This is a case study. please write in 2000 words(1800~2200words allowed).the topic is related to crime especially, cyber crime. I have attached case study topics, sample case study report(with instructor's feedback). see every files what I have uploaded and finish it please.
And I have to request you the most important thing. please write every sources what you see as a reference. I have been in trouble 2 weeks ago. I went to the faculty discipline committee and got 60% deduction penalty. I think Turnitin which is used by the instructors can catch someone's idea as well.
Requst
1. please write every sources what you see and use and the reference has to be Harvard style.
2. please finish it before the deadline.
3. it is a cyber crime and cyber policing course. so, please no off-topic
4. please see every files what I have attached.
01/.DS_Store __MACOSX/01/._.DS_Store 01/Case Study Marking Rubric.pdf PICT840 Case Study Criteria Exc Very Good Good Satisf- actory Not Satisf- actory Introduction/Conclusion: A concise lead-in to the case study, describing what will be covered. Conclusion includes a summation of key points. Comprehension: An understanding of the case study. Awareness of concepts that need to be identified and evaluated in the case study. Argument: Addressing basic and subsidiary aspects of case study. Points are supported by evidence/examples. Argument utilises and integrates a number of sources. Structure and Organisation: Logical and clear structure (not rambling from point to point). Expression, Grammar and Presentation: Good sentence structure, concise writing and good grammar. Effective use of words. References: Full and correct referencing and adequate bibliography. __MACOSX/01/._Case Study Marking Rubric.pdf 01/Case Study Topics.pdf Please select one of the cases from the list provided here. Note: Each case is accompanied by a news article to give you a basic overview of the case. You are welcome to cite this article in your research. However, you need to do much more research beyond this initial article. Note that as this is an academic research paper, much of this research should come from academic journal articles and books. TJX Companies 2005-2006 https://www.computerworld.com/article/2544306/tjx-data-breach--at-45-6m-car d-numbers--it-s-the-biggest-ever.html RBS World Pay 2008 https://www.theregister.com/2008/12/29/rbs_worldpay_breach/ Marketwired, PR Newswire and Business Wire 2010-2015 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cybercybersecurity-hacking-stocks-a rr/hackers-stole-secrets-for-up-to-100-million-insider-trading-profit-u-s-id USKCN0QG1EY20150812 JP Morgan Chase 2014 https://www.wired.com/2015/11/four-indicted-in-massive-jp-morgan-ch ase-hack/ Uber 2016 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-22/uber-data-breach-was-not-disclosed-ceo-s ays/9179168 https://www.computerworld.com/article/2544306/tjx-data-breach--at-45-6m-card-numbers--it-s-the-biggest-ever.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2544306/tjx-data-breach--at-45-6m-card-numbers--it-s-the-biggest-ever.html https://www.theregister.com/2008/12/29/rbs_worldpay_breach/ https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cybercybersecurity-hacking-stocks-arr/hackers-stole-secrets-for-up-to-100-million-insider-trading-profit-u-s-idUSKCN0QG1EY20150812 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cybercybersecurity-hacking-stocks-arr/hackers-stole-secrets-for-up-to-100-million-insider-trading-profit-u-s-idUSKCN0QG1EY20150812 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cybercybersecurity-hacking-stocks-arr/hackers-stole-secrets-for-up-to-100-million-insider-trading-profit-u-s-idUSKCN0QG1EY20150812 https://www.wired.com/2015/11/four-indicted-in-massive-jp-morgan-chase-hack/ https://www.wired.com/2015/11/four-indicted-in-massive-jp-morgan-chase-hack/ https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-22/uber-data-breach-was-not-disclosed-ceo-says/9179168 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-22/uber-data-breach-was-not-disclosed-ceo-says/9179168 __MACOSX/01/._Case Study Topics.pdf 01/2020 case study example and comment.pdf J.P Morgan Case Study by Sahil Rajesh Bhingarde Submission date: 03-Sep-2020 11:16PM (UTC+1000) Submission ID: 1377536273 File name: 305404_Sahil_Rajesh_Bhingarde_J.P_Morgan_Case_Study_5917003_821161890.pdf (187.54K) Word count: 2072 Character count: 11071 1 2 3 5 6 Conj. 1 2 Elab. 3 Elab. Cit. 3 ROS 4 7 8 Elab. 5 WC 6 Synth. 1 1 1 4 Conc. C.S. Tert. Bib. # Journ. sources 10% SIMILARITY INDEX 8% INTERNET SOURCES 1% PUBLICATIONS 8% STUDENT PAPERS 1 5% 2 2% 3 1% 4 1% 5 1% 6 1% 7 1% 8 <1% j.p morgan case study originality report primary sources submitted to macquarie university student paper submitted to university of southampton student paper www.theguardian.com internet source submitted to city university student paper submitted to troy university student paper blogs.forbes.com internet source epdf.pub internet source usir.salford.ac.uk internet source exclude quotes off exclude bibliography off exclude matches off qm final grade 12/30 j.p morgan case study grademark report general comments instructor this paper provided a good overview of the 2014 jp morgan chase data breach. it summarised a number of important aspects of the case, and also included some interesting discussion points. however, for an academic work of this length and at this level, you need to be drawing from a much greater number of sources to support your arguments—in particular, academic sources. journalistic sources such as online news articles and blog posts can be a useful supplement, but they cannot be your primary source. you should avoid using tertiary sources such as encyclopedias (especially online encyclopedias). you also need to make certain that all of your arguments are supported by relevant supporting references. remember that, according to the academic integrity module, including only one reference at the end of a paragraph "is a common type of accidental plagiarism. each citation refers only to the sentence it is in, so the first time you use material from a source, you need to add a citation." page 1 conj. | presentation make certain you double-check the conjugations of all of your verbs. while seemingly minor, simple mistakes can distract your reader from your main argument and make your writing come across as unprofessional. at times, they can also distort you meaning or make your argument difficult to follow. comment 1 | comprehension qm qm qm careful here. the banked was founded long before this. you may be referring instead to a merger. comment 2 | comprehension note that jpmc is not itself a hedge fund. elab. | argument this section needs further elaboration to allow your reader to understand all the details as well as its implications for your argument. if you are running up against the word limit, you may need to cut down on other sections to open up space to develop this point further. page 2 elab. | structure+org this section needs further elaboration to allow your reader to understand all the details as well as its implications for your argument. if you are running up against the word limit, you may need to cut down on other sections to open up space to develop this point further. cit. | references remember that of your claims need to be supported by evidence, shown by an appropriately formatted citation. your reader should always be able to tell where you are drawing your support from, and so where there is ambiguity make it clear who is making what claim. even if you believe a claim is self-evident, it is nevertheless still a good idea to see what the research says. you may be surprised how often "common sense" turns out to be widely off the mark, and if an argument is important enough to include in your essay, it is also important enough to research. in some cases, you may have included a citation to support this point elsewhere, and it is just unclear here that the citation in question is supporting this particular point. though it is not necessary to include a citation in every single sentence, when you are basing a section of a single source, you should try to make this clear to your reader. this doesn't necessarily require multiple citations. in your text, you could include "according to lee & takahashi..." in the first sentence supported by this work, and "lee & takahi's research also suggests that..." in the last sentence. (stylistic note: if you are using in-text citations, the