The Actual Reasons for the Perpetuation of Internet Crimes - Literature review Example

? The Actual Reasons for the Perpetuation of Internet Crimes Teacher               The Actual Reasons for the Perpetuation of Internet Crimes According to Schaeffer et al. (2009) of Wolters Kluwer Law and Business, there exist only two kinds of computers: “those that have been hacked and those that will be hacked.” There is indeed nothing more alarming than this. Based on the statement, no computer is ever spared from hacking. In fact, based on the report by Ponemon Institute entitled Second Annual Cost of Cyber Crime Study: Benchmark Study of U. S. Companies in 2011, the damage that cyber crime has caused in the United States alone has amounted from $1.5M to $36.5M (“Second Annual Cost,” 2011). Nevertheless, despite security measures and laws against cyber crimes, such a situation of clear and present danger persists for a number of reasons. The reasons why Internet crimes remain despite the law enforced against them include the ease in which they can be committed, poor security measures, and carelessness on the part of the victims. One reason why Internet crimes persist is the mere fact that they are relatively easy to commit. A teenage hacker, Nicholas Webber, is the brains behind the ?16.2M-credit card theft at Ghostmarket.net in 2009. This is roughly $25.3M of stolen consumer money from an estimated 8,000 members of Ghostmarket.net all over the world. Webber was only 18 and his accomplice Ryan Thomas was only 17. They were imprisoned for 8 and 4 years respectively for channeling the money of the consumers to an offshore bank account located in Costa Rica (Malik, 2012). Therefore, teenagers like Webber and Thomas who simply know hacking and banking basically already have all the means to easily carry out an Internet crime. They can do this easily especially with anonymous programs. In fact, according to the December 2000 report by McConnell International, the occurrence of Internet crimes is caused by the following factors: “They are easy to learn how to commit; they require few resources relative to the potential damage caused; they can be committed in a jurisdiction without being physically present in it; and they are often not clearly illegal” (“Cyber Crime,” 2000). There is clearly a problem with Internet crimes when it comes to legalities. In fact, according to the report, there are still 33 countries which have not had their laws updated – like Egypt, Italy, Norway, New Zealand and France. Moreover, there are only 52 which have definitely stated laws against Internet crimes (“Cyber Crime,” 2000). However for the 33 countries, the vague and confusing laws simply translate as a difficult due process and a possibility of the suspect being exonerated. Another reason why it is relatively easy to commit Internet crimes is that the suspect knows that he can simply make a plea on invasion of privacy and may claim that for the government to pry on his own private transactions is against his freedom and right. The reason for this is definitely a confusing system of legalities governing Internet crimes, making such crimes irreconcilable with the idea of freedom of speech and the right to privacy. For example, How different is it if libelous and malicious statements are written on private accounts in social, in March 2006, a British woman named Tracy Williams was accused of and charged with libel by the British court for “posting false sexual allegations” at an unnamed online social networking site about a Parliamentary candidate that the police believed she had issues with (Darlington, 2010). It is therefore really unclear which part of the Internet crime merely expresses freedom and which part violates the law. Due to these problems with legalities, only a mere 30% of an estimated 1,600 identity thieves in the United States alone end up prosecuted and even in relatively less jail time despite the fact that 8.3M victims have been harassed, according to the FBI. Moreover, only about 1,400 cases are given attention from around 300,000 complaints about Internet crimes, and what is worse is that only around 6 convictions are expected from these cases (Grimes, 2012). It is therefore clear that one reason why Internet crimes are easy to commit is that the law even protects the criminal’s rights more than those of the victim. A second possible cause of the continued existence of Internet crimes is therefore the fact that countries have poor, outdated or confusing security measures against such criminal offenses. In fact, according to the report by McConnell International, there are only 10 countries with updated laws on Internet crimes: Australia, Canada, Japan, India, Estonia, Mauritius, Peru, The United States, Turkey and the Philippines (“Cyber Crime,” 2000). Even cyber laws of the United Kingdom, Spain and China only have partial updates. Furthermore, a huge number of countries do not even have updated laws like France, New Zealand, Hungary and Norway (“Cyber Crime,” 2000). The fact that these countries have merely outdated or partially updated laws on Internet crimes make their governments worthy of blame for the perpetuation of these offenses. The inefficiency of government security measures against Internet crimes even led to the hacking of Pentagon in 1999 by suspects believed to have been working for the Russian government, as well as to the 2002 hacking of NASA and the US Military databases that caused around $1M in terms of damage (Darlington, 2010). Moreover, due to poor security measures, there is also a growing fear that some expert hackers might develop and use Cray super-computers, or computers and software programs that are capable of “cracking complex encrypted passwords” (Darlington, 2010). Furthermore, because of similar computers in the past which are very hard to detect, even the best technology employed by the FBI gave the authorities a hard time locating teenaged Internet criminals like Webber and Thomas (Malik, 2012). Human factors that further aggravate the situation also include the tendency of the FBI to remain choosy when assigning importance to particular crimes that have to be investigated first (Montalbano, 2011). Aside from the poor security measures of the governments, some private companies also have the same outdated technology and are therefore also partly to blame for their misfortunes. One of these reasons is that many companies that have the option for clients to conduct their transactions online still have not installed SSL or Secure Sockets Layer, which is a protocol used to encrypt private information on the Internet while transmitting it (Darlington, 