Part 1: Hypothesis and Variables
Hypothesis : Creating a hostile environment for cybercriminals can help is the best strategy in dealing with cybercrimes in Homeland Security.
Creating a hostile environment for cybercriminals is one of the best strategies in dealing with cybercrimes in Homeland Security. Notably, the provisions of reporting and recording structure will allow effective and decisive responses to cyber incidents. Studies show that the number and scale of cyber incidents are expected to skyrocket as the world becomes more connected (Pernice, 2018). This situation is despite that the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) efforts in terms of network protection and other law-enforcement measures. Usually, DHS plays a major role in providing technical assistance to many cyber incidents. The response often targets the affected entities and other assets at risk while at the same time probing the underlying crimes (Dawson et al., 2021). Even so, a national response is not required in many incidences involving cybercrime. As such, GHS must enact and implement a raft of measures provision of an effective reporting structure. One of the major concerns for the DHS about cybercrime has been the lack of accurate information about the scope and scale of crimes committed via a medium (Kossef, 2018). This state of affairs makes it challenging to identify the accurate course of action. For these reasons, developing mechanisms for reporting cybercrimes and the best ways of gathering reports in ways that allow the public to report such incidences accurately and easily. The hypothesis is central to the research project as it provides the roadmap of possible strategies for developing cybersecurity strategies and solutions to counter the ever-growing and evolving cyber threats.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Research Variables
Research variable #1: Security compliance behavior (independent variable)
Research variable #2: Security practices (dependent variable)
Research variable # 3: Reporting/recording structures (independent variable)
Research variable #1
The security compliance behavior variable focuses on employees as the potential threats within Homeland Security and other entities. The workforce in an organization remains to be the weakest link in the security chain. Therefore, it is important to study employee behaviors to determine their compliance with policy responses to cybercrimes.
Research variable #2
Security practices variable illuminates the cybersecurity culture in an organization and how they manifest themselves in people with information technologies. The variable pays much attention to how entities such as the DHS have integrated information security frameworks and cybersecurity awareness into day-to-day activities and employees’ habits. Typically, how an organization addresses or behaves towards cybersecurity incidences depend on the employees’ shared belief and actions.
Research variable #3
The Reporting/recording structures variable also sheds light on what people or organizations usually do after a cyber-security breach. Decreased market value and reputational loss have often been cited as significant concerns in the event of a cyber-security incident (Maughan et al., 2015). This situation implies that developed reporting and recording structures for cyber-crime incidents, alongside collaboration with the law enforcement authorities, ensure that cyber breach information is gathered through reports to identify and safeguard vulnerable institutions.
Part 2: Annotated Bibliography
Macmanus, S. A., Caruson, K., & Mcphee, B. D. (2013). Cybersecurity at the Local Government Level: Balancing Demands for Transparency and Privacy Rights. Journal of Urban Affairs, 35(4), 451–470. https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2012.00640.x
Macmanus et al. (2013) use an e-survey of the Florida country government to expose the vulnerability of government officials to information infiltration and identifies some of the most challenging information to protect. According to the authors, protecting the citizens’ bio-information is one of the most challenging undertakings and administrators being cross-pressured. The reason behind this situation is that government-related activities have moved online, and the public demands transparency and openness. The study also reveals that information technology professionals are the most loyal in tracking privacy protection. Even so, creating greater access to the government while at the same time guaranteeing citizens’ privacy is a challenging task. In this regard, the authors propose a rigorous training of cyber technology experts and implementing procedures on how to provide security features.
Karaman, M., Çatalkaya, H., & Aybar, C. (2016). Institutional Cybersecurity from Military Perspective. International Journal of Information Security Science, 5(1), 1–7. https://search-ebscohost-com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=118158771&site=eds-live&scope=site
Looks at the critical deliverable strategies for curbing cybersecurity incidences. According to Karaman, Çatalkaya and Aybar (2016). Action Fraud is a timely strategy that will enable the first contact with the organizational employees and other agencies vulnerable to cybersecurity incidences. The purpose of the intervention is to coordinate for the maximum task force for potential cyber threats. The initiative will improve intelligence about the methods and scale of these crimes. The strategy will also help the public by improving communication on how most of the cybercrimes are perpetrated.Kessler, G. C., & Ramsay, J. (2013). Paradigms for cybersecurity education in a homeland security program. Journal of Homeland Security Education, 2(1), 35. https://search-ebscohost-com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.346808928&site=eds-live&scope=site
Kessler and Ramsay (2013) look at how cybersecurity threats to the nation are growing every other day and propose a raft of measures that could be included in the cybersecurity curriculum in educational institutions. According to the authors, a change in educational approach can potentially help policymakers have an overview of existing approaches to develop suitable and sustainable cybersecurity strategies.
