Genetically Modified Organisms As Know ( Gmos ) - 1089 Words

Genetically modified organisms as know (GMOs) is polemically in the past years. The purpose of this is to modify organisms; genetic traits in plants are to make them better for the taste, environmental and production. The plant can be stronger and defending about insects, health, herbicides and ecological threats. In some countries, this modification helps to prevent hunger in the population. The traits can be modified adding and subtracting unwanted characteristics that make the plant weak. There is a diversity of products contain GMOs. On the domestic animals modification, genetic engineering can be useful for the prevention of unwanted illness to happen to the animals. Some of the animals are modified for human medical objectives. An†¦show more content†¦Also, products are made containing these ingredients like salad dressings, and soybean oil in mayonnaise, breads, cereals, canola oil and snack food based on the research. Furthermore, in the U.S. is not required to label the products containing GMOs so is unpredictable to know how many products have been genetically modified. Also, the FDA approves for products being labelled â€Å"GMO free† and â€Å"USDA-Organic label that means the product is not genetically modified. (Federici, 2010, p. 518) The U.S. Food and Drug Administration states, is evidence available to show that foods from genetically engineered plants are safe like foods from plants does not been genetically engineered. FDA requires products grow in the U.S. notify them first to find out if they are made safe and legal before is up for sale. If the FDA doesn t complete the safety requirements procedure for the product, it cannot be a sale. In the step evaluation, including biotechnology nutrients are examined like vitamins, protein, fiber, minerals and fat. The main points tested if the product if toxic or allergenic. In the 90`s the FDA created Plant Biotechnology Consultation Program that on a voluntary basis producers joins to follow a procedure to determine if the product is under the law and safety regulations. The evaluation consists of questions regarding the product content. Important issues are if the product has

The Government”s Taking of Private Property Free Essays

The Constitution of the United States is based primarily on the ideas of the 17th Century English philosopher John Locke. Locke thought that everyone had natural rights, which included life, liberty, and property. Locke stated â€Å"the great and chief end, therefore, of men†s uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of property† (Locke/ McClaughry 3). We will write a custom essay sample on The Government†s Taking of Private Property or any similar topic only for you Order Now He thought that if any of these rights were violated that the violator should make restitution. The Takings Clause in the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution states â€Å"Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. When the government needs a citizen†s private property to build roads or buildings, they compensate the person with money roughly equal to the value of that person†s land. The problem of the government taking or restricting a citizen†s land arises with regulation of private property. John McClaughry defines regulatory taking â€Å"as a governmental confiscation or destruction of economic rights by regulation, without the physical occupation which would trigger just compensation to the owner† (McClaughry 7). The case of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council is an example of regulatory taking. In the case of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, Lucas bought two adjacent lots on the coast of the Isle of Palms in South Carolina, only to have the land restricted by the state, which prevented his intended use of the lots. Lucas argued that the state†s restriction of the land constituted taking without just compensation. The South Carolina Court of Common Pleas agreed with Lucas and awarded him $1,232,387. 50. The Supreme Court of South Carolina disagreed with the lower court, and saying that the restrictions were designed to prevent serious public harm so no compensation was necessary, even if it did affect the property†s value. Lucas appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court of the United States decided on Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council in June of 1992. This was four years after the Beachfront Management Act, which prohibited construction on Lucas† lots, was enacted in 1988. An amendment was made to the Act in 1990 that would allow construction in special situations. Lucas could possibly appeal to the Council and receive a permit to build on his lots at the time of the Supreme Court hearings. Lucas argued that the deprivation of use of his land from 1988-1990 amounted to a taking. The Supreme Court decided to grant certiorari. According to Locke, the government†s purpose is to protect and enforce people†s natural rights. One of the natural rights, according to Locke, is life. The coastal area of the Isle of Palms that Lucas† lots were on has been plagued with floods. Justice Blackmun stated that the land was â€Å"under water† from 1957 until 1963. In addition, between 1981 and 1983, â€Å"the Isle of Palms issued twelve emergency orders for sandbagging to protect property† (Blackmun 2). The state of South Carolina saw Lucas† property as unsafe. â€Å"Long ago it was recognized that all property in this country is held under the implied obligation that the owner†s use of it shall not be injurious to the community, and the Takings Clause did not transform that principle to one that requires compensations whenever the State asserts its power to enforce it† (Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass. 491-492). The state†s prevention of building on the site in question would not only foreseeably save the beach from erosion,! insurance and federal aid money, but possibly lives. The Supreme Court ruled in this case that when all value has been taken from property that the owner must receive compensation for it. The question still stands as to whether the state caused the land to become valueless by restricting the building upon it. Justice Blackmun argued, â€Å"†¦ yet the trial court, apparently believing that ‘less value† and ‘valueless† could be used interchangeably, found the property ‘valueless†Ã¢â‚¬  (Blackmun 5). He goes on to propose that the land still held value because Lucas could enjoy it in other ways, such as camping, swimming, picnicking, or placing a mobile home on it. The value of the property often lies in the eye of the beholder. In Colorado, a piece of legislation is being proposed that might become a model for other states where property rights are concerned. The Private Property Protection Act would allow â€Å"a landowner to seek compensation when a regulation takes away more than fifty percent of the land†s value† (McClaughry 4). This act hopes † to establish a standard for the most serious regulatory takings and to afford a method of relief for a landowner whose rights have been taken† according to McClaughry (McClaughry 8). In 1997, Senator Hatch (R-UT) introduced a piece of legislation called the Citizen†s Access to Justice Act. This Act would â€Å"reduce delay and expense of litigation by clearly defining when a property owner†s claim is ripe† for adjudication (Annett 2). This piece of legislation would help speed the process that is so costly for property owners. The Private Property Rights Implementation Act was passed in October of 1997. This Act helps owners pass their first hurdle by allowing them to have the merits of their case heard in federal court. The Tucker Act Shuffle Relief Act, also passed in October of 1997, helps citizens pass the second hurdle by â€Å"resolving the jurisdictional question for federal courts† (Annett 3). Even though the Supreme Court†s ruling in Lucas looked promising for property rights advocates, it turned out not to be such a big win after all. Justice Scalia limited the application of the ruling to total takings, excluding partial takings. The distinction between total and partial takings â€Å"is arbitrary and inconsistent with the purposes of the Takings Clause† (Butler 3). It is possible that one landowner could lose more money on a piece of property that is only partially taken and not receive compensation for it, when another landowner could be compensated for a piece of land that is not wholly worth as much as the other owner†s partial piece. The Supreme Court†s partial versus total taking has made a big impact upon lower court judges however. The lower courts are using the decision as a standard by which to judge regulatory property rights cases across the board. Many defendants are attempting to use the ruling, to fight prohibited construction on their land, where it is not applicable. Defendants â€Å"cannot claim their land is valueless simply because they might have developed it in the future† (Butler 5). The other relevant part of the Lucas decision is that â€Å"if the activity was previously permitted under relevant property and nuisance principles, then the prohibition of the activity would be a total regulatory taking that must be compensated† (Butler 6). Justice Blackmun ponders whether the government is going to be able to continue if it must weigh the possibility of compensation when making laws outlawing serious dangers to society. However, if all economically beneficial uses are not destroyed by the regulation, then it does not matter whether or not the activity was previously permitted. Another case of regulatory property taking that is still on the state level is the expansion of the Minneapolis-St. Paul Regional Airport. With the expansion of the airport, increased air traffic would be flying over the nearby Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge. In compensation for the affects on the habitat, â€Å"†¦ the Fish and Wildlife Service is going to be paid over $20 million† (Young 1). However, the money is going to come from fees and charges placed on people using the airport. When someone from the private sector causes detriment to federal lands they must compensate the government for the lost lands. The end of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council remains to be told. The South Carolina Supreme Court ordered the state of South Carolina to purchase the two lots in question from David Lucas. The state then put the two lots on the market as residential sites. Perhaps the â€Å"courts should look beyond the public-interest rhetoric and examine the validity of the alleged public purpose† (Butler 7). This is the other side of regulatory takings. If the states are required to pay property owners millions of dollars for the land in question, are they going to be able to uphold the Acts and legislation that got them there? Locke†s natural rights seem to conflict over the regulatory taking of private property. The natural right to life appears to have precedent over the natural right to property according to the government†s actions in dealing with regulatory takings. The government says that the taking of the land is in the best interest of society, but rights of the individu! al are being overlooked. When the taking is free to the government, it appears to be a good plan of action for them. When the government must pay for their land, they weigh the pros and cons of their decisions a little more heavily. The Lucas case is full of precedents, good and bad, for both sides of the issue of regulatory takings. How to cite The Government†s Taking of Private Property, Essay examples

Report on Cloud Storage Forensics-Free-Samples-Myassignmenthelp.com

Question: You are a Digital Forensics Examiner. Considering a real or a hypothetical case you are required to produce a formal report consisting of facts from your findings to your attorney who has retained you. Answer: Introduction In this era of ICT, smartphones have become an important part of the life of the people. Cloud storage applications are gaining importance as it allows the users to gain access to their own information from any location and at any time. Mobile phones play a significant role in assisting the criminals to commit any criminal act (Poisel, Malzer Tjoa, 2013). These mobile devices act as evidence in the investigations of cyber crimes as well as traditional crimes. MEGA is a cloud app that can be used in place of Google Drive and Dropbox (Daryabar, Dehghantanha Choo, 2017). This forensics report examines a scenario on cloud storage forensics. It focuses on the MEGA cloud app case study. It gives a brief overview of the concept of cloud forensics along with its usage. It analyzes a real life scenario called MEGA case study and tries to find out what modifications to the metadata during the process of downloading and uploading process might affect the preservation of evidences on an android as well as iOS platforms. This report also discusses about the findings and gives the result of the analysis. Analysis Cloud Forensics Cloud forensics can be considered to be an application of the digital forensics. This field combines the concept of cloud computing with digital forensics. Digital forensics applies science to identify, collect, examines and analyzes data while maintaining its integrity (De Marco, Kechadi Ferrucci, 2013). Cloud computing on the other hand is an IT paradigm that deals with allowing users to get access to shared resources over the Internet on the basis of their demand. Cloud forensics is a part of network forensics. There are three main dimensions of cloud forensics called technical, legal as well as organizational dimension. The cloud storage platform services that are used, mainly the mobile applications have the ability to leave behind trace or information that can be useful in any civil or criminal litigation. Organizations consist of internal as well as external staffs that play a major role in the process of digital forensics (Ruan Carthy, 2012). The investigators play the most significant role in forensics. They have high knowledge about forensic capabilities. IT professionals are also involved in assisting the investigators in identifying any crime activity. Legal advisors also play a crucial role in cloud forensics. Use of Cloud Forensics Cloud forensics has various usages like: Investigation: It can be used for investigating crime as well as policy violation in a cloud environment. It can be useful in providing evidences to the court (Ruan et al., 2013). Troubleshooting: Data files can be located physically and virtually in the cloud environment. Log monitoring: It assists in auditing and regulatory compliance (Thorpe et al., 2013). Data Recovery: It helps to recover data that has been deleted in an accidental manner. It also helps to recover encrypted data. Tools and Methodologies The cloud computing forensics uses certain procedures to carry out the forensic process. They are discussed below: Data collection: This process deals with the identification and acquisition of forensic data from various sources of information present in the cloud. These data can be either client side information or provider side information. The tools that are used for collecting data are different for different service models of cloud computing. Data can be collected in a sequential manner depending upon its volatility. If the data has high volatility then it can be collected first and if the data has low volatility then can be collected later. Elastic, live and static forensics: The resources of cloud storage can be provisioned on the demand of the clients. The tools that are used in cloud computing can be elastic in nature. Most of the cases use live and static forensic tools. Examples of such cases are e-discovery, data recovery and data acquisition. Evidence segregation: Cloud computing allows the users to share resources over the Internet and save the cost. It supports multi tenant environment. Procedures and tools for segregating forensic data present in the cloud need to be developed. Investigation: Investigation can be carried out based on the data that are retrieved from the cloud platform. But the data present in the cloud are susceptible to various attacks. Pro-active preparation: This stage involves designing of forensic-aware cloud apps. It also involves design principles, tracking authentication as well as access-control records. The investigation framework of the MEGA case study is as follows: Identification as well as collection: Evidences had been collected from the internal memory of Samsung Galaxy Tab II and the internal memory of iPad. Its network traffic had also been monitored and captured by TCPDump. Preservation: The entire acquired file was verified by calculating the MD5 hash value. Examination as well as analysis: The images from the internal memory and backups were examined for determining data remnants of using MEGA application on iOS and Android devices. EDRM was downloaded in order to carry out the experiment. Separate experiments were conducted on the iOS and Android devices in order to carry out the investigation. Ten experiments had been conducted and the devices were reset. 0xED was used for Mac and the Hex Workshop was used for Android device. These were used for the purpose of analyzing internal storage. The experiments conducted on Android as well as iOS devices are shown in a tabular format (Appendix 1 and 2) Amazon S3, Google Docs, Evernote and Dropbox are such models that help in the investigation process of cloud storage apps (Chung et al., 2012). Researchers have been able to recover data remnants like username, names of the uploaded and downloaded files from Motorola Droid that was running Android 2.2.2 version and from iPhone 4 that was running iOS 4.3.5 version as well as from Mac PC and Widows PC (Grispos, Glisson Storer, 2015). Windows 7 was investigated for the purpose of identifying forensic information from Google Docs, Dropbox, Flickr and PicasaWeb (Marturana, Me Tacconi, 2012). Forensic tools can be injected into the virtual machines of Amazon EC2 (Dykstra Sherman, 2012). Client as well as server analysis can also be held (Martini Choo, 2013). There are other cloud forensic models that can be used for the purpose of examining Google Drive and SkyDrive. These models were also able to determine whether there was any alteration of the content of the file and documents (Quic k Choo, 2014). The non-preinstalled application document contents of iCloud remained unchanged. But on the other hand the MD5 hash values were not matched and the timestamps had been changed. There is a process that contains six steps for collecting data in a programmed manner from a remote location (Martini Choo, 2014). A brief snapshot of the cloud forensics research is presented in a tabular form (Appendix 3). Findings A forensic process is sound and correct if certain key criteria are satisfied. These key criteria are as follows: Meaning: This means that the data evidence that has been collected for the purpose of carrying out investigations based on digital forensics must not lose its real meaning as well as interpretation. The data must retain its integrity. Error: Errors must be identified at the correct time so that it does not harm the validity of the information that was found. Hash functions can be used for the purpose of identifying errors during the process of forensic collection. Transparency: The forensic processes must be transparent so that the investigation is carried out in an effective and honest manner. This will help in the validation of the process integrity. Experience: The individuals who are involved in the process of forensic investigation must have high knowledge and sufficient experience for carrying out the investigation of forensic data. Forensic investigation is done in case of extremely serious issues and any fault in the process can harm several individuals as well as organizations. Experience plays a significant role in the cloud forensic investigations. In order to find out whether a forensic data is sound or not, the potential changes in the document data as well as metadata during the time of download and upload must be detected. In the MEGA case study the MD5 hashes value of the actual files was found out and then it was compared with data of the downloaded file using the cloud applications on the iOS as well as Android devices. The hash values of the real file had completely matched with the downloaded file. This determined that there were no changes made to the document and file contents during the process of downloading and uploading. Then the timestamps were compared between the original and the downloaded documents by using the stat command. The comparison determined that the timestamps were different for both the types of files. All the timestamps was same as that of the destination folders of all the devices. It has been seen that if the user modifies the date and time of the iOS or Android device before the process of dow nload takes place then the timestamps of the file that is downloaded will also change and this will not match with timestamp of the original file that was uploaded. Findings of the Android devices are as follows: It has been determined that whenever a user logs into the account by using application then the internal memory of the Android device stores the username. Decrypted files can also be determined. It has also been found out that the shared URL links can be created as well as saved to files. The files can be shared which depends on its settings. Findings of the iOS devices are as follows: It was found out that the mega.ios.plist files were possible to be recovered. The login details could also be found out. It was also possible to recover uploaded files. It is clear from the findings that the MEGA app could not modify the downloaded file contents. The hash values of the original as well as the downloaded files remained the same. Only the timestamps were different (Quick Choo, 2013). The timestamps were same as that of the client devices. URLs as well as the IP addresses that were used by the app, server names, timestamps as well as the certification provider that were used by the cloud storage services could be determined. There are also certain challenges in the cloud storage forensics. Glossary E-discovery: Electronic discovery (also callede-discoveryorediscovery) refers to any process in which electronic data is sought, located, secured, and searched with the intent of using it as evidence in a civil or criminal legal case. TCPDump: TCPDumpis a commonpacket analyzerthat runs under thecommand line. MD5: TheMD5algorithm is a widely usedhashfunction producing a 128-bithashvalue. AlthoughMD5was initially designed to be used as a cryptographichash function, it has been found to suffer from extensive vulnerabilities. Amazon S3: Amazon Simple Storage Service is storage for the Internet. It is designed to make web-scale computing easier for developers. VM: In computing, a virtual machine (VM) is an emulation of a computer system. Virtual machines are based on computer architectures and provide functionality of a physical computer. URL: A Uniform Resource Locator (URL), colloquially termed a web address, is a reference to a web resource that specifies its location on a computer network and a mechanism for retrieving it. A URL is a specific type of Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), although many people use the two terms interchangeably. IP: An Internet Protocol address (IP address) is a numerical label assigned to each device connected to a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication. Conclusion It can be concluded from this report that that the MEGA app could not modify the downloaded file contents. This report gave a brief overview of the concept of cloud forensics and its usage. It said that a forensic process is sound and correct if certain key criteria are satisfied .This report stated that the hash values of the original as well as the downloaded files remained the same. Only the timestamps were different. This report discussed that the cloud certain procedures to carry out the cloud storage forensic process like data collection and evidence segregation. References Chung, H., Park, J., Lee, S., Kang, C. (2012). Digital forensic investigation of cloud storage services.Digital investigation,9(2), 81-95. Daryabar, F., Dehghantanha, A., Choo, K. K. R. (2017). Cloud storage forensics: MEGA as a case study.Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences,49(3), 344-357. De Marco, L., Kechadi, M. T., Ferrucci, F. (2013, September). Cloud forensic readiness: Foundations. InInternational Conference on Digital Forensics and Cyber Crime(pp. 237-244). Springer, Cham. Dykstra, J., Sherman, A. T. (2012). Acquiring forensic evidence from infrastructure-as-a-service cloud computing: Exploring and evaluating tools, trust, and techniques.Digital Investigation,9, S90-S98. Grispos, G., Glisson, W. B., Storer, T. (2015). Recovering residual forensic data from smartphone interactions with cloud storage providers.arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.02268. Martini, B., Choo, K. K. R. (2013). Cloud storage forensics: ownCloud as a case study.Digital Investigation,10(4), 287-299. Martini, B., Choo, K. K. R. (2014, September). Remote programmatic vCloud forensics: a six-step collection process and a proof of concept. InTrust, Security and Privacy in Computing and Communications (TrustCom), 2014 IEEE 13th International Conference on(pp. 935-942). IEEE. Marturana, F., Me, G., Tacconi, S. (2012, October). A case study on digital forensics in the cloud. InCyber-Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery (CyberC), 2012 International Conference on(pp. 111-116). IEEE. Poisel, R., Malzer, E., Tjoa, S. (2013). Evidence and Cloud Computing: The Virtual Machine Introspection Approach.JoWua,4(1), 135-152. Quick, D., Choo, K. K. R. (2013). Forensic collection of cloud storage data: Does the act of collection result in changes to the data or its metadata?.Digital Investigation,10(3), 266-277. Quick, D., Choo, K. K. R. (2014). Google drive: forensic analysis of data remnants.Journal of Network and Computer Applications,40, 179-193. Ruan, K., Carthy, J. (2012, October). Cloud forensic maturity model. InInternational Conference on Digital Forensics and Cyber Crime(pp. 22-41). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. Ruan, K., Carthy, J., Kechadi, T., Baggili, I. (2013). Cloud forensics definitions and critical criteria for cloud forensic capability: An overview of survey results.Digital Investigation,10(1), 34-43. Thorpe, S., Grandison, T., Campbell, A., Williams, J., Burrell, K., Ray, I. (2013, June). Towards a forensic-based service oriented architecture framework for auditing of cloud logs. InServices (SERVICES), 203 IEEE Ninth World Congress on(pp. 75-83). IEEE