Legal Analysis and Critical Thinking. Management Essay

Apply Critical Thinking
Transcript – (Case study)
Early one morning at work, CEO Alice Johnson asks if you have a moment to chat. I need your expertise and advice on a complicated situation for the company regarding an international hacking lawsuit. In her office, Alice explains that CyberTech is serving as the cyber forensics consultant for a law firm handling the suit from a 2015 hack of the Office of Personnel Management, OPM. The OPM hack compromised background information on millions of workers. In a related case Anomalous, a non-US gray hat hacking group suspected in the OPM breach case, is claiming that US-based Equation Set attempted to hack its facilities. So we have a non-US and a US set of test hacker groups involved. With Anomalous, the non-US group, being a client plaintiff in one case against Equation Set, the US group, and as a suspect in the OPM breach. But Alice then outlines why the case is problematic. Along with the OPM victims, CyberTech represents clients from some of the OPM breach suspect companies in unrelated cases, which could appear to be a conflict of interest. This could affect the way our company is perceived by others. We need to maintain our image as an unbiased cyber security consultant. Should CyberTech remain on both the OPM breach investigation and the overseas case at the same time? Or should we drop one of the cases? Apply your critical thinking and analytical skills to figure out what happened what we know and don't know, and how the company might remedy this situation. I'd like a paper by the end of the week with your recommendations
• Project 5: In this project, you will address an intentionally vague case study to identify what you know, what you don’t know, and what questions you need to ask as you start your “investigation” of the facts of the case. The elements of critical or analytical thinking is designed to encourage clear thinking and to identify potential cognitive traps that could derail well-reasoned conclusions. There is a lot of literature out there about what critical thinking is and how one gets to the best decision based on facts. Using a critical thinking process and analysis of the facts and cross-checking, you will consider inferences and deductions that follow from facts, and then assert conclusions that can be tested and validated. You will also incorporate legal and ethical considerations into decisions.
•
• TIPS
• formulating ideas succinctly and precisely
• identifying the relevance and importance of ideas
• understanding the logical connections between ideas
• identifying, constructing, and evaluating arguments, claims, and evidence
• recognizing explicit and implicit assumptions, arguments, and biases
• detecting inconsistencies and common mistakes in reasoning
• formulating clear defensible ideas and conclusions
• evaluating the pros and cons of decisions
• reflecting on one’s own beliefs and values
• applying ethical decision making
•
• SIX STEPS TO FOLLOW.
• STEP 1
• In this first step, you will prepare to respond to your boss’s request for an analysis of a problem in your organization. You realize that this will require careful thinking. So, you take time to review the process and to engage in critical thinking and analysis.
• STEP 2
• Remember the direction from your CEO is to analyze the situation and advise on the two lawsuits. Review the video or transcript in Start Here as needed.
• A suggested area of focus is to determine if a conflict of interest would exist in handling the two cases that might be related, and advise how to proceed.
• Outline the points that you want to make in the first two sections of your paper (introduction, explanation) and draft those sections.
• Next, it’s time to analyze the information.
STEP 3
Now that you have some understanding of the nature of the breach and the parties involved, it’s time to gather and analyze information. The problem analysis resources will further aid your analysis and development of the third section of the paper.
Outline the points that you want to make in Section 3: Analysis of the Information of your paper, and draft that section.
In the following step, you will consider other viewpoints, conclusions, and solutions.
Project 5: Apply Critical Thinking
Step 4: Consider and Analyze Other Viewpoints, Conclusions, and Solutions
Once you have completed your analysis of the incident, the next step is to analyze alternative viewpoints, conclusions, and solutions. To do this, you will need to apply ethical decision-making and reasoning. Also, read the highly recommended Randolph Pherson's "The Five Habits of the Master Thinker," a paper written for intelligence analysts, but applicable to all analytical thinking and reasoning.
Outline the points that you want to make in Section 4: Analysis of Alternative Viewpoints, Conclusions, or Solutions of your paper, and draft that section.
When you are finished, move to the next step, which involves developing conclusions.
Project 5: Apply Critical Thinking
Step 4: Consider and Analyze Other Viewpoints, Conclusions, and Solutions
Once you have completed your analysis of the incident, the next step is to analyze alternative viewpoints, conclusions, and solutions. To do this, you will need to apply ethical decision-making and reasoning. Also, read the highly recommended Randolph Pherson's "The Five Habits of the Master Thinker," a paper written for intelligence analysts, but applicable to all analytical thinking and reasoning.
Outline the points that you want to make in Section 4: Analysis of Alternative Viewpoints, Conclusions, or Solutions of your paper, and draft that section.
When you are finished, move to the next step, which involves developing conclusions.
Project 5: Apply Critical Thinking
Step 5: Develop Well-Reasoned Conclusions
You considered alternative viewpoints in the last step. Now you’re ready to develop personal conclusions and suggest remedies so that your boss is well-equipped to brief leadership about the situation.
