Security of Emerging Connected Systems7026CEM
- Subject Code :
7026CEM
Student Assignment Brief
This document is intended for Coventry University Group students for their own use in completing their assessed work for this module. It must not be passed to third parties or posted on any website. If you require this document in an alternative format, please contact your Module Leader.
Contents:
- Assignment Information
- Assignment Task
- Marking and Feedback
- Assessed Module Learning Outcomes
- Assignment Support and Academic Integrity
- Assessment Marking Criteria
The work you submit for this assignment must be your own independent work, or in the case of a group assignment your own groups work. More information is available in the Assignment Task section of this assignment brief.
Assignment Information
Module Name:Security of Emerging Connected Systems
Module Code:7026CEM
Assignment Title:CW1: Policy and legal aspects report
Assignment Due:21/03/2025 18:00 UK Time
Assignment Credit:5 credits
Word Count (or equivalent):1500 words +/- 10%
Assignment Type:Report
Percentage Grade:(Applied Core Assessment). You will be provided with an overall grade between 0% and 100%. You have one opportunity to pass the assignment at or above 40%.
Assignment Task
Scenario
For this coursework you are tasked with giving an initial report on the legal aspects of a proposed IoT system.
Imagine that you have been commissioned by a company to investigate potential pitfalls and solutions around a product they are thinking of designing and building. Your report should focus on ensuring that the company is aware of UK and international law that might be applicable and suggest any mitigation, through technology, policy, license or user agreements, that could be considered.
The Proposed System
The system proposed by the company is targeted at consumers who wish to monitor food intake and bodyweight.
The system would comprise of:
- A phone app that can be used to scan barcodes of processed food items (snacks, etc.) to record their calorific and nutritional content to be recorded against the users health record. The app will also be an interface to the data.
- A kitchen scale that sends data to the phone app for accurate recording of ingredients in home-cooked food. For example, when making pasta, items can be weighed and recorded in the app without having to read the weights and then enter them on the phone.
- A bathroom scale that reports user weight and uses light and sound to remind the user to take regular measurements. For example, if no weight has been recorded for the current day, the scales will sound an alert when the light increases in the room, with the assumption that increased light indicates occupancy.
- A server in the UK that stores all information and generates reports per user.
Reporting:
The system definition is currently broad and so your report should not assume any more than is currently stated. Many aspects of your work will be used to inform design decisions, so where there are multiple options with different legal implications, you should compare the most appropriate ones and make recommendations but ultimately the company should be informed of the options and implications rather than be given a single option.
The report will be read by the executive layer of the company and so should have clear high-level outcomes reported early. It will also be passed to the R&D department if the executives decide to pursue the project, so include links to any technological information that might be useful (on encryption schemes, protocols, frameworks, etc.) but refrain from explaining the technological detail in the report itself.
The system will be for sale to UK residents only at first, but the company is interested in expanding into the US market. You should focus on law that applies to the UK, but also include a short section on aspects that might need to be reconsidered for the US market.
Marking:
Marks will be awarded for the following:
- UK and US Law understanding and coverage (50%): full marks awarded for coverage of all applicable legal aspects and demonstration of a good understanding of them.
- Technical Recommendations (40%): Full marks for legal and security recommendations covering all points in the brief and reference to suitable real-world cases.
- Presentation (10%): Full marks for a report suitable for both technical staff and non-technical management.
Submission Instructions:
Online Submission through AULA
- Formatting of submission: Microsoft Word or PDF uploaded to AULA.
Marking and Feedback
How will my assignment be marked?
Your assignment will be marked by the module team.
How will I receive my grades and feedback?
Provisional marks will be released once internally moderated.
Feedback will be provided by the module team alongside grades release. Individual Feedback will be provided Via Turnitin / Aula
Your provisional marks and feedback should be available within [2 weeks (10 working days)].
What will I be marked against?
Details of the marking criteriafor this task can be found at thebottom of this assignment brief.
