In this paper, you are supposed to have the appropriate knowledge about individuals and companies networks and systems to present a clear and appropriate assignment.
Assignment Description
Debra Shinder writes, “IT security personnel often have access to confidential data and knowledge about individuals` and companies` networks and systems that give them a great deal of power. That power can be abused, either deliberately or inadvertently.” [1]
Investigate, reflect upon and answer the following questions using Ethical Guidelines published by organisations such as: EA, ACS, ACM and IEEE.
1)Should you read the private e-mails of your network users just because you can? Is it OK to read employees` e-mail as a security measure to ensure that sensitive company information isn`t being disclosed? Is it OK to read employees` e-mail to ensure that company rules (for instance, against personal use of the e-mail system) aren`t being violated? If you do read employees` e-mail, should you
disclose that policy to them? Before or after the fact?
|
10 Marks
|
2)Is it OK to monitor the Web sites visited by your network users? Should you routinely keep logs of visited sites? Is it negligent to not monitor such Internet usage, to prevent the possibility of
pornography in the workplace that could create a hostile work environment?
|
10 Marks
|
3)Is it OK to place key loggers on machines on the network to capture everything the user types? What about screen capture programs so you can see everything that`s displayed? Should users be informed
that they`re being watched in this way? 10 Marks
4) Is it OK to read the documents and look at the graphics files that are stored on users` computers or in their directories on the file server? 10 Marks
5)What if a client asks you to save money by cutting out some of the security measures that you recommended, yet your analysis of the client`s security needs shows that sensitive information will be
at risk if you do so? You try to explain this to the client, but he/she is adamant. Should you go ahead
and configure the network in a less secure manner?
|
10 Marks
|
MN501
|
Network Management in Organisations
|
Page 3 of 4
|
Marking criteria:
Marks are allocated as follows, for each question:
Aspects to be included in
|
Description of the section
|
Marks
|
each answer
|
|
|
Introduction
|
Introduce the ethical issues in 2-3 sentences
|
1
|
Identification
|
Identify 2 important issues
|
2
|
Analyse
|
Analyse above identified issues
|
2
|
Evaluate/justification
|
Evaluate the issues and write justification of your evaluation
|
2
|
Conclusion
|
Write clear conclusion in 1-2 sentences
|
2
|
Reference style
|
Follow IEEE reference style
|
1
|
|
Total
|
10
|
Marks assigned:
Section
|
Q1
|
Q2
|
Q3
|
Q4
|
Q5
|
Totals
|
Introduction
Identification
Analyse
Evaluate/justification
Conclusion
Reference style
Totals >
MN501
|
|
Network Management in Organisations
|
Page 4 of 4
|
Marking Rubric for Assignment-1: Total Marks 50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Grade
|
HD
|
|
DI
|
CR
|
P
|
Fail
|
|
|
Mark
|
80-100%
|
|
70-79%
|
60-69%
|
50-59%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent
|
|
Very Good
|
Good
|
Satisfactory
|
Unsatisfactory
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Introduction
|
All topics are
|
|
Topics are
|
Generally
|
Some relevance
|
This is not
|
|
|
|
pertinent and
|
|
relevant and
|
relevant and
|
and briefly
|
relevant to the
|
|
|
|
covered in depth.
|
|
soundly
|
analysed.
|
presented.
|
assignment
|
|
|
|
Ability to think
|
|
analysed.
|
|
|
topic.
|
|
|
|
critically and
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
source material is
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
demonstrated
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Identification
|
Demonstrated
|
|
Demonstrat
|
Demonstrated
|
Demonstrated
|
Did not
|
|
|
|
excellent ability to
|
|
ed excellent
|
ability to think
|
ability to think
|
demonstrate
|
|
|
|
think critically and
|
|
ability to
|
critically and
|
critically and did
|
ability to think
|
|
|
|
sourced reference
|
|
think
|
sourced
|
not source
|
critically and
|
|
|
|
material
|
|
critically but
|
reference
|
reference
|
did not source
|
|
|
|
appropriately
|
|
did not
|
material
|
material
|
reference
|
|
|
|
|
|
source
|
appropriately
|
appropriately
|
material
|
|
|
|
|
|
reference
|
|
|
appropriately
|
|
|
|
|
|
material
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
appropriatel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
y
|
|
|
|
|
|
Analyse
Logic is clear and
|
Consistency
|
Mostly
|
Adequate
|
Argument is
|
easy to follow with
|
logical and
|
consistent
|
cohesion and
|
confused and
|
strong arguments
|
convincing
|
logical and
|
conviction
|
disjointed
|
|
|
convincing
|
|
|
Evaluate/justific
|
Excellent use of
|
Extremely
|
Good effort
|
Made some
|
Very little
|
ation
|
creditable sources.
|
good effort
|
made but not
|
effort. For
|
attempt to
|
|
Accurate
|
|
outstanding
|
example, Web
|
reference. Lazy
|
|
referencing.
|
|
|
searches only
|
effort with
|
|
Obvious that
|
|
|
|
inaccuracies
|
|
outstanding effort
|
|
|
|
|
|
made
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusion
Logic is clear and
|
Consistency
|
Mostly
|
Adequate
|
Argument is
|
easy to follow with
|
logical and
|
consistent
|
cohesion and
|
confused and
|
strong arguments
|
convincing
|
logical and
|
conviction
|
disjointed
|
|
|
convincing
|
|
|
Reference style
|
Clear styles with
|
Clear
|
Generally good
|
Sometimes
|
Lacks
|
|
excellent source of
|
referencing
|
referencing
|
clear
|
consistency
|
|
references.
|
style
|
style
|
referencing
|
with many
|
|
|
|
|
style
|
errors
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|