Remember, you may need to consult outside references, but this is not a research paper. It is more investigative in nature about the facts of the case. Cite outside sources carefully.
Now, outline your argument and draft Section 5: Conclusions and Recommendations, the final sections. Your boss is expecting to receive a concise, focused paper to prepare for further meetings. Stay to the main points, although you may have more facts to answer any questions. You will submit your paper in the final step.
Step 6: Submit the Critical Thinking Paper
The final paper should be no more than five double-spaced pages, excluding the cover page and references page(s). Organize the paper in accordance with your preparatory steps, using these subheadings:
1. Introduction
2. Explanation of the Issue
3. Analysis of the Information
4. Consideration of Alternative Viewpoints and Conclusions
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
Here are some tips for success:
• Consider outside sources if they inform your case. However, stay on task.
• Use APA style for “in text” and reference citations. At this point, your citations should be error-free.
Consider these best practices for a paper:
• An effective introduction that grabs the reader’s attention and sets the tone and direction for the rest of the paper;
• Supporting paragraphs that move the reader from the general introduction to the more specific aspects of your analysis;
• Body paragraphs that provide support; and,
• A conclusion that leads to a natural close to what you have presented
•
• In this project, you will address a case study that intentionally does not give you enough detail for you to quickly resolve the issue. This is meant to enable you to use the processes of critical thinking to reach conclusions. Given the gaps in information provided to you, you will identify what you know, what you don’t know, and what questions you need to ask as you start your investigation of the facts of the case. The process is designed to encourage clear thinking and to help you to identify potential cognitive traps that could derail well-reasoned conclusions.
• There are six steps that will lead you through this project. Most steps of this project should take no more than two hours to complete. Begin by watching the video above, which introduces the project you will be doing as it might occur in the workplace, and then continue with Step 1: Prepare to Think Critically.
An example essay from a class mate who passed it.
Upholding CyberTech As an Ethical Cybersecurity Company
Musa Nyassi
University of Maryland Global Campus
 
Upholding CyberTech As an Ethical Cybersecurity Company
Introduction
This paper will examine two lawsuits the CyberTech Company is currently involved in and chart a path forward for the company to follow; to maintain its integrity and image as an ethical cybersecurity company. The first lawsuit, in which CyberTech is consulting for a law firm that is handling the lawsuit from a hacking into the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). The hack exposed millions of forms, which contain extremely personal information gathered in background checks for people seeking government security clearances, along with records of millions of people’s fingerprints. Anomalous, a non-US gray hat hacking group is a suspect in the OPM hack. In the second lawsuit; Anomalous is accusing Equation Set; a US based group of hacking into its facilities. Along with the OPM victims, CyberTech represents clients from some of the OPM breach suspect companies (Anomalous) in unrelated cases (Anomalous vs Equation Set), which could appear to be a conflict of interest. We will explore if there are any conflict of interest, should CyberTech continue to be involved in both cases or if its involvement will be perceived to be conflicted. We shall delve more into the OPM hack and its surrounding issues, suspects and the ensuing investigation. We shall look at alternative viewpoints, conclusions and recommendations to the possibly problematic position CyberTech is in, if it continues to assist Anomalous against Equation Set while also consulting for entities in the OPM hack; where Anomalous happens to be a suspect.
Explanation
In April 2015, Information Technology personnel within the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the government agency responsible for managing the government’s civilian workforce, “discovered that some of its personnel files had been hacked. Among the sensitive data that was exfiltrated were millions of SF-86 forms, which contain extremely personal information gathered in background checks for people seeking government security clearances, along with records of millions of people's fingerprints. The OPM breach led to a Congressional investigation and the resignation of top OPM executives, and its full implications—for national security, and for the privacy of those whose records were stolen—are still not entirely clear” (CSO, 2019). It should be noted that while no “smoking gun” was found linking the attack to a specific perpetrator, the overwhelming consensus is that OPM was hacked by state-sponsored attackers working for the Chinese government. Anomalous has also been named as a suspect in the hack.
Anomalous, a foreign based entity is suing Equation Set; a US based company for gaining unauthorized entry into its systems. We are not privy to the evidence that Anomalous has against Equation Set for the purposes of this paper, but one would be inclined to believe that Anomalous would make available any material in its possession linking Equation Set to an unauthorized entry into its systems, CyberTech being a forensic cybersecurity company would be in a position to look into this.
The ethical dilemma CyberTech faces, is that, should it continue to support Anomalous in its case against Equation Set while it is still involved in work related to the OPM hack? In essence, CyberTech has to examine the information at hand to determine whether it should be involved in both cases or not. In the event, it stays on both cases, will its involvement amount to a conflict of interest or not?
