Of the many economic theories listed in the Module 11 PowerPoint, the first one that I noticed that related to the sample letter was the idea of Laissez-fare economics, especially the idea of “Laissez-fare” cybersecurity. The letter informed us that the federal government was investigating the breach but we can infer that the government didn’t do anything to prevent it. The government seems to prefer to respond to the incidents after they happen rather than put controls in place at a federal level that stop cyberattacks from happening. While this isn’t necessarily a bad idea, it leaves the businesses to make their own cybersecurity choices for better or for worse, which was worse in this hypothetical scenario. The second theory I noticed that related to the sample letter was the theory of Rational Choice or the idea that individuals and businesses will make economic decisions that benefit them. The business in this scenario made choices preceding and following the incident that they believed to be in their best interest with varying outcomes. Their choice of platform provider seems to be questionable due to the intrusion, but their choice to lend their full power to the police to assist them as well as to tell customers once the time was right was strategic. They made choices based on what would ultimately benefit them in order to make the best recovery they could from the situation. The first social science principle that relates to this is the idea of Parsimony or the idea that explanations should be as simple as possible to avoid confusion. The sample letter explains the situation in a way that can be understood by someone with no cybersecurity knowledge, which is likely most of their customers. By doing this, they can explain the severity of the situation without confusing their customers, ensuring that they are transparent and clear about the incident. The second social science principle that relates to this article is the idea of Objectivity, or that no agenda or point of view should affect the decisions being made. The company is at fault for the attacks but is as objective as possible about what happened, admitting all the facts about the incident and being clear about what happened. By being objective, they can both show their customers that they are willing to own up to their mistakes and ensure that the best outcome is reached due to all information being exposed.