Cybercrime: Policing and the Changing Criminal Landscape - Essay Example

Cybercrime: Policing and the Changing Criminal Landscape By Student’s Name Institution Tutor Course Date Cybercrime: Policing and the Changing Criminal Landscape Introduction All over the globe, the police are known to be first responders whenever a crime is reported to have occurred. Before the the internet, the role of the police in responding and even thwarting criminal activities before they happen was more elaborate (Wolf 2000, p. 113). Most of the time, the criminals were always out-witted by the police. For instance, when vehicles became available that could be used by bank robbers to get away after stealing from banks, the police equipped themselves with faster cars and also learned to efficiently drive better than the criminals (Endgame 2015, p. 3; Robert 2002, p. 279). However, the technological trends that are characteristic of the twenty-first century have changed the rules of the game leaving the policeno or little power to protect citizens from the criminals (Spitzberg& Cupach 2003, p. 348). The internet and computers have made criminals better as they can commit crimes even without being present at the scene (Millen 2000, p.26). While criminals are becoming better, the police are continuously becoming strained in terms of both resources and personnel. There is also scarcity of officers with technical knowhow to deal with the ever changing criminal landscape(Spitzberg & Hoobler 2002, p. 72). This paper is going to examine the role of police in fighting cybercrime. It will also determine the extent to which police are limited in fighting this new era crime and what can be done to enhance their efficiency in dealing with cybercrime. It will also propose ways in which closer partnerships can be utilized to achieve better outcomes. For the purposes of this paper, cybercrime is used to imply crimes planned and committed by the help of mobile and internet-based devices (Spitzberg& Hoobler 2002, p. 72). Role of Police in Fighting Cybercrime Police have not been very instrumental in fighting cybercrime, atleast as the public would expect them to, because this type of crime has taken them completely by surprise (Spence-Diehl 2003, p. 11). The police being used to the crime face serious challenges in their effort to fight digital crimes. According to O’Connor (2012, p.34), police play an important role in the investigation of criminal activities. Investigation should be conducted to find evidence which can prove the suspected persons either as guilty or innocent. In conducting their investigations, police have to do so in accordance with the law (Nuth 2008, p. 442; Vincent & Hart 2011, p. 254). The evidence to be presented in court also need to be admissible and so police have a responsibility of obtaining evidence through legal ways (Stanley & Horswell 2004, p. 89).To conduct searches and arrests, they are required by law to obtain a warrant so that they are not said to be intruding in the privacy of suspects (Hodgson, 2010, p. 22; Thaman 2013, p. 477). Police investigations have in the recent years helped apprehend cyber criminals such as stalkers in various parts of the world (O’Connor, 2012, p.45; Stephenson 2003, p. 50). The police are also charged with the responsibility of interviewing victims, witnesses and suspects. Such interviews are usually used to determine what a suspect should be charged with. In complex cases such as cybercrime, police work hand in hand with court prosecutors to determine the charges that can be appropriately pressed against the suspect (Pepitone 2015, p. 2; Snyder 2001, p. 254). Police in addition to evidence collection and pressing charges against suspects have a role in securing the collected evidence. Police Limitations in Fighting Cybercrime The greatest challenge that police face in investigating and prosecuting cybercrimes is the lack of adequate resources (Robb 2016, p. 3). Most cybercrimes are usually sophisticated in nature and requires police to have atleast technical expertise to be able to understand the modus operandi of criminals (Pocar 2004, p. 31; Westby, 2004, p. 82). However, most police do not have this technical knowledge and this affects the quality of evidence that they can gather during their investigations (Reilly 2011, p. 33; Brenner, 2002, p. 27). Most cybercrimes take advantage of vulnerabilities in the wireless networks to plan and execute attacks that compromises the security of the affected individuals (Robertson et al. 2014, p. 61). Without technical knowledge, it is impossible for police to investigate such cases. Another limiting factor isunderreporting. This has made it impossible for police to assess and understand the magnitude of the problem. There is no mechanism existing in the police departments to record crimes that have been reported (Gilbert 2004, p. 12; Kaye 1995, p. 