{"id":408,"date":"2025-12-08T02:39:43","date_gmt":"2025-12-08T02:39:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/jahmeelcampbell\/?page_id=408"},"modified":"2025-12-08T02:39:43","modified_gmt":"2025-12-08T02:39:43","slug":"skills-artifacts2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/jahmeelcampbell\/skills-artifacts2\/","title":{"rendered":"Skills\/Artifacts2"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p><strong>Skill: Cyber Law, Ethics &amp; Human Factors<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Artifact 1: CFAA Analysis \u2013 Van Buren v. United States (Cyber Law Discussion Board)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This artifact comes from my Cyber Law class where we studied how real court cases shape the rules and boundaries of cybersecurity work. For this assignment I had to analyze the Supreme Court\u2019s decision in&nbsp;<em>Van Buren v. United States<\/em>&nbsp;a major case involving the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). The goal was to understand the difference between \u201cunauthorized access\u201d and simply misusing access you already have. This paper shows my ability to read legal opinions, break down arguments, apply cybersecurity concepts=and understand how law and policy guide what security professionals are allowed to do.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\" \/>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Full Text of Artifact<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Discussion Board 3 \u2013 CFAA Analysis (Cyber Law)<\/strong><br>After reading Van Buren v. United States (2021), I agree with the Supreme Court\u2019s majority. They decided that Sergeant Van Buren didn\u2019t violate the CFAA because he had permission to use the database, but he did it for the wrong reason. The law is meant for hackers who break into systems they\u2019re not supposed to not for people who already have access and make a bad choice with it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>That makes sense to me. Van Buren was wrong for running that license plate for personal gain but that\u2019s something his department should handle and not a federal case. If the Court said he broke the CFAA, then almost anyone who breaks a company rule online could face federal charges .<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The dissent felt he should still be guilty since he went against policy and used the system for personal reasons. I understand that but the majority\u2019s take is more reasonable. It keeps the CFAA focused on real hacking and unauthorized access not every time someone misuses what they already have permission to use. I think the Court got it right. It keeps the law clear fair and focused on real cybercrimes &nbsp;not small mistakes or bad decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<hr class=\"wp-block-separator has-alpha-channel-opacity\" \/>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Interdisciplinary Significance<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>This artifact demonstrates how cybersecurity, criminal law, ethics, and policy overlap. The case forced me to look at how legal definitions affect real cybersecurity work and how important it is for professionals to understand the laws that govern digital access. I had to combine legal reasoning from the Supreme Court, ethical thinking about responsibility and misuse of access, and cybersecurity knowledge about what counts as \u201chacking.\u201d This assignment strengthened my understanding of how different disciplines work together to shape cybersecurity decisions in the real world.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Skill: Cyber Law, Ethics &amp; Human Factors Artifact 1: CFAA Analysis \u2013 Van Buren v. United States (Cyber Law Discussion Board) This artifact comes from my Cyber Law class where we studied how real court cases shape the rules and boundaries of cybersecurity work. For this assignment I had to analyze the Supreme Court\u2019s decision&#8230; <\/p>\n<div class=\"link-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/jahmeelcampbell\/skills-artifacts2\/\">Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":29731,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"footnotes":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/jahmeelcampbell\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/408"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/jahmeelcampbell\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/jahmeelcampbell\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/jahmeelcampbell\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/29731"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/jahmeelcampbell\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=408"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/jahmeelcampbell\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/408\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":409,"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/jahmeelcampbell\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/408\/revisions\/409"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.wp.odu.edu\/jahmeelcampbell\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=408"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}