2010). If these companies do not have SSL installed, they instantly become a prey to fraudsters, hackers, and all other types of evil people on the Internet. This particular case happened to the huge companies Motorola, CNN, eBay, Yahoo, Amazon, ZDNet, and Buy.com. These companies, which did not once have SSL, were simultaneously hacked in February 2000 by someone who called himself “Mafiaboy,” a 15-year-old Canadian national (Darlington, 2010). Moreover, in 2003, the lack of security measures coupled with the lack of anticipation and preparedness greatly affected the operation of Western Union in 2003 when record details of about 15,000 credit and debit cards were stolen by hackers (Darlington, 2010). The aforementioned companies did not only once lack the technology to prevent these attacks but also the foresight necessary to protect their own data. When worms, viruses and Trojan horses began infecting company databases in the late 90’s, the lack of preparedness was also one of the factors. For instance, in March 1999, companies were not able to anticipate the attack of the Melissa virus. This particular virus caused the corruption of around $385M in terms of data in numerous online businesses (Darlington, 2010). However, the Melissa virus is nothing compared to the Love Bug virus that caused a whopping $8.75B worth of damage in 2000, and the SirCam virus that caused $1.15B of damaged computer systems and databases (Darlington, 2010). Moreover, illegal trading, pirating and the illegal sale of prescription drugs online also happen because of the companies’ lack of control of sales and management. For one, in illegal trading, which is the “selling of excessive items at lower prices in other markets,” as well as the illegal selling of drugs that have serious side effects, companies never see to it that drugs and other products come from reputable sources. There is also the mistake of huge manufacturing companies that never check whether these products are transported to credible retailers and wholesalers (Darlington, 2010). In another case, music and movies are pirated or illegally reproduced, and recording companies and law enforcement groups are therefore partly to blame for this because they ignore the existence of illegal download sites on the Internet. The evidence of the costs of damage that result from the side effects of selling such prescription drugs and pirated products simply show the destructive potential of these Internet crimes. Nevertheless, there is no one else to blame but the laxity of company laws and the irresponsibility of these companies when it comes to carrying out their operations and transactions online. Just as lax and lenient country and company measures encourage the perpetuation of Internet crimes, a third cause of the continuing existence of cyber crimes is simply carelessness on the part of the victims especially the average consumer. As previously mentioned, the hacking and infection of viruses of government agencies and private companies can only blame their irresponsibility in terms of a lack of preparedness and a lack of security on their part (Darlington, 2010). Moreover, according to McConnell International is as follows, “… countless instances of illegal access and damage around the world remain unreported” (“Cyber Crime,” 2000). This means that no matter the loss and damage that they have experienced, many victims choose not to report Internet crimes perhaps because of a loss of confidence in the law enforcement agencies that they expect would deal with such crimes. Nevertheless, it remains a fact that “those who don’t respect, address, and counter this threat will surely become victims” (Schaeffer et al., 2009). Both the consumers and the institutions that are exposed to the risk of Internet crimes are therefore encouraged to remain vigilant and to make truthful reports of these crimes to the proper authorities. On a more encouraging note, FBI.gov, the website of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, has a motto that poses a challenging question: “We are building our lives around wired and wireless networks [but] the question is, are we ready to work together to defend them?” (“Internet Fraud,” 2012). This is a reminder not only to Americans but to every citizen of the world to be vigilant against cyber criminals – for this is the only way to protect themselves. The message is also that of cooperation between the citizens and the law enforcement agencies, and that of trust between them. In fact, FBI.gov lists down various tips on how to protect oneself against Internet criminals. The message of the FBI as well as many others not mentioned indeed serve as an encouraging way for citizens to develop a sense of responsibility and to get rid of one’s careless attitude which is the main factor behind the perpetuation of these crimes. References “Cyber Crime…and Punishment?” (2000). Retrieved June 1, 2012 from McConnell International: http://www.witsa.org/papers/McConnell-cybercrime.pdf. Darlington, Roger. (2010). “Crime on the Net.” Retrieved June 2, 2012 from Roger Darlington’s World: http://www.rogerdarlington.me.uk/crimeonthenet.html. Grimes, Roger A. (2012). “Why Internet crime goes unpunished: Until we make the Internet secure, cyber criminals will continue to pull off high-value, low-risk offenses.” Retrieved June 1, 2012 from Infoworld.com: http://www.infoworld.com/d/security/why-internet-crime-goes-unpunished-183605. “Internet Fraud.” (2012). Retrieved June 1, 2012 from the Federal Bureau of Investigation: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/cyber/cyber. Malik, Shiv. (2012). “Teenagers jailed for running ?16M internet crime forum.” Retrieved June 1, 2012 from Guardian News and Media Limited: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/02/ghostmarket-web-scam-teenagers. Montalbano, Elizabeth. (2011). “The FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center received more than 300,000 reports of Internet crime in 2010, according to its annual report.” Retrieved June 2, 2012 from Information Week: http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/security/229219434. Schaeffer, Bruce S., Chan, Henfree, Chan, Henry & Ogulnick, Susan. (2009). “Cyber Crime and Cyber Security: A White Paper for Franchisors, Licensors, and Others.” Retrieved June 3, 2012 from Wolters Kluwer Law & Business: http://business.cch.com/franlaw/cybercrime_whitepaper.pdf. “Second Annual Cost of Cyber Crime Study: Benchmark Study of U. S. Companies.” (2011). Retrieved June 2, 2012 from Ponemon Institute: http://www.arcsight.com/collateral/whitepapers/2011_Cost_of_Cyber_Crime_Study_August.pdf. Read More