19; White 2004, p. 27). Brown (2015, p. 42) argues that the reason most of these crimes are not reported is that they are thought to be trivial simply because there is no violence involved. Also, the public feels that there is nothing police can do about it (Endgame 2015, p. 64; Nuth 2008, p. 31). The police are limited by territorial laws in that they cannot conduct investigations and prosecute suspects who are outside the borders of their local countries (Wilber 2016, p. 12). In case a suspect of a cyber-attack is outside the territory of local police coverage, the help of Interpol police can be enlisted (White 2004, p. 27). Interpol have the jurisdiction to deal with crimes that are international in nature. Overcoming the Challenges Police can deal effectively with cybercrimes if the challenges they face are addressed. For them to investigate and prosecute cybercrimes, they require technical knowledge and also skilled investigators who can maneuver through computer forensics with apparent ease (Shafritz 2001, p. 332). Currently, police are understaffed and are limited in terms of technical expertise. To solve this problem and position them best to deal with the changing crime landscape, police should be provided with additional training. According to Hodgson (2010, p. 47), police are strained in terms of the number of people with the requisite knowledge to deal with sophisticated crimes such as cybercrime because experts are required to be highly trained. High deductive reasoning and technical skills in computer hardware as well as softwareare also key (Zhigang 2011, p. 64). Apparently, this is absent in most local forces. Interpol has taken urgent steps to train local forces in fighting crime on the dark web and this is a good sign which should be emulated by government departments responsible for security(Government.nl, 2016). Reporting of cybercrime cases by those affected will help police determine the magnitude of the problem they face. Education and awareness programs can be used to make the public aware of the need to report cybercrimes(Robb 2016, p. 2; Wettering 2001, p. 49). Most people feel that police are inadequate to address such cases but this is not true. Police play a crucial role in the investigation of such crimes and are key to reducing cases of cybercrime on the international stage (U.S. Department of Justice 2009). Partnerships to Achieve Better Outcomes To coordinate effective cybercrime responses, it is crucial for different law enforcement agencies to work together (Richet n.d., p. 11: Wade 2011, p. 15). Concerted efforts will supplement deficiencies of one enforcement agency with the strengths of another. Policing should not also be left with the responsibility of addressing this challenge alone. The public and other civil society groups can join hands to help police in this fight. Police officers have often complained about the use of jargons which they cannot comprehend. A recent study by (Brown 2015, p. 18; Zheng 2003, p. 61) reveals that many senior police officers found difficulty in understanding the nature of certain reported threats because of the lexicon used to report them. Under-reporting affects the efforts of reducing cybercrime incidents. Police should come up with reporting mobile applications and also work to increase awareness among the public about the need to report cybercrimes. Conclusion The digital era has revolutionized the criminal landscape and currently, almost all crimes have a digital element attached to them. This paper has discussed the role of police in the fight against cybercrime and how they are limited currently in their efforts to reduce the rates of crimes committed with the aid of digital devices. The paper also suggested how these challenges can be overcome to increase responses by police. Further, partnerships that are crucial to the fight against cybercrime have been suggested. Overall, there is need for police to change their strategies to keep up with the criminals who are proving time and again to be ahead of the police (Middleton 2002, p. 24; Marshall 2008, p. 29; Zavrsnik 2010, p. 184). Cybercrime rates have soared in the recent years and are predicted to continue rising and unless the police take urgent steps to ensure that this group of criminals is under control, it is going to be difficult in future to contain their activities(Pepitone 2015, p. 3; Richet n.d., p. 22-6). Of all the recommendations to improve the efficiency of local police officers, training is the most urgent. Training will help them familiarize with investigation techniques and equip them with skills to deal with cybercrimes. References Brenner, S. W. 2002, Organized cybercrime? How cybercrime may affect the structure of criminal relationships, North Carolina Journal of Law and Technology, 4(1), 1-50. Brown, C. S. D. 2015,Cyber-Attacks, Retaliation and Risk: Legal and Technical