Deal of The Day! Hurry Up, Grab the Special Discount - Save 25% - Ends In 00:00:00 Coupon code: SAVE25
Welcome to Pass4Success

- Free Preparation Discussions
Mail Us support@pass4success.com
Location US
Mob_nav_barsMENU

ACFE CFE-Law Exam - Topic 1 Question 14 Discussion

Smith, a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE). works for the ABC Company, a private entity that operates w\ a jurisdiction with civil laws for defamation, invasion of privacy. and conflict of interest Smith seizes and searches the personal smartphone of Green an employee of ABC even though Green was not suspected of any wrongdong Assuming that Green had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the smartphone and Smith conducted the search without a legitmate interest or authority, under which of the following claims would Green MOST LIKELY be able to recover damages against Smith?
B) Intrusion into Green's private matters
A) Slander
C) Public disclosure of private facts
D) Conflict of interest

ACFE CFE-Law Exam - Topic 1 Question 14 Discussion

Actual exam question for ACFE's CFE-Law exam
Question #: 14
Topic #: 1
[All CFE-Law Questions]

Smith, a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE). works for the ABC Company, a private entity that operates w\ a jurisdiction with civil laws for defamation, invasion of privacy. and conflict of interest Smith seizes and searches the personal smartphone of Green an employee of ABC even though Green was not suspected of any wrongdong Assuming that Green had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the smartphone and Smith conducted the search without a legitmate interest or authority, under which of the following claims would Green MOST LIKELY be able to recover damages against Smith?

Show Suggested Answer Hide Answer
Suggested Answer: B

by Willard at Feb 03, 2023, 11:27 AM

Limited Time Offer

25%

Off

Get Premium CFE-Law Questions as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF

Contribute your Thoughts:

0/2000 characters
Submit Cancel
Dorinda
7 months ago
Not sure about the conflict of interest claim, feels off.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nana
7 months ago
C could be a stretch, but I see the angle.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kris
7 months ago
Wait, can he really sue for that? Seems a bit extreme.
upvoted 0 times
...
Sherell
8 months ago
Agreed, B makes the most sense here.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kimbery
8 months ago
Definitely B, that’s a clear case of intrusion!
upvoted 0 times
...
Ellsworth
8 months ago
I’m a bit confused about the conflict of interest option. Does that really fit in this scenario? I thought it was more about business relationships.
upvoted 0 times
...
Fannie
8 months ago
This question seems similar to one we practiced on privacy violations. I think Green could definitely argue for intrusion into his private matters.
upvoted 0 times
...
Delila
8 months ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like slander might not apply since it’s more about spoken defamation, right?
upvoted 0 times
...
Gladis
8 months ago
I remember we discussed privacy rights in class, and I think the best claim here would be about intrusion into private matters.
upvoted 0 times
...
Elin
8 months ago
I'm feeling pretty confident about this one. The .toUpperCase() method seems like the obvious choice to convert the string to uppercase.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lezlie
8 months ago
It seems like configuring the group policy for local authentication could solve this, but I'm a bit uncertain if that's the key step needed.
upvoted 0 times
...
Augustine
8 months ago
This seems like a straightforward question about communication policies between CSPs and clients. I'll focus on understanding the key points of each answer choice and pick the one that best explains the need for an established policy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Andrew
8 months ago
I'm a bit confused. I feel like I studied “inclusive plan” but it doesn't sound exactly right.
upvoted 0 times
...
Tammara
1 year ago
I'm going with B. Smith should have known better than to go rummaging through an employee's personal device without a valid reason.
upvoted 0 times
Latricia
12 months ago
User3: Smith definitely overstepped his boundaries by searching Green's personal smartphone.
upvoted 0 times
...
Nydia
12 months ago
User2: Agreed, that was a clear violation of privacy.
upvoted 0 times
...
Lisandra
12 months ago
User1: B) Intrusion into Green's private matters
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Aileen
1 year ago
Haha, I bet Green wishes he had a 'Phone Fortress' app to keep people like Smith out of his business!
upvoted 0 times
Laquita
1 year ago
C) Public disclosure of private facts
upvoted 0 times
...
Tamesha
1 year ago
B) Intrusion into Green's private matters
upvoted 0 times
...
Lorenza
1 year ago
A) Slander
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Louann
1 year ago
I think C, Public disclosure of private facts, is also a strong option. Smith's actions could be seen as a breach of Green's privacy, even if he didn't actually disclose anything.
upvoted 0 times
Cherry
11 months ago
Agreed, Green should have the right to privacy in his personal belongings.
upvoted 0 times
...
Delfina
11 months ago
I think that's a valid point too, Smith definitely overstepped his boundaries.
upvoted 0 times
...
Graciela
11 months ago
B) Intrusion into Green's private matters
upvoted 0 times
...
Vanesa
11 months ago
Definitely, invading someone's privacy like that is a serious issue.
upvoted 0 times
...
Beatriz
12 months ago
I agree, C seems like the most relevant claim in this situation.
upvoted 0 times
...
Edelmira
12 months ago
C) Public disclosure of private facts
upvoted 0 times
...
Shala
12 months ago
B) Intrusion into Green's private matters
upvoted 0 times
...
Evan
12 months ago
A) Slander
upvoted 0 times
...
Brinda
1 year ago
D) Conflict of interest
upvoted 0 times
...
Raylene
1 year ago
C) Public disclosure of private facts
upvoted 0 times
...
Carey
1 year ago
B) Intrusion into Green's private matters
upvoted 0 times
...
Laine
1 year ago
A) Slander
upvoted 0 times
...
...
Naomi
1 year ago
Definitely B, Intrusion into Green's private matters. Smith had no legitimate reason to search Green's personal smartphone without consent or a warrant.
upvoted 0 times
...
Charlena
1 year ago
I'm not sure, but I think C) Public disclosure of private facts could also be a possible claim for damages.
upvoted 0 times
...
Kerry
1 year ago
I agree with Na. Smith had no legitimate reason to search Green's personal smartphone.
upvoted 0 times
...
Na
1 year ago
I think the answer is B) Intrusion into Green's private matters.
upvoted 0 times
...

Save Cancel