Article review 1: Event Regulating Civil Liability for Artificial Intelligence Damages in Jordanian Legislation<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Caden Reidy
School of Cybersecurity, Old Dominion University
CYSE 201S: Cybersecurity and the Social Sciences<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Diwakar Yalpi BLUF: <\/strong>The article looks at how there is liability for people which is from the harm that AI systems cause while under Jordanian law. The purpose of this article was to advocate for reforms in the Jordan law systems as AI isn\u2019t being controlled and enforced under its laws and relies on the consumers to do this. These reforms were to let the government of Jordan to finally gain control of these AI systems as they were unable to be controlled and monitored for a long time The research questions that this article brings up are, how will Jordan be able to create a legal system with AI liabilities and how can the world learn from what is happening in Jordan right now. The hypothesis is \u201cThe issue of accountability in instances of harm caused by AI constitutes a central area of contention in discussions regarding the accountability of AI in society.\u201d (pg. 103, Event Regulating Civil Liability for Artificial Intelligence Damages in Jordanian Legislation) <\/em>The independent variables of this article are the AIs themselves and which traits do they hold. The dependent variable is the punishment or liability the system holds. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The types of research methods they used were mainly qualitative in which they went through Jordan\u2019s legal code and their Civil Protection Laws. They also did a survey of 100 Jordanian stakeholders of AI companies. They use more qualitative data from places like comparisons of Jordan to other countries, to policies of companies involved, and interviews. Also surveys have been used as stated by the article. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The article brings up how AI brings risks to the economy. How this could also affect weak consumers. This speeds the connection between law and tech as this by showing laws that could be for Jordan itself. It is a warning to the government and shareholders on the inability to deal with AI in Jordan that could quickly lead into dangerous paths as it starts to spiral out of control. Al Wreikat et al Event Regulating Civil Liability for Artificial Intelligence Damages in Jordanian Legislation<\/p>\n\n\n\n View of Event Regulating Civil Liability for Artificial Intelligence Damages in Jordanian Legislation Article Review 3: Ratio Legis of Cybercrime Legislation Policy in Indonesia The relation between social science and this article is that they show how tech can change Indonesian society. It analyzes how the government has the power to change the laws and rules over cyber use and digital law. The article also talks about how the country should do globalization in which they are able to work together with other countries in cross border crimes. Conflict shows up in the article as the legal\u2019s unclear technology systems and how this creates vulnerabilities for them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The research question is how good is Indonesian cybercrime with fighting the newest cyber threats? The hypothesis is they strengthen Indonesia\u2019s cybercrime laws so that it will enhance security and legal certainty. The independent variable is the new changes of the Indonesian cybercrime legislation. The dependent variable is how effective will the cybercrime preventions become, the protection against the cyber threats of the world, and how well law enforcement can deal with these threats.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The type of research methods used are of qualitative research, quantitative did not seem to be used in this article. They would review the Indonesian laws on cybercrime and then compare them to international law. They used primary sources like legal papers and texts. Secondary sources were also present and those were from books and reports from the government. The types of data used was from them doing deductive qualitative research. This pulled certain things from large and broad legal documents. The authors compared different legal systems and how they were dealing with the evolution of cybercrime. The contributions of this study to society are showing how good legislation is able to protect civilians in the digital space. This points out how important it is for a country to be able to connect its cybercrime space and its law and legislation so not only can the people of its country benefit from such, but also other countries can then work together to also gain from it. Ratio Legis of Cybercrime Legislation Policy in Indonesia by: Dossy Iskandar Prasetyo- Universitas Bhayangkara Surabaya, Indonesia, M. Sholehuddin – Universitas Bhayangkara Surabaya, Indonesia, Karim – Universitas Bhayangkara Surabaya, Indonesia Caden Reidy<\/p>\n\n\n\n School of Cybersecurity, Old Dominion University<\/p>\n\n\n\n CYSE 201S: Cybersecurity and the Social Sciences<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr. Yalpi<\/p>\n\n\n\n 4\/15\/2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n Phishing Attacks and Human Behaviors<\/p>\n\n\n\n BLUF: Phishing attacks are something that will be around forever, this is due to human behaviors and cognitive vulnerabilities. The protective measures in order to beat this are perceived importance, self efficacy, perceived severity, and cues of actions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The relation this article has to social science principles are part of a larger theory of behavioral cybersecurity. This puts the cyber field with behavioral economics, behaviorism is a principle that applies in which is where the mindset of the victim and how likely they are to fall for phishing scams can be changed through positive stimuli. Another principle that applies is the Social Cognitive Theory which tells that based on a person’s life and the experiences that it brings, can change how they value things like efficacy and safety. Depending on the person, trade offs would be made to gain one over the other which could make them more vulnerable to phishing scams. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The purpose of this article was to find out what cognitive factors can influence a college student’s responses to a phishing scam. The main research question was, how much can the main factors of the Health Belief Model predict how safe in the cyber space a college student would be. The article stated how they tested all parts of the Health Belief Model (HBM) and that perceived severity, perceived importance, self-efficacy, and cues to action would result in positive cyber behavior while perceived barriers and perceived susceptibility would lead to negative cyber behaviors. The independent variables are the same with Perceived susceptibility, making it perceived likelihood of being targeted, perceived severity; belief in serious consequences. Perceived importance; which is the value of chosen security actions. Perceived barriers, which is where they see the annoyance of security measures. Self efficacy, the ability to spot and prevent a phishing scam. Lastly cue to action, things like alerts and raising awareness on campus. The dependent variable was the security behavior of the students, or the reported actions used against phishing. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The research methods used to find this was through quantitative methods. There were 569 students from a college in Indonesia. The main way in gathering data was through a student survey. The analysis of the data that was collected was through systems like AMOS 23.0. They cleaned any outliers, used things like confirmatory factor analysis which confirmed factor loadings. CB SEM was used to test the hypotheses and check a model. Tests like reliability were done through Cronbach\u2019s alpha. The relation to a class concept has multiple concepts, humans are often the weakest link in a system. Security factors can easily be bypassed after the victim is manipulated. The psychological framework HBM can explain how people act or fail to act on beliefs that are internal. The cost-benefit analysis looks at the perceived barriers, it mirrors the cost benefit in economics where they weigh the benefits and annoyances of certain security measures. The digital literacy factor comes in, where the student feels overconfidence and isn\u2019t making real security measures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The challenges for marginalized groups are those of social economic vulnerability, which would be developing countries. In countries like Indonesia looking for opportunities to become rich would be more likely to fall for phishing. Another group would be Non IT students, the students that do not have any cybersecurity training.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The societal contribution is from creating awareness for developing new cyber training systems to inform the public of the risks in phishing. Another contribution is this study boosts the resilience students and normal people without training have against phishing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This study was a very important addition to behavioral cybersecurity literature. It shows the importance of the different topics in HBM. It tries to move the world away from what defense measures of just having a thin layer over everyone. Now we must try and give more human training to fight against the phishing scams that focus on the human.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Gwenhure, Anderson Kevin. \u201cUniversity Students\u2019 Security Behavior against Email Phishing Attacks: Insights from the Health Belief Model.\u201d Journal of Cybersecurity<\/em>, vol. 11, no. 1, 2025, academic.oup.com\/cybersecurity\/article\/11\/1\/tyaf034\/8313771?utm_source=chatgpt.com&login=true, https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1093\/cybsec\/tyaf034<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Article review 1: Event Regulating Civil Liability for Artificial Intelligence Damages in Jordanian Legislation Caden ReidySchool of Cybersecurity, Old Dominion UniversityCYSE 201S: Cybersecurity and the Social Sciences Diwakar Yalpi2\/26\/2026 BLUF: The article looks at how there is liability for people which is from the harm that AI systems cause while under Jordanian law. The purpose… <\/p>\n
<\/strong>2\/26\/2026
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The connection to social science principles is how human laws cannot contain AI as it isn\u2019t a country or a living being. This idea is from Durkheim in social laws around tech evolution. The risks it brings can come to hurt people, social circles, and economies with how it can\u2019t be predicted. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
Caden Reidy
School of Cybersecurity, Old Dominion University
CYSE: 201S: Cybersecurity and the Social Sciences\u00a0
Diwakar Yalpi
<\/strong>2\/26\/2026
<\/strong> \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Indonesian evolution in the cybercrime legal system<\/strong>
<\/strong>BLUF: <\/strong>The article goes over the evolution of Indonesia and its cybercrime legal system. The finding is that to ensure public safety in Indonesia as least in a digital sense they would need to create understandable and clear laws, improve the legal provisions, and start working together with other countries around the world in case of a international cybercrime.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The connections to others were from the legal stand point in showing how the law and bills are able to change with technology and its ever evolving scene. This also told about how nations are now required to collaborate in operations as criminals of the cyber space can commit a crime in one country while being across the world. THe connection to marginalized groups is not a very focused topic in this article but they are mentioned on how child protection is a group that is at risk in this environment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
View of Ratio Legis of Cybercrime Legislation Policy in Indonesia<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n