Traditional Problems Related To Computer Crime

The physical environment that gives rise to computer crime is very different from traditional locations. Indeed, the intangible nature of computer interaction and the resulting criminality raises important questions for investigative agents.1. The absence of physical boundaries and the absence of traditional jurisdictional limits allows criminals to commit transnational crimes without fear of judicial punishment. First-time offenders can cross international borders without passports or official documents.

Importantly, stereotypes and disabilities – many people view computer criminals as non-intelligent, socially challenged individuals (i.e., nerds or geeks) and fail to understand the insidious nature of computer crime; furthermore, those administrators and investigators who reluctantly acknowledge the presence and danger of electronic crime tend to focus only on child pornography, ignoring motives and criminal behavior other than sexual gratification. Even in situations where law enforcement officials recognize the insidious nature of computer or cybercrime, many do not consider themselves or others in their department competent to investigate such criminal activity.

Reluctance to Prosecute As media attention has focused on the dangers of cyberspace, including cyber bullying and child abuse, public awareness has increased the need to protect children in virtual playgrounds. In response, federal and state resources are often allocated to fund special units to investigate and prosecute cases affecting the safety of American children. For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation maintains partnerships with the Department of Justice and the Pornography Section. This organization is composed of attorneys and computer forensic experts who specialize in cases of crimes against children in U.S. Attorneys’ offices.

Lack of Reporting Reports showed that 58 percent of organizations surveyed found themselves prepared to prevent, detect, respond to, or recover from cybercrime over the past year. However, only 56 percent of respondents had a plan to report and respond to a crime. It was reported that over 75 percent of internal intrusions were handled internally without notifying authorities. There may be many reasons for under-reporting by businesses and corporations, but perhaps the most common reasons are financial loss, data breach liabilities, brand loss, regulatory issues, and lack of consumer confidence. Contemporary society, which specializes in an increasing reliance on paperless transactions, wants assurances that company infrastructure is impenetrable and confidential information remains intact.

Lack of Resources Computer intrusions have become a problem in the corporate world. The unwillingness or inability of such entities to communicate effectively with judicial authorities has led to a rise in computer crime. Unfortunately, law enforcement and corporate entities are in dire need of cooperating with each other. Unlike their civil service counterparts, the business community has the resources (both financial and legal) necessary to effectively combat computer crime. First, these companies have much more latitude in monitoring communications and system activities through their system administrators, and they have the ability to establish policies that enable pervasive surveillance.

The legal implications of computer crime have become even more pronounced with the advent of wireless communications, social networking sites, and smart phones. Thus, the notion of clear demarcations of computer crime laws, application, and enforcement varies widely across countries, and the standard of behavior in one jurisdiction may be compatible with or even reject legal standards in another jurisdiction. Traditionally, trial and appellate courts evaluated the constitutionality of computer crime laws, searches, and investigations from the perspective of the First and Fourth Amendments. Evaluating appropriate limits to freedom of expression and establishing standards of reasonableness have varied across state and federal decisions, and have resulted in an inconsistent mix of guidelines.

Read Also: