Evolution of Cybercrime - Assignment Example

Evolution of Cybercrime Affiliation Evolution of cybercrime The essay provides an introductionof identify as a cybercrime and explains how it has evolved over time. Additionally, the essay provides an insight on the impact that identity theft has had on individuals and society as a whole. It further gives the legislation that is being used to enforce and prevent identity theft in the United States. Moreover, the essay looks at the penalties that are imposed on the offenders who are found guilty of committing identity theft. This is then followed by a comprehensive view of the challenges faced by the law enforcement agencies when it comes to addressing identity theft. Lastly, the essay provides a conclusion that looks into how technology can be used by the law enforcement agencies to prevent and address identity theft as well as how such technology can be of benefit to the society. Introduction Cybercrimes have been a major challenge to the government and with the growth of technology, they have become even more difficult to solve. For this paper, I have selected the cybercrime of identity theft, which has been a challenge due to its nature as a non-index type of crime or white-collar crime. Identify theft has been defined as a form of taking someone’s identity without permission, where the thief acts as someone else by assuming that individual’s identity. The main purpose of stealing other people‘s identity is to gain access to their resources or obtain credit, as well as receive profits in that individual’s name. The victims of identity theft can face many consequences in case they are held liable for the thieves’ actions. Identity theft is challenging to determine because establishing the connection between record breaches and the stolen information is difficult, since the victims themselves usually do not know how their private information was stolen. Even children have been found to be victims of identity theft, as thieves manage to penetrate through the national system and steal children’s identity (Ebenger, 2008). Most likely, the stealing of children’s social security number will go undetected for a longer period. Technology has made it easier for white-collar criminals to gain access to the information of many citizens. For instance, hackers have created software that enables them to commit credit fraud. In 2012, it was established that 12.6 million adults in the United States were victims of identity fraud. The number is bound to rise with the rapid advance of technology and the government trying to keep up with new trends that are created almost every day. Evolution of Identity theft Identity theft began many years ago, before the advent of the Internet opened a major avenue for thieves to be more proficient in this crime. Initially, money driven cases of identity theft were uncommon, since the perpetrators most likely had to kill their victims in order to steal their identity (Young, 2011). Nonetheless, telephones were the first technological devices used to commit identity theft. In the 1960s and 70s the thieves would call the recipients and promise them gifts or monetary rewards, asking for personal information in order to verify that the recipient was the actual winner. At a time when people were not aware of the crime of identity theft, they would willingly give out their social security numbers, bank account number and address among other personal information. In the 1980s, as telephone fraud had become well known, identity thieves advanced to dumpster diving, where they would collect people’s personal information. The criminals began going through the victims’ trash to look for bank account statements, credit cards statements and other personal identifiers. Once this technique became notorious, people started buying personal paper shredders to ensure that the fraudsters could not get into their personal identifiers (Camp & Johnson, 2012). When identity theft got national attention Today, computer fraud has become most rampant, as the Internet provides new opportunities for identity thieves to have access to people’s personal information. According to the FTC, about 62% of fraud happens over the Internet. A case that has gained national repercussion and might be one of the biggest known cases of identity theft happened in 2000, when Philip Cummings, a credit-company help desk employee for Teledata Communications Inc. (TCI), stole thousands of credit reports by using passwords of the company. The passwords allowed the fraudsters to download the credit reports of 30,000 unsuspected victims and at the time this case was close, in 2004, it was established that 2.7 million had been stolen. The theft continued for several years until the FBI was able to put an end to it. This case might have prompted the awareness of the public and the government to the seriousness of identity theft crime. Computer users are not the only people who are targets of identity theft. It has been established that health care industry has been exposed to cybercrime due to the information they provide to the hospital. The employees, business partners and other state holders mastermind identity theft in the health care system. According to the FTC, identity theft in the healthcare exceeded $47.6 Billion in 2003. In 2004, the complaints rose to about 15% with an estimated amount of 247, 000 complaints in 2004. These cybercrimes included identity theft, health care fraud, theft of governmental information and benefits and insurance fraud (Bell, 2015). Therefore, in order to deal with the issue of identity theft in the health care system it has been established that there is a need for managed care that should be highlighted, as well as, other health industry providers and payers. By so doing, it will reduce exposure of patient’s personal identity theft and further cybercrimes. The use of the internet has become an imperative thing as it has enhanced communication, but at the same time, it has been an avenue for the identity thieves to enrich themselves. The effects of identity theft are devastating to businesses or individual because a lot of money and resources are lost. It has been established that over $5million due to electronic data theft. There are both short-term and long-term effects of identity theft. Short-term effects include criminal activities in the name of the victims and financial losses. Additionally, people lose job opportunities because some of the employers check credit card reports and this has caused people great opportunities because their credit cards are full of debt. This has in turn caused emotional stress because of ruined credit card history. Businesses have also fallen victim to identity theft where they have lost a great deal of finances in that by 2008 some business lost more than $ 48 million. Influence of technology on the evolution of Identity theft The evolution in technology have influenced the evolution of identity theft because the thieves no longer have to watch for an easy prey or dig into dumpsters in order to obtain people’s personal information (Collins, 2006). Nowadays, the Internet and technology do most of the work for them. About 90% of people spend time on the Internet using their smartphones, computers and many other devices, which increases the avenues for the thieves. The convenience of technology works for both the perpetrators and the victims, who sometimes do not take advantage of the many tools available for protecting their privacy. Additionally, the popularity of online shopping has opened up an array of opportunities for identity thieves, since people need to use their credits cards to complete their purchase transactions. Clearly, cyber-crime has reached endemic proportions, and solutions have yet to be defined. The only certainty that we have is that cybercrime is not going to end by itself. The anonymity of cyberspace, the convenience of the act and the fact that this is a non-violent type of crime may be tempting for criminals who are willing to take the risk for a large amount of money, for instance. Unless radical measures are taken, cybercrime will bring devastating socio-economic fallout, and probably surmount all other types of crime before long. Legislation used to prosecute and prevent identity theft Cybercrime, especially identity theft is not only a United States problem, but also an International problem. Identity theft as a white-collar crime has proven to be illusive to prosecution because adequate evidence cannot be found to prosecute the perpetrators. The United States however, has created some legislation in the effort of reducing these crimes that have caused substantive amounts of problems to the citizens of the United States. The legislations have been adopted at both the federal and the state levels. An Omnibus cybercrime statute in the federal level is the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act 18 U.S. code § 1030. The statute outlaws activities that victimizes computer systems. The law was enacted to protect federal computer, computers connected to the internet and bank computers from hackers. Additionally, the law shields these systems from threats, trespassing, damage, and espionage and from being corruptly used as tools of fraud. Although the law has been held not to be comprehensive, it has filed some gaps and cracks in the protection that is afforded by other federal criminal laws. Secondly, there is the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act, which came into law in 2008. The Act provides the Department of Justice with new instruments to help in curbing the cybercrime, and identity theft where it imposes criminal responsibility on bad actors while not regulating technology. Sec 204 of the Identity Theft Enforcement and Restitution Act amends the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act addressing the malicious use of spyware in order to steal sensitive personal information. In that, the Act eliminates a provision by the CFAA, which provides that the loss resulting from damage to the victims must exceed $5000. Removing this financial threshold allows the law enforcement agencies to increase prosecutions and efforts in curbing identity theft. The Act further imposes punishment for individuals who are found guilty of committing identity theft. The Act indicates that where the violators have intentionally accessed more than 10 computer without the authority of the owner, and recklessly causes damage to the owner then they are liable to a criminal fine and imprisonment that does not exceed more than 5 years or they get both sentences. In cases where they cause loss and damage to the individuals computers without authorization to have access to them the accused persons can be punishment with an imprisonment term that does not exceed to 10 years and a fine or both. Therefore, the Act shows some seriousness when it comes to identity theft to ensure that the perpetrators see the seriousness of the case. Thirdly, there is the 18 U. S.C § 1028 that deals with fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features and information. The Act provides that any person who knowingly and without any lawful authority produces any identification, false identification document and authentication feature is liable for imprisonment for not more than 15 years. Additionally, if the transfer or production of an identification document, false identification document or authentication