Analysis of the Information
CyberTech needs to look at what laws, if any, govern its operations and interactions with the entities involved. Anomalous, from the information we have is a foreign entity; a non-US based group; OPM and Equation are US-based. Thus, these cases could potentially have international cybersecurity law implications. What are some of the laws that CyberTech may be violating by being involved in the both the OPM and Anomalous cases. Waxman (2018) in a presentation observed that while there are international laws and treaties governing State parties; treaty law: formal agreements among States to be legally bound and customary international law: general and consistent practice followed out of a sense of obligation. These laws are generally implemented very slowly, and technology is changing fast. There is a well-established body of international law regulating armed response to physical military attacks against States, which unfortunately haven’t caught up with cyber-attacks. Thus, they do not specifically address the cybersecurity domain (Waxman, 2020). Therefore, there are no laws governing international cyber-attacks.
While there may not be any specific international laws or precedents that should guard CyberTech’s engagement going forward. CyberTech has an opportunity to be a trail blazer here, to set a precedent and become a reference point for subsequent cases. There are no generally agreed upon standards or ethical benchmark subscribed to by all cybersecurity practitioners. Knowles expands on this point, when he stated that “without codified cybersecurity ethics guidelines in place at the industry and employer levels, it is largely up to the individual at the helm to determine the most ethically sound response to a given incident. Ethics can be subjective, influenced by an individual’s background, culture, education, personality and other factors” (Knowles, 2016).
CyberTech could potentially be in a position to exonerate Anomalous in the OPM hack, due to its privileged position and relationship. Anomalous remains a suspect in the OPM case; suspicion doesn’t automatically result in conviction; investigations seem to be ongoing and the evidence points to state sponsored agents as perpetrators; the Chinese in this case. If Anomalous is forthcoming and open to CyberTech about its innocence or involvement in the OPM hack, it could help speed up and eliminate at least one suspect and possibly narrow down the field of suspects. CyberTech’s standing and brand may stand to gain from this, especially if the case is finally solved with help from its forensic work and proximity to a suspect.
Analysis of Alternative Viewpoints
One may argue that CyberTech is totally within its rights to be engaged in both cases. That as long as it can separate the aspects of the two cases; it will be on solid ground. This can be attained by assigning separate teams to work on the cases. Teams that are independent of each other and regulated by strict ethical standards. For all we know, Anomalous could totally be innocent, and the hack into its systems could have been a retaliatory hack by Equation Set (a US based) entity for Anomalous’s perceived involvement in the OPM hack. There are many moving parts in this saga, as in most cases involving cyber espionage these days.
Amid all the uncertainty, for CyberTech to uphold its position as an ethical cybersecurity company it needs to thoroughly evaluate these issues and its stance.
Conclusions and Recommendations
While it is evident that laws, specially cybersecurity laws are not on par with the rapid technological advancement, making it difficult for our laws to keep up to safeguard and guide the parties involved. It gives no excuse for CyberTech to exploit this possible loophole, knowing that, legally, no one would be able to hold them accountable. But just because you can getaway with something doesn’t mean you should do something, therefore CyberTech should employ in this regard.
It will be very wise for CyberTech to recuse itself from engaging with Anomalous; while it is true that Anomalous is only a suspect in the OPM case, being involved with the same entity in two related cases would definitely raise questions about conflict of interest. There may possibly be no conflict of interest in reality, but the perception of a conflict interest could potentially hurt the reputation of the company. It is, therefore, good advice to steer away from Anomalous. This will be stance that protects and maintains its standing as an ethical cybersecurity company.
In conclusion, we’ve analyzed the odd dilemma CyberTech has found itself, we’ve analyze and determined whether there is any conflict of interest in consulting for a law firm in the OPM hack wherein Anomalous is a suspect and on the other hand, representing Anomalous in its suit against Equation Set, a US-based entity for hacking in to its systems. Our analysis has driven us to the conclusion that while CyberTech may not be breaking any laws, but in other to uphold its reputation as an ethical cybersecurity outfit it needs to recuse itself from representing Anomalous to prevent the appearance of a conflict of interest in the OPM case.
 
References
CSO. (2019). The OPM hack explained: bad security practices meet china's captain America. Retrieved from https://www(dot)csoonline(dot)com/article/3318238/the-opm-hack-explained-bad-security-practices-meet-chinas-captain-america.html
Waxman, M. (2018). Cybersecurity & international law. Retrieved from https://www(dot)hoover(dot)org/sites/default/files/waxman_stanford_cyber_presentation.pdf
Knowles, A. (2016). Tough Challenges in Cybersecurity Ethics. Retrieved from https://securityintelligence(dot)com/tough-challenges-cybersecurity-ethics/
 Apply Critical Thinking (Week 7) In this project, you will review a case study and apply critical thinking skills to reach conclusions based on the process of exploration, questioning, analyzing facts, and identifying what you know and what you do not know. This exercises problem-solving skills.   
•