INSTRUCTIONSTHERE ARE A TOTAL OF FOUR DISCUSSION QUESTIONS BELOW:Please answer each Discussion question on a separate page and also cite all references in APA. Some discussion questions have multiple questions within one, but be sure to answer the entire discussion question on one page. Place a separate reference page for each discussion question answered. Please make all work is original. All sources need to be cited. I canâ€™t afford to get my paper flagged for academic violations. Use 2-4 References for each question. Please use academic and peer-reviewed research articles and also make sure each question is answered in at least one full page of content. PLEASE MAKE SURE TO ANSWER WACH QUESTION ON A SEPARATE PAGE. I WILL BE UPLOADED REFERENCE MATERIAL TO HELP ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. PLEASE ALSO REFERNCE THE DOJ MANUAL WHEN ANSWERING ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS BELOW. THE DOJ MANUAL INFORMATION IS: Department of Justice Manual â€œ(DOJ Manualâ€ â€“ Searching and Seizing Computers (2009). ONE ENTIRE DISCUSSION QUESTION ANSWERED PER PAGE. BE SURE TO USE DIFFERENT REFERENCES FOR EACH QUESTION AND PUT THEM ON SEPARATE PAGES. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS ARE BELOW:Week#4DISCUSSION QUESTION# 1 In Re Innovatio Case (Sources “4-L- Innovatio …” and Week 4 Lecture “ECPA-Questions and Problems” ) The general question is what obligation, if any, do members of the public have to protect themselves against intercept of their unencrypted communications when they are using wi-fi available to the public? (e.g. at the coffee shops referred to in Innovatio) Was the Judge in Innovatio right when he said Innovatio was not liable under the Wiretap Act (18 USC 2511) for intercepting communications because, whether the public knew it or not, the public should know that their unencrypted communications were â€œreadily accessible to the general publicâ€ (18 USC 2511 (g) (i)?(I HAVE UPLOADED THE REFERENCE MATERIAL FOR THIS, AND ITS LABELED â€œWEEK#4 REFERENCE MATERIAL -2-ECPA- QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS -NEW F2018â€, AND â€œWEEK#4 REFERENCE MATERIAL-IN RE INNOVATIO CASE – 5-GOOGLE-CIVIL-WIRETAP-VIOLATIONS ALLEGED -9-2013(1) PLEASE REFERENCE OTHER MATERIAL AS WELL TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS)â€.Week#5DISCUSSION QUESTION# 2 Do You Agree with the Decision in US v, Carpenter? The Supreme Court decision in Carpenter Was Limited to Requests for More Than Six Days of Cell Location Information. Do You Agree With This Limitation? (I HAVE UPLOADED THE REFERENCE MATERIAL FOR THIS, AND ITS LABELED â€œWEEK#4 REFERENCE MATERIAL -2-ECPA- QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS -NEW F2018â€, BUT PLEASE REFERENCE OTHER MATERIAL AS WELL TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS).Week#6DISCUSSION QUESTION# 3Do you agree with the Cloud Act? Should “U.S. Providers” Like Microsoft Be Required to Honor Search Warrants for “Content” Stored Outside the U.S.?Week# 7DISCUSSION QUESTION #4 Assume the Chief Trial Judge in your state or federal jurisdiction wants to retain you to conduct a training session for judges. The judge wants you to (1) identify particular areas in which CF experts can be most helpful to judges and juries and (2) explain your reason(s) for selecting these particular areas3. The Chief Judge has read the 2011 article by Bedsole and Mallery (Sources 7- Advice for Lawyers selecting CF Experts.) The judge was an experienced litigator before becoming a judge. She had substantial experience hiring experts – including CF experts. Before the judge decides whether to hire you, she wants to know your assessment of the article. She asks for specifics. What would you say?In Vermont, judges asked Gary Kessler, former head of CF Program at Champlain College, to develop such a presentation for their annual training. So this is not merely a hypothetical. I don’t know whether judges in other jurisdictions would ask for your help. But, I wouldn’t be surprised if they did.