MENU
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?
Suggested Answer: B
Get Premium CFE-Law Questions
as Interactive Web-Based Practice Test or PDF
Real Exam Format
Detailed Explanations
Instant Access
Get Your Practice Test
38 comments · newest first
DO
Dorinda
12 months ago
Not sure about the conflict of interest claim, feels off.
NA
Nana
12 months ago
C could be a stretch, but I see the angle.
KR
Kris
12 months ago
Wait, can he really sue for that? Seems a bit extreme.
SH
Sherell
1 year ago
Agreed, B makes the most sense here.
KI
Kimbery
1 year ago
Definitely B, that’s a clear case of intrusion!
EL
Ellsworth
1 year 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.
FA
Fannie
1 year ago
This question seems similar to one we practiced on privacy violations. I think Green could definitely argue for intrusion into his private matters.
DE
Delila
1 year ago
I'm not entirely sure, but I feel like slander might not apply since it’s more about spoken defamation, right?
GL
Gladis
1 year ago
I remember we discussed privacy rights in class, and I think the best claim here would be about intrusion into private matters.
EL
Elin
1 year ago
I'm feeling pretty confident about this one. The .toUpperCase() method seems like the obvious choice to convert the string to uppercase.
LE
Lezlie
1 year 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.
AU
Augustine
1 year 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.
AN
Andrew
1 year ago
I'm a bit confused. I feel like I studied “inclusive plan” but it doesn't sound exactly right.
TA
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.
LA
Latricia
1 year ago
User3: Smith definitely overstepped his boundaries by searching Green's personal smartphone.
NY
Nydia
1 year ago
User2: Agreed, that was a clear violation of privacy.
LI
Lisandra
1 year ago
User1: B) Intrusion into Green's private matters
AI
Aileen
1 year ago
Haha, I bet Green wishes he had a 'Phone Fortress' app to keep people like Smith out of his business!
LA
Laquita
1 year ago
C) Public disclosure of private facts
TA
Tamesha
1 year ago
B) Intrusion into Green's private matters
LO
Lorenza
1 year ago
A) Slander
LO
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.
CH
Cherry
1 year ago
Agreed, Green should have the right to privacy in his personal belongings.
DE
Delfina
1 year ago
I think that's a valid point too, Smith definitely overstepped his boundaries.
GR
Graciela
1 year ago
B) Intrusion into Green's private matters
VA
Vanesa
1 year ago
Definitely, invading someone's privacy like that is a serious issue.
BE
Beatriz
1 year ago
I agree, C seems like the most relevant claim in this situation.
ED
Edelmira
1 year ago
C) Public disclosure of private facts
SH
Shala
1 year ago
B) Intrusion into Green's private matters
EV
Evan
1 year ago
A) Slander
BR
Brinda
1 year ago
D) Conflict of interest
RA
Raylene
1 year ago
C) Public disclosure of private facts
CA
Carey
1 year ago
B) Intrusion into Green's private matters
LA
Laine
1 year ago
A) Slander
NA
Naomi
2 years 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.
CH
Charlena
2 years ago
I'm not sure, but I think C) Public disclosure of private facts could also be a possible claim for damages.
KE
Kerry
2 years ago
I agree with Na. Smith had no legitimate reason to search Green's personal smartphone.
NA
Na
2 years ago
I think the answer is B) Intrusion into Green's private matters.