feature appears to be issued under the United States the offender will be liable for a fine of $1,000. The production of identification documents is common and it allows identity theft because such individuals use other people’s clear criminal records to commit crimes. Therefore, with imposing of such harsh fines it ensures that the perpetrators know that at one particular point the law will catch with them. Fourthly, there is the Aggravated Identity Theft Act 18 U.S.C § 1028 A. This act provides that any person during and in relation to a felony violation enumerates what is stated under subsection (C) where he or she knowingly transfers, uses or possesses without any authority a way of identification of another individual shall be sentenced to a prison term of 2 years, as well as, punishment that is imposed to that felony. Lastly, there is the Cyber Security Enhancement Act 2002 that grants sweeping powers to the law enforcement agencies, as well as, increase penalties as stipulated under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Moreover, the Act gives or grants the justice system more powers to give harsher sentences for person’s who recklessly or knowingly commit a computer crime such as identity theft that causes serious bodily injury or death to the victim (Camp & Johnson, 2012). This sentences range from 20 years to life imprisonment. Such sentences are harsher on the part of the victim making them to learn huge lessons and be a good example to other perpetrators who may attempt to commit cybercrimes. Limitations and/or gaps related to the legislation It is clear that the government has ensured that it has imposed proper laws to protect every individual in the United States. The United States department of Justice has mandated the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property section with the authority to implement the department’s national strategies in relation to combating intellectual property and computer crimes internationally. The CCIPS investigates, prevents and prosecutes cybercrimes with the help of the private sector, other government agencies, foreign counterparts and academic institutions. By so doing, they ensure that they reduce the number of cases that are related to cybercrimes and especially identity theft which has proven to be the most hard to crack. However, although various laws have been imposed in the society and to individuals to ensure that there is a reduction of identity theft there are various limitations to the legislation. First, the CCFAA is the basis of all other identity theft or cybercrime law, but it has been amended severally rendering it almost powerless. In that, although amendment is important to ensure that there are stronger laws governing and preventing cybercrime there is a need to ensure that those laws are strong enough to prosecute the perpetrators. Additionally, the laws are limiting in relation to the scope of authority they have when it comes to returning the funds that the perpetrators have stolen from unsuspecting victims (Collins, 2006). This is because the individuals who suffer under the hands of identity thieves incur financial loses emotional distress and in some cases trauma because they cannot find employment as their credit record has been destroyed. Therefore, the law needs to find ways to restitute such individuals top ensure that they are taken back to the positions they were before such incidences occurred. Another limitation to the legislation is that the Acts do not provide means in which evidence to catch the perpetrators should be gathered. This is because in most cases most people are not prosecuted because of lack of evidence which is very vital in order to establish that the accused person is guilt of the crimes they are being accused of by the complaint. Therefore, although the laws or legislation has been imposed lack of evidence acts as a major barrier making many criminals to walk without prosecution. Penalties in New Jersey for engaging identity theft In the state of New Jersey, there is a special unit by the name Cyber Crimes Unit. The sole mission is to conduct and help in investigations where networks, computers, telecommunication devices and other technological devices are the target to the commissioning of criminal acts. The Unit investigates data, online identity theft, account hijacking, internal compromises, social networking, and email account intrusions among others. By so doing, the Unit helps in curbing several cybercrimes activity that can be harmful to the individuals, business and society. In New Jersey when an individual uses another person’s identity to commit criminal activity and steal their property such individuals any face imprisonment depending on the degree of the crime. This is because in New Jersey the crimes and penalties are classified depending on how much they have caused damage or harm to the individual. They include crime of 3rd degree where a person is liable to 3-5 years in prison, crime of 2nd degree where a person gets 5-10 years imprisonment. Crime of third degree or second degree in case the property damage or loss exceed $5,000 and crime of 3rd degree or second in case it is made certain that there are aggravating factors (Camp & Johnson, 2012). Lastly, there is crime of 4th Degree where unless property damage or loss exceeds$5,000 the perpetrator can get up to 18 months imprisonment. Adequacy of the degree of penalties given to the offender The penalties that are given to the perpetrators are adequate to the crime they commit because they do not only affect the individual by the society as a whole (Young, 2011). This is because when they steal funds from institutions or individuals they make them suffer losses and