citation will typically accompany that first mention of "lee & takashi," and the final mention of the authors will tell them where the section supported by that work ends. if you are using a footnote, that will often follow the final sentence of the section supported by lee & takashi's work, with the first mention of the authors telling the reader where the section begins. what is important, though, is that you are being transparent about what research is supporting which arguments.) comment 3 | comprehension qm qm qm qm all of these details are available. this is where it is important to conduct sufficient research. ros | presentation this sentence is a "run-on sentence," which means it contains two or more improperly connected independent clauses. this in turn makes it difficult for the reader to follow your argument. it may be possible to make this sentence grammatically correct by adding punctuation or coordinating conjunctions as appropriate. however, usually the root cause of a run-on sentence is the writer trying to include too much information in a single sentence. as such, usually the best way to deal with run-on sentences is either to split them into two separate sentences, or to remove information that might not be necessary to your overall argument. comment 4 | argument careful. this is not an accurate statement. page 3 elab. | argument this section needs further elaboration to allow your reader to understand all the details as well as its implications for your argument. if you are running up against the word limit, you may need to cut down on other sections to open up space to develop this point further. comment 5 | comprehension he has, in fact, been identified. wc | presentation word choice error: sometimes choosing the correct word to express exactly what you have to say is very difficult to do. word choice errors can be the result of not paying attention to the word or trying too hard to come up with a fancier word when a simple one is appropriate. a thesaurus can be a handy tool when you're trying to find a word that's similar to, but more accurate than, the one you're looking up. however, it can often introduce more problems if you use a word thinking it has exactly the same meaning. page 4 comment 6 | argument would whitelisting have helped in this case? if so, explain how. synth. | references be careful not to rely excessively on one or a small number of sources, either across your work or within a small subsection, as this leads you to simply repeating the position of one qm qm qm qm author. instead, always try to synthesise from multiple sources to gain a broader perspective. page 5 conc. c.s. | intro/conc for a case study, your conclusion should reestablish what case you discussed, summarise your findings, and reiterate your primary recommendation. tert. | references in academic research, sources of information can be divided into three types: primary, secondary, and tertiary. primary sources are sources of information found in "the real world," such as interviews and firsthand survey data. secondary sources are the the published results and analyses of research done by somebody else, and include scholarly monographs and journal articles. finally, tertiary sources are summaries of secondary sources, such as textbooks or encyclopedias. for most student papers, the expectation is that all of your research will be drawn from secondary sources. tertiary sources can provide you with good overviews of the subject matter, but at the end of the day they are somebody else's interpretation of those secondary sources. your job here is to look at those sources yourself and arrive at your own interpretation. (note: because student essays do not generally draw on fieldwork, sometimes people will, for the purpose of such essays, call journal articles and books "primary sources" and encyclopedias and textbooks "secondary sources." the overall point, however, remains the same: your main source of data should be journal articles and books other than encyclopedias and textbooks) bib. # | references there are some good sources here, but these are not enough sources to support an assessment of this size and at this level. journ. sources | references for academic work, you should be