Solved by: AllAcademicHelp.com
CSE2HUM – Assignment 3 – Group Reporton Cybercrime Business Models (25% ofOverall Mark)Due: 23:59, 25/10/19.Instructions:Using theoretical and conceptual tools covered in the course as well as ideas sourced from independentresearch, work as a team to develop a report in formal prose (1000 words per student) that criticallyexamines one cybercrime business model.Because this assignment is marked based on individual contributions, you are required to include, atthe very end of your report, an appendix in which all individual contributions to the report areinventoried and attributed to contributors. Your individual marks will be based on everything listed asyour contribution in this appendix, so it is imperative that you not only ensure that your contributionsare all logged comprehensively, you must also all agree on who did what before submission.Your report must:1. Identify and ‘classify’ your chosen cybercrime business model. This will require at least somereference to a classification system, or recourse to some kind of framework that will permit youto clearly distinguish your chosen cybercrime business model from that of others. What makesyour chosen cybercrime business model different to others, and why is it a cybercrime businessmodel?2. Critically evaluate the impact that existing social and ‘ethical’ corporate (think politicaleconomic) responsibilities (think policies, rules, legislation, regulations, accountability, publicexpectations etc.) have on your team’s cybercrime business model’scapabilities/viability/risk/profitability etc. (i.e., what are companies already required/expectedto do to try and combat or defend against your cybercrime business model, and what kind ofeffect(s), if any, do these responsibilities have on your chosen cybercrime business model?).a. Note: You are free to decide what metric(s) you would prefer to use to assess/quantify‘impact’, but you will need to include a clear definition of your conceptualization in yourreport.3. Identify and critically evaluate the potential for success, and the ethical implications of, at leastone proposed regulatory approach to behavior modification that could be used to combat yourgroup’s chosen cybercrime business model. (I.e., critically evaluate at least one countermeasureto your cybercrime business model that has been suggested/recommend for implementation).4. Develop and outline an ethical and (theoretically) effective policy (or policies) suitable fordefending against your cybercrime business model. Your policy/policies must clearlyaccommodate for, and ideally focus on, any combination of human factors covered in thiscourse.a. Note: The efficacy of your hypothetical policy/policies does not need to be provenpractically! This element of the assignment will be assessed based on the quality of thearguments you employ for why your policy/policies would be effective if implemented.• Concentrate primarily on demonstrating your understanding of, and ability to, critically analyzethe theoretical/conceptual material covered in this subject’s readings, lectures and labs. Highestmarks are always reserved for those who can go beyond description and critically synthesizecourse content.• You must also demonstrate your ability to critically analyze and articulate in your own wordsyour own conceptualizations of the key concepts featured in the assignment prompt: criticallydefine and explain the assignment’s keywords.• As always, I only want to see arguments, not opinions. Be selective, be strategic, be concise.• The 10% rule in terms of word limit applies (10% under or 10% over the specified word limit willnot attract a penalty to your marks).• Lecture slides may be used as a guide for finding suitable references for your assignment, butthey should not be referenced in-lieu of the texts and scholarly work on which the slides arebased (or at least relevant equivalents/alternatives to those texts).• Remember, practically all assignments, not just those in this subject but in general, are designedto assess your mastery of course content – show the assessor that you not only understandwhat has been covered in the course so far, but also that you can take it apart, explain how itworks, put it back together again, and, most importantly, show us that you can apply what youhave learnt from the course.Please note that the attached rubric is to be used as a guide (and is provided mainly for your benefit).This rubric is not to be confused with some kind of rigid or mechanistic formula that decides yourassignments’ final grade.Marking Rubric:
Assessed Material <50% 50-59% 60-69% 70-79% 80-100%The Key Theoretical Terms & ConceptsDrawn from Course Content Integratedinto the essay’s Arguments 30%:… are not named/usedincorrectly/vaguelydefined.…are named but notdefined.… are named, defined,and incorporated intotext.… are briefly defined,incorporated into thetext, and used tosupport argument(s).… are conciselydefined, criticallyanalysed, and used tosupport argument(s).Argument 30%: Mostly descriptive. Littleanalysis. Rarely addressesthe contention. Not clearlyrelated to essay question.Descriptive. Someanalysis.Exploration rather thanargument. Addressescontention in passing.Some clear analysis.Frequently addressesthe contentionMostly clear andcritical analysis.Always addresses thecontentionConsistently clear andcritical analysis.Contention is soundand convincing.Relevant reading and research 10%: Non-academic orotherwise unreliablesources used/Sources usedare potentiallymisunderstood.insufficient incorporationof sources/over-relianceon one or two sources.Cursory understanding ofsources used is evident.Sufficientincorporation ofsources showsadequateunderstanding ofsources.Skillfully incorporatedand critically analyzedsources. Sourcesbeyond requiredreadings prominent.Strong understandingof sources used isdemonstrated.Wide reading on thetopic as well as astrong awareness ofmultiple perspectivesthrough that readingevident.Overall clarity and quality of writing 10%: Difficult to read. Poorquoting / grammar/spelling/vocab/punctuation/paragraphing etc.Relatively easy to readbut more proofingneeded / verboseClear expression /Essay has beeneffectively editedWell written.Development ofargument clearlyoutlined. Sentencesflow. Succinct.Well written. Clear lineof argument. Engagingstyle.Harvard in-text referencing and referencelist 10%:http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/referencingtool/Style rarely correct/ littlereferencing of ideas/content that should havebeen referenced leftunreferenced.Some inconsistencies inreferencing/ insufficientreferencing ofappropriate sources.Errors present inreferencing butreferencing present isadequate.Few errors/ skillfulreferencing.Consistent, precise andskillful referencingEvidence of high-levelcommunications/effective groupdynamics/teamwork: 10%Group membercontribution missing,contradictions inarguments/claims withinthe work, indication ofproblematic division oflabor, or lack thereof, etc.Significant variation inthe quality of individualcontributions, significantlack of cohesion inargument.Variations in thequality and proportionof individualcontributions, but stillfeatures a cohesiveargument.Slight variation in thequality andproportion ofindividualcontributions andfeatures a cohesiveargument.Seamless integration ofevenly distributedcontributions made bygroup-members.Argument and subjectmatter are unified andcohesive.
Let’s block ads! (Why?)
READY TO PLACE AN ORDER