damages because such individuals have to find means by which they get their monies back. Consequently, the degree of the punishment are adequate to the crimes committed by the perpetrators. Additionally, with such penalties being imposed on the accused person it ensures that other persons who intend to commit similar crimes are prepared to serve the same sentence. Hence, the penalties and the degrees at which they are given act as a way of teaching other people a lesson not to commit such heinous crimes (Collins, 2006). Therefore, in my opinion to decision by the New Jersey courts to impose such harsh punishment is appropriate to ensure that they reduce the number of perpetrators who may want to be part of the criminals. Thus, I feel that the penalties fit the crime committed and harsher punishments would be even better. Challenges faced by law enforcement agencies in preventing and addressing identity theft. Legislation and agencies have been put in place to ensure that they deal with identity theft completely. However, this might be challenging to address and prevent because people lack awareness in relation to identity theft. For example, many people ignore the warnings they are given in relation to identity theft and they think that it is just a thing. However, when a person gets a firsthand experience that is when they realize that identity theft actually exists. Therefore, if people were made aware through the social media about identity theft then it would make it less hard for the law enforcement agencies to deal with the problem (Ebenger, 2008). Secondly, individuals and institutions are not careful enough to secure their personal information as they stay logged in their computers, which puts them in a greater risk of their personal identification information being stolen. Thirdly, law enforcement agencies do not have sufficient instruments and tools to help them in gathering information about the suspects. This is a major challenge because many of the offenders walk free because of lack of evidence. Thus, making it hard for the law enforcement agency to address identity theft. Furthermore, very few avenues help in indicating cases of identity theft. For that reason, especially in the cases of children whose identity has been stolen it becomes a challenge for the parents to follow up. Another challenge that is faced by the law enforcement agencies when it comes to identity theft is lack of cooperation mostly from financial institutions, especially private institutions, as well as, their unwillingness to impose stronger security measures on their systems. Lastly, the other challenge that is faced by the law enforcement agencies is lack of adequate laws that are elaborate when it comes to prosecuting identity theft as most of them only deal with computer crimes generally (Bell, 2015). Therefore, if there was a law that only dealt with identity theft as it is the most rampant then it would be easier for the law enforcement agency to deal, address and prevent such crimes. Conclusion Techniques law enforcement might utilize technological solutions to prevent and address the cybercrime Technology is the major cause of identity theft because the offenders are now using the internet to target their victims. However, instead of seeing technology as a challenge the law enforcement agencies should see it as an avenue, which they themselves can use to deal with identity theft. For example, the law enforcement agencies can place ad ons or advertisement on the internet making the users aware of hackers who may steal their personal information. Additionally, the law enforcement agencies can use technology to address and prevent identity theft by training their officers on ways to recognize identity theft in the computers. This measure can also help in gathering information and evidence when it comes to a case of identity theft, which is hard to prove. This is because the act happens over many jurisdictions making it even harder to prosecute. Ways law enforcement might utilize technology to benefit society and effect social change. In relation to the society, the law enforcement agencies can use technology and in order to effect change and reduce the amount of economic losses incurred to identity theft. The law enforcement agency should introduce a system where they educate the society on the impacts of technology through a website that can be accessed by all individuals. Secondly, technology may be used to effect change by opening a helpline in the law enforcement agencies that can answer questions in relation to identity theft. Lastly, the law enforcement agencies can effect change and benefit the society using the technology by coming up with a way to share information where the process of identity theft is indicated to ensure that the people in the society understand the seriousness of the case. References Bell, R. (n.d.). Criminal minds & methods. Sensational Heists. Retrieved from http://www.crimelibrary.com/gangsters_outlaws/outlaws/major_heists/5.html Camp, L. J., & Johnson, M. E. (2012). The economics of financial and medical identity theft. New York: Springer. Collins, J. M. (2006). Investigating identity theft: A guide for businesses, law enforcement, and victims. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley. Ebenger, T. (2008). The USA PATRIOT Act: Implications for Private E-Mail. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 47-64. doi:10.1080/19331680801978759 Shamsi, H., & Abdo, A. (2011). Privacy and Surveillance Post-9/11. Human Rights, 38(1), 6-9. Young, M. D. (2011). Electronic Surveillance in an Era of Modern Technology and Evolving Threats to National Security. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 22(1), 11-39. Read More