find a law review article in the library concerning ethics, privacy law, and cybersecurity;

• use the IRAC method (Issue, Rule, Analysis and Conclusion) to analyze your selected law review article, especially with regard to how the public may be adversely affected by your topic.

This might be helpful:Now you will muse over some of the ideas that connect cybersecurity to civil law.  Privacy law is probably the first legal area that comes to mind for many people.  Many shades of privacy concerns exist.  As one example, let’s look at a continuation from the Week 2 Lessons: do you think that the public is aware (or at least ought to be) that the big data analytical companies are tracking their respective data search queries?  If so, do you think that the public generally understands this within the context of the right to privacy?  Can you think of any potential ethical concerns that these large data businesses ought to have with respect to how they handle the data that they watch – and collect – on what individual people do on the internet?  Should artificial intelligence be constructed with an intentionally created privacy respect function?But let’s also view this from the perspective of when things go wrong with how such businesses protect data.  Sometimes going wrong is intentional, while other times the issue concerns negligence.  For example, even if a company does not intend to harm anyone as it processes individuals’ computing data, sometimes those individuals still suffer harm. That leads right into another one of the most obvious areas of civil law that can be affected by cybersecurity matters: tort law.  A tort essentially refers to an action that someone takes (or fails to take when it should have been done) that harms someone else.  The person who takes (or fails to take) the action can potentially be held legally responsible for that action.Regardless of intent, the potential for tort law implications exists in many forms.  How should liability for vehicle accidents involving self-driving cars?  Should the manufacturer be held responsible for such an accident if another driver actually created the underlying circumstances that immediately caused the accident?  If artificial intelligence is used to train a self-driving car, then can the software developer be responsible for such vehicles have for not having directly programmed the car to respond to every possible driving circumstance? With tort law as the backdrop, think also about the ethical considerations linked to the tortious cybersecurity-related action.  For example, what are the foreseeable consequences of, say, a law office purchasing and implementing an off-the-shelf data security software that will be used on that office’s employees, vendors, clients, members of the public who click on the law office’s website links?  What if the law office did not tailor that software to its actual data usage activities?  Can it reasonably rely on the manufacturer / developer’s basic software package?  What other examples come to mind?  What if you were part of an insurance company having to determine compensation claims related to such matters?