outside the US), and then briefly answer the questions posed by note 2.
(c) What about Process—Constitutional (Fourth Amendment)? Consider the text at p. 792 and notes 1-7 at pp. 800-07, and then select any one of the issues raised in note 5 at pp. 804-06 (there are a number of questions, but the chief of them is probably the relationship between the standards governing foreign searches “exclusively” by the U.S. government, and foreign searches by “joint investigations.”) Can you reconcile the two sets of law?
(d) Synchronizing Computer Crime Law. Consider the text at p. 807 and notes 1-5 and 7-8 at pp. 813-18
(note: some additional facts relating to the “I love you” virus, referenced in note 7 at p. 817 were provided in the casebook in note 4 at p. 782-83).
Give an answer to the problem referenced in note 8 at p. 817-18 (and in the “alterna-tively” paragraph having to do with First Amendment issues, add the possibility of for-eign “hate crime” or “group libel” or “insult to religion” statutes as applied to prevent criticism of certain religions). NOTE: the laws of many countries in Europe, the Middle East, and elsewhere have strict penalties for matters we might not be quick to think of as “hate” crimes.
(e) The Council of Europe (COE) Convention on Cybercrime, and its Separate Pro-tocol. Consider the COE Convention, at pp. 818-24 and briefly answer the question posed by any one of notes 1, 2, or 4 at p. 824-27 (what do you think about the pro-tocol, at n. 2, that requires the criminalization of “… insulting a person… on the basis of the person’s… religion…”? and what would you think are the chances, see the question at n. 4, that the U.S. the French, the Germans [and the Iranians, Saudi Arabians, and others] would interpret that phrase “in exactly (or even roughly) the same way?” (what could possibly go wrong?)
 
D. Discussion Board Prompt (Discussion Board 10, Assigned in Week 14)
Look at the issues raised in the subparts of questions 1, 2, or 3 (you may choose to answer them as a policy question, as a legal question, or as a conundrum to be discussed) and then…
Identify (frame) the issue specifically and (i) explain why it is significant and how it might be resolved (or why it is difficult to resolve), and (ii) come to a conclusion (or explain why a conclusion is elusive).