relying primarily on academic sources: peer reviewed journal articles, book chapters and monographs. journalistic sources should be used only as necessary to fill in the gaps left by this research—for example, for descriptions of events (particularly recent j.p="" morgan="" case="" study="" originality="" report="" primary="" sources="" submitted="" to="" macquarie="" university="" student="" paper="" submitted="" to="" university="" of="" southampton="" student="" paper="" www.theguardian.com="" internet="" source="" submitted="" to="" city="" university="" student="" paper="" submitted="" to="" troy="" university="" student="" paper="" blogs.forbes.com="" internet="" source="" epdf.pub="" internet="" source="" usir.salford.ac.uk="" internet="" source="" exclude="" quotes="" off="" exclude="" bibliography="" off="" exclude="" matches="" off="" qm="" final="" grade="" 12/30="" j.p="" morgan="" case="" study="" grademark="" report="" general="" comments="" instructor="" this="" paper="" provided="" a="" good="" overview="" of="" the="" 2014="" jp="" morgan="" chase="" data="" breach. it="" summarised="" a="" number="" of="" important="" aspects="" of="" the="" case,="" and="" also="" included="" some="" interesting="" discussion="" points. however,="" for="" an="" academic="" work="" of="" this="" length="" and="" at="" this="" level,="" you="" need="" to="" be="" drawing="" from="" a="" much="" greater="" number="" of="" sources="" to="" support="" your="" arguments—in="" particular,="" academic="" sources. journalistic="" sources="" such="" as="" online="" news="" articles="" and="" blog="" posts="" can="" be="" a="" useful="" supplement,="" but="" they="" cannot="" be="" your="" primary="" source. you="" should="" avoid="" using="" tertiary="" sources="" such="" as="" encyclopedias="" (especially="" online="" encyclopedias). you="" also="" need="" to="" make="" certain="" that="" all="" of="" your="" arguments="" are="" supported="" by="" relevant="" supporting="" references.="" remember="" that,="" according="" to="" the="" academic="" integrity="" module,="" including="" only="" one="" reference="" at="" the="" end="" of="" a="" paragraph="" "is="" a="" common="" type="" of="" accidental="" plagiarism.="" each="" citation="" refers="" only="" to="" the="" sentence="" it="" is="" in,="" so="" the="" first="" time="" you="" use="" material="" from="" a="" source,="" you="" need="" to="" add="" a="" citation."="" page="" 1="" conj.="" |="" presentation="" make="" certain="" you="" double-check="" the="" conjugations="" of="" all="" of="" your="" verbs.="" while="" seemingly="" minor,="" simple="" mistakes="" can="" distract="" your="" reader="" from="" your="" main="" argument="" and="" make="" your="" writing="" come="" across="" as="" unprofessional.="" at="" times,="" they="" can="" also="" distort="" you="" meaning="" or="" make="" your="" argument="" difficult="" to="" follow.="" comment="" 1="" |="" comprehension="" qm="" qm="" qm="" careful="" here.="" the="" banked="" was="" founded="" long="" before="" this.="" you="" may="" be="" referring="" instead="" to="" a="" merger.="" comment="" 2="" |="" comprehension="" note="" that="" jpmc="" is="" not="" itself="" a="" hedge="" fund.="" elab.="" |="" argument="" this="" section="" needs="" further="" elaboration="" to="" allow="" your="" reader="" to="" understand="" all="" the="" details="" as="" well="" as="" its="" implications="" for="" your="" argument.="" if="" you="" are="" running="" up="" against="" the="" word="" limit,="" you="" may="" need="" to="" cut="" down="" on="" other="" sections="" to="" open="" up="" space="" to="" develop="" this="" point="" further.="" page="" 2="" elab.="" |="" structure+org="" this="" section="" needs="" further="" elaboration="" to="" allow="" your="" reader="" to="" understand="" all="" the="" details="" as="" well="" as="" its="" implications="" for="" your="" argument.="" if="" you="" are="" running="" up="" against="" the="" word="" limit,="" you="" may="" need="" to="" cut="" down="" on="" other="" sections="" to="" open="" up="" space="" to="" develop="" this="" point="" further.="" cit.="" |="" references="" remember="" that="" of="" your="" claims="" need="" to="" be="" supported="" by="" evidence,="" shown="" by="" an="" appropriately="" formatted="" citation.