Assessed Module Learning Outcomes
The Learning Outcomes for this module align to themarking criteriawhich can be found at the end of this brief. Ensure you understand the marking criteria to ensure successful achievement of the assessment task. The following module learning outcomes are assessed in this task:
- Critically evaluate the role of a security policy for protecting information assets and be able to propose appropriate security policies to defend those assets based on an understanding of security concepts and their application to internet-based technologies.
- Demonstrate a sound understanding of the key legislation that relates to information security and how it influences the security policy of an organisation.
Assignment Support and Academic Integrity
If you have any questions about this assignment please see theStudent Guidance on Courseworkfor more information.
Spelling, Punctuation, and Grammar:
You are expected to use effective, accurate, and appropriate language within this assessment task.
Academic Integrity:
The work you submit must be your own, or in the case of groupwork, that of your group. All sources of information need to be acknowledged and attributed; therefore, you must provide references for all sources of information and acknowledge any tools used in the production of your work, including Artificial Intelligence (AI).We use detection software and make routine checks for evidence of academic misconduct.
Definitions of academic misconduct, including plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and collusion can be foundon the Student Portal.All cases of suspected academic misconduct are referred for investigation, the outcomes of which can have profound consequences to your studies.For more information on academic integrity please visit theAcademic and Research Integritysection of the Student Portal.
Support for Students with Disabilities or Additional Needs:
If you have a disability, long-term health condition, specific learning difference, mental health diagnosis or symptoms and have discussed your support needs with health and wellbeing you may be able to access support that will help with your studies.
If you feel you may benefit from additional support, but have not disclosed a disability to the University, or have disclosed but are yet to discuss your support needs it is important to let us know so we can provide the right support for your circumstances. Visitthe Student Portalto find out more.
Unable to Submit on Time?
The University wants you to do your best. However, we know that sometimes events happen which mean that you cannot submit your assessment by the deadline or sit a scheduled exam. If you think this might be the case, guidance on understanding what counts as an extenuating circumstance, and how to apply isavailable on the Student Portal.
Administration of Assessment
Module Leader Name:[Antal Goldschmidt]
Module Leader Email:[ab2216@coventry.ac.uk]
Assignment Category:[Written]
Attempt Type:[Main]
Component Code:[Cw1]
Assessment Marking Criteria
UK and US Law understanding and coverage (50%) |
Technical Recommendations (TR) (40%) |
Report Structure / Referencing (10%)
|
|
Exceptional 80 to 100% |
Marks above 80 will be awarded for going above and beyond the requirements for a distinction. |
Marks above 80 will be awarded for going above and beyond the requirements for a distinction |
Marks above 80+ Will be allocated, based on the technical rigour of the arguments made. |
Distinction 70 to 79% |
Comprehensive discussion of key UK and US legislation. Issue is contextualised in the wider security world, with links to other security factors presented and discussed |
Comprehensive discussion of TR in both regions, multiple factors identified and analysed, links and differences between UK and US presented. Appropriate citations used |
Clear report structure, appropriate use of headings etc. Writing is of good quality, concise and to the point, appropriate use of diagrams to support the written text, References in appropriate format, and from a wide range of sources |
Merit 60 to 69% |
Good discussion and analysis of key UK and US legislation, limited discussion of issue in wider security context |
Good discussion of TR, appropriate discussion of UK factors, appropriate references used to present arguments made |
Report is of good quality, but may not address the question directly, or in a concise way, References are in an appropriate format, but from a limited range of sources |
Pass 50 to 59% |
Reasonable discussion of key UK and US legislation, factors causing the issue are given, but with little discussion or analysis |
Reasonable discussion of TR, discussion and analysis of implications is limited, limited discussion of UK factors, poor use of references to present arguments |
Report structure is reasonable. Quality of writing OK, but may digress from the point, or not directly answer the questions. References in incorrect (ie Footnotes), or inconsistent format, and from a limited range of sources. |
Bare Pass 40 to 49% |
Limited attempt at presenting key UK and US legislation, link to IoT is unclear, and limited analysis made. |
Poor attempt at discussing TR, limited analysis of TR and its implications |
Poorly Structured report OR no references used |
Fail 0 to 35% |
No Attempt, or Limited attempt made |
No Attempt, or Limited attempt made |
Poorly Presented report, with no references used |