Global network forensics investigations

This report discusses the challenges of e-delivery in a conference hosted by the United States and the European Union Committee. It covers the facts on data privacy and protection of rights of individuals by the European Union, the role of GDPR EUs data protection and privacy, the United States' federal approach to data privacy, privacy laws both in the United States and in the EU, and differences in data protection between America and Europe.

Running head: Global network forensics investigations
Global network forensics investigations
Student’s name
Institution
Date

Global network forensics investigations
Table of Contents
Introduction.................................................................................................................................................2
Facts on data privacy and protection of rights of individuals by the European Union.................................3
Role of GDPR EUs data protection and privacy..........................................................................................3
The United States' federal approach to data privacy....................................................................................4
Privacy laws both in the United States and in the EU..................................................................................4
Differences in data protection between America and Europe......................................................................5
Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................5
References...................................................................................................................................................6

Global network forensics investigations
Introduction
Protection and privacy of data is a matter of concern. I am writing this to deliver report on challenges of
e-delivery in a conference hosted by the United States and the European Union Committee (Lubis, &
Siahaan, 2016).
Facts on data privacy and protection of rights of individuals by the European
Union
The European Union has a clear definition on rules safeguarding the privacy of individual’s data;
(a) First information about an individual should not and cannot be collected without the authorization by
the consumers and they have a right to review the data collected and correct it in case of inaccuracies.
(b) Also any company intending to be processing data must seek for a legal registration from the
government.
(c) The employers are also denied the power to read their employees personal email.
(d) Information on a certain subject cannot be shared across the borders without a direct or express
permission from the subject.
(e) The checkout clerks have no right to request for the shoppers phone number (Perumal, Norwawi,
& Raman, 2015).
Role of GDPR EUs data protection and privacy
GDPR introduced a regulation that any business, person or organization that will suffer from major data
breaches will be penalized a fine of 20 million Euro pounds or 4% of their annual global turnover,
whichever is bigger. It also replaced the EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC counting on the fact it
did not adequately address the technological change in the field of communication with an agenda of
harmonizing the law on data privacy across Europe. It also provided a need for privacy by default and

Global network forensics investigations
design with a stricter law on data transfer across borders and persuading them for the deletion of their
data
The United States' federal approach to data privacy
The United State instead of formulating the regulations like the GDPR opted for a different
approach in regulation of data protection and privacy and opted for a sector specific data privacy
and protection to safe guard the American citizens. For instance, it established a Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) which is a standard to regulate and
safeguard information in health providing organization.
The National Institute of Standards Technology Controlled Unclassified Information published a
special act (NIST 800-171) with an agenda of safeguarding personal or non-federal information.
On privacy and protection to data pertaining persons, consumers or organizations financial data
the United States established The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. This acts intention was to safeguard
and protect individual’s data on financial status from disclosure.
Federal Information Security Management Act is another act in use in the United States on
safeguarding data. The act made it a critical requirement for all federal agencies to develop,
document and implement a healthy information safeguarding program (Cordner, & Binz, 2017).
Privacy laws both in the United States and in the EU
The European Union enacted an act of GDPR with effect from 25th May 2018 with an objective
of safeguarding information exchange between the organizations involved in business with the

Global network forensics investigations
union whether or not within the European borders as well as ensuring that this organization
adheres and implement the requirements of the act.
The United States commission and the European commission came up with the Privacy Shield
Framework with an agenda of ensuring that businesses maintain a high data privacy and
protection agreement rather than regulation. The two commissions abolished the Safe Harbor
Privacy Principals after it was declared invalid by the European commission which wanted the
exchange of data be well certified.
Differences in data protection between America and Europe
Americans invest high on establishment of safety measures on things like the firewalls, antivirus
and DLP. To Americans data safety does not only mean protection on handling of collected data
but further implies rule protection of how personal data can be collected and handled. When
Americans talk of data security they mean the technical side of it.
To Europeans data security implies the regulation on personal data on what can be collected,
how it can be processed as well as the right to rectification and removal of the data (Cerling, et
al, 2016).
Conclusion
To sum up, crime has not changed, however the growth in communication sector enabling fast
relay of information without limitation in distance has been used for the better as well as for the
worse. For the worse, it has facilitated fast committing of crimes. Basically crimes has not

Global network forensics investigations
changed but the speed and rate at which they are implemented has been well enabled by growth
in the information and communication sector (Ahmed, 2017).

Global network forensics investigations
References
Ahmed, A. A. (2017). Investigation approach for network attack intention
recognition. International Journal of Digital Crime and Forensics , 9(1), 17-38.
Cerling, T. E., Barnette, J. E., Bowen, G. J., Chesson, L. A., Ehleringer, J. R., Remien, C. H., ...
& West, J. B. (2016). Forensic stable isotope biogeochemistry. Annual Review of Earth
and Planetary Sciences, 44, 175-206. Quick, D., & Choo, K. K. R. (2017). Pervasive
social networking forensics: intelligence and evidence from mobile device
extracts. Journal of Network and Computer Applications, 86, 24-33.
Cordner, S., & Tidball-Binz, M. (2017). Humanitarian forensic action—Its origins and
future. Forensic science international, 279, 65-71.
Lubis, A., & Siahaan, A. P. U. (2016). Network Forensic Application in General Cases. IOSR J.
Comput. Eng, 18(6), 41-44.
Perumal, S., Norwawi, N. M., & Raman, V. (2015, October). Internet of Things (IoT) digital
forensic investigation model: Top-down forensic approach methodology. In 2015 Fifth
International Conference on Digital Information Processing and Communications
(ICDIPC) (pp. 19-23). IEEE.