="" your="" reader="" should="" always="" be="" able="" to="" tell="" where="" you="" are="" drawing="" your="" support="" from,="" and="" so="" where="" there="" is="" ambiguity="" make="" it="" clear="" who="" is="" making="" what="" claim.="" even="" if="" you="" believe="" a="" claim="" is="" self-evident,="" it="" is="" nevertheless="" still="" a="" good="" idea="" to="" see="" what="" the="" research="" says.="" you="" may="" be="" surprised="" how="" often="" "common="" sense"="" turns="" out="" to="" be="" widely="" off="" the="" mark,="" and="" if="" an="" argument="" is="" important="" enough="" to="" include="" in="" your="" essay,="" it="" is="" also="" important="" enough="" to="" research.="" in="" some="" cases,="" you="" may="" have="" included="" a="" citation="" to="" support="" this="" point="" elsewhere,="" and="" it="" is="" just="" unclear="" here="" that="" the="" citation="" in="" question="" is="" supporting="" this="" particular="" point.="" though="" it="" is="" not="" necessary="" to="" include="" a="" citation="" in="" every="" single="" sentence,="" when="" you="" are="" basing="" a="" section="" of="" a="" single="" source,="" you="" should="" try="" to="" make="" this="" clear="" to="" your="" reader.="" this="" doesn't="" necessarily="" require="" multiple="" citations.="" in="" your="" text,="" you="" could="" include="" "according="" to="" lee="" &="" takahashi..."="" in="" the="" first="" sentence="" supported="" by="" this="" work,="" and="" "lee="" &="" takahi's="" research="" also="" suggests="" that..."="" in="" the="" last="" sentence.="" (stylistic="" note:="" if="" you="" are="" using="" in-text="" citations,="" the="" citation="" will="" typically="" accompany="" that="" first="" mention="" of="" "lee="" &="" takashi,"="" and="" the="" final="" mention="" of="" the="" authors="" will="" tell="" them="" where="" the="" section="" supported="" by="" that="" work="" ends.="" if="" you="" are="" using="" a="" footnote,="" that="" will="" often="" follow="" the="" final="" sentence="" of="" the="" section="" supported="" by="" lee="" &="" takashi's="" work,="" with="" the="" first="" mention="" of="" the="" authors="" telling="" the="" reader="" where="" the="" section="" begins.="" what="" is="" important,="" though,="" is="" that="" you="" are="" being="" transparent="" about="" what="" research="" is="" supporting="" which="" arguments.)="" comment="" 3="" |="" comprehension="" qm="" qm="" qm="" qm="" all="" of="" these="" details="" are="" available.="" this="" is="" where="" it="" is="" important="" to="" conduct="" sufficient="" research.="" ros="" |="" presentation="" this="" sentence="" is="" a="" "run-on="" sentence,"="" which="" means="" it="" contains="" two="" or="" more="" improperly="" connected="" independent="" clauses.="" this="" in="" turn="" makes="" it="" difficult="" for="" the="" reader="" to="" follow="" your="" argument.="" it="" may="" be="" possible="" to="" make="" this="" sentence="" grammatically="" correct="" by="" adding="" punctuation="" or="" coordinating="" conjunctions="" as="" appropriate.="" however,="" usually="" the="" root="" cause="" of="" a="" run-on="" sentence="" is="" the="" writer="" trying="" to="" include="" too="" much="" information="" in="" a="" single="" sentence.="" as="" such,="" usually="" the="" best="" way="" to="" deal="" with="" run-on="" sentences="" is="" either="" to="" split="" them="" into="" two="" separate="" sentences,="" or="" to="" remove="" information="" that="" might="" not="" be="" necessary="" to="" your="" overall="" argument.="" comment="" 4="" |="" argument="" careful.="" this="" is="" not="" an="" accurate="" statement.="" page="" 3="" elab.="" |="" argument="" this="" section="" needs="" further="" elaboration="" to="" allow="" your="" reader="" to="" understand="" all="" the="" details="" as="" well="" as="" its="" implications="" for="" your="" argument.="" if="" you="" are="" running="" up="" against="" the="" word="" limit,="" you="" may="" need="" to="" cut="" down="" on="" other="" sections="" to="" open="" up="" space="" to="" develop="" this="" point="" further.="" comment="" 5="" |="" comprehension="" he="" has,="" in="" fact,="" been="" identified.="" wc="" |="" presentation="" word="" choice="" error:="" sometimes="" choosing="" the="" correct="" word="" to="" express="" exactly="" what="" you="" have="" to="" say="" is="" very="" difficult="" to="" do.="" word="" choice="" errors="" can="" be="" the="" result="" of="" not="" paying="" attention="" to="" the="" word="" or="" trying="" too="" hard="" to="" come="" up="" with="" a="" fancier="" word="" when="" a="" simple="" one="" is="" appropriate.="" a="" thesaurus="" can="" be="" a="" handy="" tool="" when="" you're="" trying="" to="" find="" a="" word="" that's="" similar="" to,="" but="" more="" accurate="" than,="" the="" one="" you're="" looking="" up.="" however,="" it="" can="" often="" introduce="" more="" problems="" if="" you="" use="" a="" word="" thinking="" it="" has="" exactly="" the="" same="" meaning.="" page="" 4="" comment="" 6="" |="" argument="" would="" whitelisting="" have="" helped="" in="" this="" case?="" if="" so,="" explain="" how.="" synth.="" |="" references="" be="" careful="" not="" to="" rely="" excessively="" on="" one="" or="" a="" small="" number="" of="" sources,="" either="" across="" your="" work="" or="" within="" a="" small="" subsection,="" as="" this="" leads="" you="" to="" simply="" repeating="" the="" position="" of="" one="" qm="" qm="" qm="" qm="" author.="" instead,="" always="" try="" to="" synthesise="" from="" multiple="" sources="" to="" gain="" a="" broader="" perspective.="" page="" 5="" conc.="" c.s.="" |="" intro/conc="" for="" a="" case="" study,="" your="" conclusion="" should="" reestablish="" what="" case="" you="" discussed,="" summarise="" your="" findings,="" and="" reiterate="" your="" primary="" recommendation.="" tert.="" |="" references="" in="" academic="" research,="" sources="" of="" information="" can="" be="" divided="" into="" three="" types:="" primary,="" secondary,="" and="" tertiary.="" primary="" sources="" are="" sources="" of="" information="" found="" in="" "the="" real="" world,"="" such="" as="" interviews="" and="" firsthand="" survey="" data.="" secondary="" sources="" are="" the="" the="" published="" results="" and="" analyses="" of="" research="" done="" by="" somebody="" else,="" and="" include="" scholarly="" monographs="" and="" journal="" articles.="" finally,="" tertiary="" sources="" are="" summaries="" of="" secondary="" sources,="" such="" as="" textbooks="" or="" encyclopedias.="" for="" most="" student="" papers,="" the="" expectation="" is="" that="" all="" of="" your="" research="" will="" be="" drawn="" from="" secondary="" sources.="" tertiary="" sources="" can="" provide="" you="" with="" good="" overviews="" of="" the="" subject="" matter,="" but="" at="" the="" end="" of="" the="" day="" they="" are="" somebody="" else's="" interpretation="" of="" those="" secondary="" sources.="" your="" job="" here="" is="" to="" look="" at="" those="" sources="" yourself="" and="" arrive="" at="" your="" own="" interpretation. ="" (note:="" because="" student="" essays="" do="" not="" generally="" draw="" on="" fieldwork,="" sometimes="" people="" will,="" for="" the="" purpose="" of="" such="" essays,="" call="" journal="" articles="" and="" books="" "primary="" sources"="" and="" encyclopedias="" and="" textbooks="" "secondary="" sources."="" the="" overall="" point,="" however,="" remains="" the="" same:="" your="" main="" source="" of="" data="" should="" be="" journal="" articles="" and="" books="" other="" than="" encyclopedias="" and="" textbooks)="" bib.="" #="" |="" references="" there="" are="" some="" good="" sources="" here,="" but="" these="" are="" not="" enough="" sources="" to="" support="" an="" assessment="" of="" this="" size="" and="" at="" this="" level.="" journ.="" sources="" |="" references="" for="" academic="" work,="" you="" should="" be="" relying="" primarily="" on="" academic="" sources:="" peer="" reviewed="" journal="" articles,="" book="" chapters="" and="" monographs.="" journalistic="" sources="" should="" be="" used="" only="" as="" necessary="" to="" fill="" in="" the="" gaps="" left="" by="" this="" research—for="" example,="" for="" descriptions="" of="" events="" (particularly="">