Cyberlaw, Regulations, and Compliance – TFT2

I love the law, I think it’s extremely fun to learn about. I suspect mainly because it’s not my actual job, and I’m spared the mind-meltingly tedious parts of it. As such, I enjoyed this class quite a bit, with the one exception of how excruciatingly slow the grading process is. Middle of the month, but it nevertheless took over three days for most of these tasks to get reviewed. Perhaps I just got spoiled by the quick turnaround times I experienced in my undergraduate, but it still felt interminable when a few hours writing and an hour of revising required over a week of waiting for final feedback. After this class is the class where I started writing and submitting in parallel rather than in series, because the feedback rate never got much better.

For each task I used the sample format included in “TFT2 Steps to Success Document”, which was found in the Course Tips. In each case, I used the Word APA template and References tool, and simply created headings and subheadings in direct alignment with the rubric. Page counts are for reference only, should not be considered a guide, and exclude the title and reference pages.

Task 1: If you’ve ever had to justify a security policy to a development team, this should be relatively straightforward. If you’ve never had the pleasure of punching yourself in the temple in said fashion before, pay particular attention to this task. Sources used, two pages.

Task 2: I advise that you first determine which are the breeches you want to address before diving further, lest you make one too broad and have to separate it out later. This was the first task in my program which also required sources be used, which makes sense, given the rubric requirement to provide justification. Sources used, three pages.

Task 3: While I have had to deal with service level agreements before, this went into more depth than I had previously experienced. As a result, I ended up completely reworking several sections when multiple organizational issues cropped up. I leaned very heavily on the sample format for this one. No sources used, five pages.

Task 4: This one I had fun with, even though it was the only one which ended up requiring revisions. There were a few disparities with this task between the sample format and the rubric, and in each case, I deferred to the rubric. The two errors I made in my initial attempt which mandated the revision had nothing to do with the disparities, so I think I made the right call in deferring to the rubric. My first error was that I had interpreted the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act as a series of laws, rather than as one big law, requiring my going back and finding an additional law/regulation. The second error was that I was not sufficiently specific as to how the bank would work with law enforcement, despite having identified appropriate LEOs. Sources used, five pages.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *