- For this assignment, review the article:
Abomhara, M., & Koien, G.M. (2015). Cyber security and the internet of things: Vulnerabilities, threats, intruders, and attacks. Journal of Cyber Security, 4, 65-88. Doi: 10.13052/jcsm2245-1439.414
Address the following:
• What did the authors investigate, and in general how did they do so?
• Identify the hypothesis or question being tested
• Summarize the overall article.
• Identify the conclusions of the authors
• Indicate whether or not you think the data support their conclusions/hypothesis
• Consider alternative explanations for the results
• Provide any additional comments pertaining to other approaches to testing their hypothesis (logical follow-up studies to build on, confirm or refute the conclusions)
• The relevance or importance of the study
• The appropriateness of the experimental design
When you write your evaluation, be brief and concise, this is not meant to be an essay but an objective evaluation that one can read very easily and quickly. Also, you should include a complete reference (title, authors, journal, issue, pages) you turn in your evaluation. This is good practice for your literature review, which you’ll be completing during the dissertation process.
Your paper should meet the following requirements:
• Be approximately four to six pages in length, not including the required cover page and reference page.
• Follow APA 7 guidelines. Your paper should include an introduction, a body with fully developed content, and a conclusion.
• Support your answers with the readings from the course and at least two scholarly journal articles to support your positions, claims, and observations, in addition to your textbook. The UC Library is a great place to find resources.
• Be clearly and well-written, concise, and logical, using excellent grammar and style techniques. You are being graded in part on the quality of your writing.
National Youth Screening and Assessment Project, may also be available to support implementation. c. DJS should consider amending its practice of screening all youth who appear at the BCJJC for detention admission using the Detention Risk Assessment Instrument, even youth who will ultimately be diverted prior to DJS referral through the BPD Diversion Program. This will limit young people’s exposure to the detrimental impact and collateral consequences associated with generating unnecessary DJS and court records. d. BPD should develop a training and messaging strategy to increase officer knowledge and understanding of new policies and protocols for interacting with youth, the purpose of the juvenile court system, details of juvenile justice process, and the purpose of secure detention. Clear and consistent messaging for officers will help to mitigate the obdurate frustration that officers reportedly experience when they perceive that young people are not being held accountable by the system. e. Conduct a case processing analysis of adult-charged youth in detention to identify why time spent in detention for these youth has doubled from 2014 to 2018 and develop policies and programs to address the causes of delays. 2. Programs and Conditions a. The City should partner closely with DJS and the Baltimore JDAI Oversight Board to assess the continuum of Secure Detention Alternative established by DJS and the extent to which it meets existing needs. b. The City and its appropriate offices and agencies should partner with DJS to identify additional programs for youth in detention, in particular youth charged as adults, that can help young people build skills and connections that will help them succeed following release and return to their communities. c. To the extent that there are gaps in the existing Secure Detention Alternatives Continuum, the City and DJS should partner closely to identify resources to enhance the Alternative Continuum. As a resource, stakeholders should consult the results of the Youth Service Provider Survey conducted as part of this assessment. 3. Community Engagement and Partnerships>GET ANSWER