FiltersDone

Question type

Essay

Multiple Choice

Short Answer

True False

Matching

Exam 5: Searches for Electronically Stored Information and Electronic Surveillance

Show Answer

Share

---

All types

Filters

Study FlashcardsPractice ExamLearn

Question 31

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

The exacting process of computer forensic examination includes _____.

A) read protecting the device
B) connecting the computer to a network
C) imaging the hard drive
D) deconstructing the hard drive

E) All of the above
F) B) and C)

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Question 32

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

Neither Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 nor the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement to _____.

A) obtain a judicial order to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications
B) obtain judicial authorization to covertly enter the premises to install a listening device
C) first receive administrative authorization to apply for an interception order
D) conduct themselves in a way that minimizes the interception of communications not subject to the interception order

E) B) and C)
F) A) and B)

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Question 33

True/False

Review LaterAdd Note

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not require a showing of probable cause to believe that a crime has been or is being committed.

Dropbox, SkyDrive and SugarSync are companies that offer remote computing services, where one can digitally store their information "in the __________ ."

What specific legislation authorizes courts to conduct closed reviews of surveillance materials?

Explain the jurisdiction and procedures of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC).

A _____ wiretap allows for interception of a particular suspect's communications wherever they are made, dispensing with the normal requirement that interceptions be limited to a fixed location.

Assess the requirements that some courts impose on applications for search warrants for electronically stored information. Identify the limitations in place and explain the rationale of these limitations.

Briefly describe what the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) is and does.

Under the _____ exception, an employee or agent of a communications service entity may intercept and disclose communications to protect the rights or property of the provider as part of the ordinary course of business.

In Olmstead v. United States (1928) , the Court held that wiretapping of telephone conversations _____.

Title III of the Wiretap Act does not cover video surveillance using video cameras that record only images and not aural communications.

Searches and seizures concerning foreign intelligence and antiterrorism efforts are authorized and regulated by the Foreign Intelligence and Racketeering Act (FIRA).

The case of Dalia v. United States ruled that a judicial order to place an eavesdropping device by law enforcement in a business or residence need not have a separate order specifically authorizing the __________ entry to install the device.

Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 _____.

Before the enactment of the _____, interception orders for wire communications in computer hacking investigations were not permitted.

Under the _____ exception, victims of computer attacks by hackers can authorize law enforcement officials to intercept wire or electronic communications of a computer trespasser, if specific statutory requirements are satisfied.

Prior to the passing of Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, the United States Government utilized a "national security exception" to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance of foreign powers. In 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was passed as a result of the _____.

Searches conducted using wiretaps, bugs, or other devices to overhear conversations or obtain other kinds of information are collectively referred to as __________ surveillance.

In Berger v. New York (1967) the issue was the constitutionality of a New York statute that authorized electronic surveillance pursuant to a judicial warrant. In the case, the Court: