Essentially, the Dutch law defines a computer as a machine, which serves three functions including storage, processing and transmission of data. It is imperative to note that any ruling anywhere in the world is based on the written or unwritten interpretation of the law. This paper intends to examine, the extent to which the definition of a computer in the Dutch law influences the Dutch courts to make a ruling in favor of a student who hacked a router. A router is a gadget or device, which forwards data packets along networks. Routers are normally located at the gateways and not at the computers.
Do you agree with the Dutch courts decision? Why/Why not?
I agree with the Dutch courts. This is because the Dutch law leaves a loophole of arguing why hacking a router is not the same as hacking a computer. As observed, a router neither is a computer nor connected to computer consequently no grounds of illegalizing its hacking. This loophole in the Dutch law saw the courts rule in favor of the student.Question two
Do you think a router should be considered a computer? Consider the differences and similarities from a legal AND technical perspective. Are they different? Explain in detail.
A router should not be considered as a computer. From a technical point of view, a router functions differently from a computer. Whereas a computer serves the functions of storage, processing and transmission of data, a router connects diverse networks and processes data. On the other hand, the legal perspective only the computer is defined under the Dutch law. The router is not defined any way under the Dutch law consequently, no basis of making a ruling on undefined instrument.
What impact does this ruling have on a corporate network security? Would it be legal for me to capture corporate wireless traffic in the Netherlands? Explain
This ruling intends to pose aan immense challenge on the corporate network security in terms of protecting their networks from hacking. In addition, it should be observed that the ruling is an incentive for creativity in technology to ensure secure networks free from hacking. The corporate network security should invest incredibly in protecting the networks. Depending on this landmark ruling, it will not be a crime to capture corporate wireless traffic. This is because the wireless traffic is defined in the law, as a crime consequently challenging its illegality is likely to fall short of the court standards basing on the precedent of this ruling.
What is OPSEC? How do you think this ruling affects proper OPSEC?
OPSEC means operation security, which is a process, applied to deny rivals classified information. This information could either harm the sender or benefit the receiver (adversary). It is probable that the ruling would affect OPSEC because; intensified hacking would render the OPSEC inadequate in classifying the information before releasing it.
Related Informative essays
- The Nacirema Culture
- That Is not What Happened
- Kentucky v. King
- IEEE 802 Standards
- Overdue Wages, Claiming Labor Rights and Fired after Site Accident
- Project paper - Abnormal Earnings Model Valuation
- Elements of a Contract
- Life Changing Experience-"My Mom's Brain Aneurysm"
- Organizational Impact
- Collage Paper