Category: uncategorised

Please respond to miguel with 150. words

when a analyst in forensic science says the small sentence “a suspects cant be excluded” is the analyst thinks the suspects dna can still be consistent with the evidence that was collected.The problem with this is that the sample of evidence that was collected was to small or even mixed with different evidences from many other people that its hard to say its someones specific match.But I would say that with this casee the DNA that had been collected and found on the shirt was very small evidence and that is causing to not be able to have a good amount of information to say its with the full DNA matched.To break it down I would say that there is a possible chance that the suspects in this case probably left some type of dna and this causes it to be harder to breakdown every other person with similarity profiles.

The mixed DNA samples that are collected and also small low levled samples for example like the door handle and the knife are harder to study and get details of the samples because the amount of other people’s DNA overlaps and is all around the sample which makes it harder to study the evidence that is collected.For example once three or more people touch something for example like the door handle it all drops DNA on it and becomes hard to study when a crime scene happens because it is hard to tell who’s DNA is who’s.Something to also add onto this is the touch in DNA or even small sampled collected some of the markers may not show when being examined by an analyst.That is the main reason on why the door handle on this case was called inconclusive because during the time of examination there was not lots of DNA to come to a conclusionn.

In my opinion I would say it is very important to think about DNA transfer when its time to examine some type of evidence that was collected a crime scene.The reason why I say this is because someone’s dna can all be put on a certain object in many different indirect ways possible.My example on this would be that if the suspects that is part of a case decided to shake hands with the victims hand earlier in that day then the victim later on touches the shirt the suspects DNA will end up on the sample of evidence without even doing direct contact with the shirt that is being examined.I would say that scientists should be explaining straight forward and clear thaat DNA can show in the presence of something but it also does not prove the guilt itself all in one.Something else I think a scientist should bring up is that excluding the knife handle can be very important sample of evidence that court should consider during the case being discussed.

please respond to to alexander. with 150 words

I chose a workplace environment. An attacker will use social engineering techniques to invade a workplace when they impersonate a member of the company’s IT department. The attacker scheduled a call to an employee to report an urgent security issue which required immediate account restoration. The attacker used a professional tone while mentioning the company and manager names to build credibility.

The primary method employed in this situation involves using impersonation together with exercising power and creating immediate situations. The attacker uses their fake identity as an IT worker to obtain control over the situation. The attacker creates urgent conditions by telling employees that their accounts will be disabled unless they protect their accounts immediately. The attacker will request that the employee provide their password or they will need to click on a phishing link.

The attack works because it uses common human behavioral patterns as its foundation. Most people want to be helpful and do not want to get in trouble at work. Employees will trust anyone who looks like a leader because that person sounds confident about their abilities. People will make fast choices during times of stress because they need to make quick decisions. The attacker uses trust and fear together with the need for people to follow directions.

The company needs to implement a procedure which requires employees to confirm all requests before revealing any sensitive information. Employees should learn to hang up their calls when they receive suspicious calls by contacting their official IT department through a company-approved phone number. The company should establish a policy which prevents IT staff from requesting password information through phone or email communication. Regular cybersecurity training and reminder posters could help employees recognize these warning signs.

The only situation when this behavior becomes acceptable is when used for training exercises and security tests to teach people about their vulnerability to manipulation while also enhancing security measures. The people involved should know afterward that it was a test and should not be harmed.

The moment someone employs deceptive tactics to obtain sensitive materials or financial resources or system access the activity transforms into an unethical practice. It becomes unethical when a person uses lies to create fear or shame or brings harm to another individual. The attacker needs to have organizational permission before testing someone because it represents a violation of rights.