Ani, U. D., He, H., & Tiwari, A. (2019). Human factor security: evaluating the cybersecurity capacity of the industrial workforce. Journal of Systems & Information Technology, 21(1), 2–35. https://search-ebscohost-com.proxy-library.ashford.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edb&AN=135094912&site=eds-live&scope=site
Ani, He and Tiwari (2019) use a quantitative approach to investigate the capabilities of human constituents to effectively recognize and responds to incidences of cyber threats within the environments of industrial control systems. Using a test scenario, the authors found that evaluating employees’ knowledge about cybersecurity and their skills and capabilities can help identify the weakest link. The strategy can help agencies implement interventions and appropriate security remediation outlines without necessarily over-investing public resources. The findings highlight the importance of human factors in cybersecurity in industrial control system (ICS) assurance.Benzel, T. (2015). A Strategic Plan for Cybersecurity Research and Development. IEEE Security & Privacy, Security & Privacy, IEEE, IEEE Secur. Privacy, 13(4), 3–5. https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1109/MSP.2015.84
Benzel (2015) explores the Cybersecurity Research and Development Strategic Plan, which serves as the blueprint for funding investments, policies, programs, and collaborations for the next half a century. She acknowledges that the country is under constant cyberattacks, and each incident provides a valuable lesson. The collaborative cybersecurity research and development (R&D) is not well aligned with the technical regulations, profit structures, and policies, making cyber exploits a successful endeavor. As such, the plan identifies areas in which priorities should change and other areas of challenges. Furthermore, the author argues that despite developing strategies to counter cyber threats, community input is also crucial as it will guide future efforts.
References
Ani, U., He, H., & Tiwari, A. (2019). Human factor security: Evaluating the cybersecurity capacity of the industrial workforce. Journal of Systems and Information Technology , 21 (1), 2-35. https://doi.org/10.1108/jsit-02-2018-0028
Benzel, T. (2015). A Strategic Plan for cybersecurity research and development. IEEE Security & Privacy , 13 (4), 3-5. https://doi.org/10.1109/msp.2015.84
Dawson, M., Bacius, R., Gouveia, L., & Vassilakos, A. (2021). understanding the challenge of cybersecurity in critical infrastructure sectors. Land Forces Academy Review , 26 (1), 69-75. https://doi.org/10.2478/raft-2021-0011
Karaman, M., Çatalkaya, H., & Aybar, C. (2016). Institutional cybersecurity from military perspective. International Journal of Information Security Science , 5 (1). Retrieved from https://www.ijiss.org/ijiss/index.php/ijiss/article/view/174 .
Kessler, G., & Ramsay, J. (2013). Paradigms for cybersecurity education in a homeland security program. Security Studies and International Affairs , 35-44. Retrieved 4 May 2021, from https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/217158212.pdf .
Kossef, J. (2018). Defining Cybersecurity Law. IOWA Law Review, 103 (985), 1-47. Retrieved from https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-103-issue-3/defining-cybersecurity-law/ .
Macmanus, S., Caruson, K., & Mcphee, B. (2013). Cybersecurity at the local government level: Balancing demands for transparency and privacy rights. Journal of Urban Affairs , 35 (4), 451-470. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9906.2012.00640.x
Maughan, D., Balenson, D., Lindqvist, U., & Tudor, Z. (2015). Government-Funded R&D to Drive Cybersecurity Technologies. IT Professional , 17 (4), 62-65. https://doi.org/10.1109/mitp.2015.70
Pernice, I. (2018). Global cybersecurity governance: A constitutionalist analysis. Global Constitutionalism , 7 (1), 112-141. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2045381718000023
