Está en la página 1de 5

Running head: DROPPING ANOMALOUS CYBER CASE ANALYSIS 1

Dropping Anomalous Cyber Case Analysis

Students Name

Learning Institution
DROPPING ANOMALOUS CYBER CASE ANALYSIS 2

Introduction

The issues revolving around the cases of international hacking law suit needs a critical

examination of the situations around which the said event happened. Determination of the

victims as well as suspects may take different forms. In the said international hack law suit,

cyber Tech is working as the cyber forensics consultant for the firm with the case in court, which

relates to the hack of the office of the personnel management-OPM. The hack affected the

information of over million workers. In connection to the OPM hack case, several firms had been

linked to the case, and one of them was the Anomalous as well as some other U.S companies like

the equation set in which Anomalous is a defendant. What makes the case even more

complicated is that, the OPM victims, the principle cyber forensics consultant, Cyber Tech also

represent the OPM breach department in other unrelated cases which in some way denotes some

conflicts of interests, and the public image is likely to be damaged.

The current paper thus seeks to employ some critical thinking and analytical skills in

deciding whether the Cyber Tech Company should handle both the OPM breach case

investigations and the overseas case all at the same time or otherwise should the company have

to drop of the cases so as to avoid a upsurge of conflict of interests. The paper supports the

Anomalous Company as a client, with special concentration on OPM as a client. The paper will

engage a discussion in what is known and that which is unknown in determining the most

resilient remedy to the situations.

Information Analysis

It is evident that, the Anomalous company had the equation set U.S company attempt to

hack its system earlier before the occurrence of the OPM hack in the year 2015, implying that,

the company to be placed in the OPM hack case in the first place, should not be the Anomalous.
DROPPING ANOMALOUS CYBER CASE ANALYSIS 3

When the investigations are launched, the first company that should be treated as suspect should

the ones with earlier such cybercrime records rather than the companies with no such bad

records. Also, it is very likely that the close arrays in the U.S economy would be the first suspect

due to market related issues and interests that would lead to the hacking of the company

information unlike none U.S suspect the Anomalous.

On the other hand, while the Cyber Tech Company may have the clients from diversified

grounds, it is very important that they represent both clients sufficiently, with unbiaseness

(Anderson, 2013). However in the event of representing a company on one side, while it is suing

the same company in another case, it is like that the company may compromise the impartiality

aspects that are needed in the representation especially with the international lawsuits evidence

in the case here. In addition, it is likely that the company Anomalous may expose some of the

confidential information relating the company, Cyber Tech in the event they get prosecuted for

the OPM breach case which it is been suspected for and the company Cyber Tech may lose a

stake in the international market for playing double standards.

Recommendations

The company Cyber Tech forensics consultant should drop the case with the OPM for

another company to help the OPM in the international law suit, since doing this, will

automatically damage not only the credit it has on the Anomalous company, but also its very

own public image on grounds of playing double standards (Smith, 2008). It is very clear that, the

Cyber Tech company has more information that when obliged by the case preceding with the

OPM, it is likely to reveal this to the OPM which would put the Anomalous at a risk of being

charged in the court of law for a crime that is not very clear whether they were the ones involved.
DROPPING ANOMALOUS CYBER CASE ANALYSIS 4

Cyber Tech has the information that relates to the Equation set and the Anomalous

company due to the earlier claims over the Equations sets attempts to hack the Anomalous

company systems, hence to defend the Anomalous company interest from start to the end, the

company should withdraw from the OPM case, since it is not easy to defend a client and then

afterwards you are suing and doing ground search on the same client as a suspect. On the

contrary, the Cyber Tech should defend the Anomalous Company, based on critical thinkings

perspective that, the said company may have committed the crime on the OPM, and then passed

the blame on historical behavior of the Equation set that it had ones tried hacking theirs (Britz,

2009). As such, it would be total mess up in the event the Cyber Tech crosses the line and sue the

same client they defended in a different set up. Otherwise, more suspects should be brought into

records.

Conclusion

Cyber Tech would be playing double standards by participating both on the local and

international law suits hence they should drop one in order to not compromise their

professionalism as well as privacy protection of the client. Anomalous deserves the protection of

the Cyber Tech in the OPM allegations. More investigations are required in connection to laying

more suspects in relation to the OPM bleach case rather than the two companies. OPM hack

case, affected a lot of the workers privacy protection going to a tune of up to a million, and

should thus be examined faster to bring about justice.


DROPPING ANOMALOUS CYBER CASE ANALYSIS 5

References
Anderson, R. B. (2013). Measuring the cost of cybercrime. In The economics of information

security and privacy . Newyork: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Britz, M. T. (2009). Computer Forensics and Cyber Crime: An Introduction. Delhi: Pearson

Education India.

Smith, R. G. (2008). Cyber criminals on trial. . Criminal Justice Matters, 22-23.

También podría gustarte