Implications for Nation-States and Private Entities, In J. L. Richet (Ed.), Cybersecurity Policies and Strategies for Cyberwarfare Prevention, Hershey, PA, pp. 166-203 Endgame 2015, ‘Turn the map around to prevent damage and loss from cyber Attack’, Endgame White Paper, 4June 2015, pp. 2-3. Government.nl. 2016,‘Fighting cybercrime in the Netherlands, Cybercrime, 4 June 2016, pp. 4-5. Hodgson, J. S. 2010, ‘The Future of Adversarial Criminal Justice in 21st Century Britain’, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, vol. 35, pp. 319-362. Kaye, B. H. 1995, Science and the Detective: Selected Reading in Forensic Science, New York. Marshall, A. 2008, Digital forensics, digital evidence in criminal investigation, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell. Middleton, B. 2002, Cyber Crime Investigator's Field Guide, London: CRC Press LLC. Millen, P. 2000,‘Under the microscope: a personal view’. Police Review, pp. 28-29. Nuth, M. S. 2008, ‘Crime and technology: Challenges or solutions? Taking advantage of new technologies’, For and against crime, Computer Law & Security Report, vol. 24, pp.437–446. O’Connor, V. 2012, ‘Common Law and Civil Law Traditions’, International Network to Promote the Rule of Law, 4 March 2012, pp. 45-7. Pepitone, J. 2015, ‘Interpol Is Training Global Police to Fight Crime on Dark Web’, [online] NBC News, 4 Jun 2016, pp. 3-4 Pocar, F. 2004, ‘Defining Cyber-Crimes in International Legislation’,European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research,vol. 10, pp 27–37. Reilly, D., Wren, C., & Berry, T. 2011, ‘Cloud computing: Pros and Cons for Computer Forensic Investigators’, International Journal Multimedia and Image Processing, vol.1, no.1, pp. 26-34. Richet, J. n.d., ‘Cybersecurity policies and strategies for cyberwarfare prevention’. Robb, G. 2016,‘Are the police being left behind in the fight against cyber-crime?’,[online] nechronicle, 4 Jun. 2016, pp. 2-4. Roberts, L. 2008, Jurisdictionaland definitional concerns with computer mediated interpersonal crimes: An Analysis on Cyber Stalking’,International Journal of Cyber Criminology, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 271-285. Robertson, J., Riley, M., Strohm, C., & Chan, M. 2014, ‘The year of hacking dangerously: 7 scary cyberattacks’, Bloomberg, 10 December 2014, pp. 34-8. Shafritz, R. 2001, A Survey of Cyberstalking Legislation, UWLA Law Review, vol. 32, pp. 223-338. Snyder, F. 2001, ‘Sites of criminality and sites of governance: Social & Legal Studies’, vol. 10, pp. 251–256. Spence-Diehl, E. 2003, ‘Stalking and Technology: The Double-Edged Sword’, Journal of Technology in Human Services, vol. 22, no.1, pp. 5-18. Spitzberg, B. H., & Cupach, W. R. 2003, ‘What mad pursuit? Obsessive relational intrusion and stalking related phenomena’,Aggression and Violent Behavior’, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 345–375. Spitzberg, B. H., & Hoobler, G. 2002,‘Cyberstalking and the technologies of interpersonal terrorism’,New Media & Society, vol. 4, no.1, pp.71-92. Stanley, S., & Horswell, J. 2004,The education and training of crime scene investigators: An Australian Perspective. In J Horswell (Ed.), The Practice of Crime Scene Investigation. Boca Raton: CRC Press. Stephenson, P. 2003,‘A comprehensive approach to digital incident investigation’,Information Security Technical Report,vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 42-54. Thaman, S. C. 2013,Legal Systems: Adversarial and Inquisitorial. Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences, pp. 471-475. Tikk, E. 2011,‘Ten Rules for Cyber Security Survival: Global Politics and Strategy’, vol. 53, no. 3, pp. 119-132. U.S. Department of Justice 2009,‘Cyberstalking: A New Challenge for Law Enforcement and Industry.’ United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime 2012,‘The use of the Internet for terrorist purposes.’ Vincent, M., & Hart, N. 2011‘Law in the Cloud.’, Law Society Journal, vol. 50, pp. 51-53. Wade, G. 2011, Computer Crime: Investigations. Encyclopedia of Information Assurance Taylor and Francis, New York, pp. 551-562. Westby, J. R. 2004, International guide to cyber security, Chicago, Ill. ABA Publ. Wettering, F. L. 2001, ‘The Internet and the Spy Business, International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 342-365. White, P. C. 2004,Crime Scene to Court: The Essentials of Forensic Science, 2ndedn, Cambridge, Royal Society of Chemistry, UK. Wilber, D. Q. 2015,‘Encrypted Devices Let Criminals Go Dark: U.S. Prosecutor Warns’, Bloomberg, 6 May 2015, pp. 11-16. Wolf, J. B. 2000, ‘War Games Meets the Internet: Chasing 21st Century Cybercriminals with Old Laws and Little Money’, American Journal of Criminal Law, vol. 25, pp. 95-117. Yar, M. 2005, ‘The novelty of cybercrime: An assessment in light of routine activity theory’, European Journal of Criminology, vol. 2, pp. 407–427. Zavrsnik, A. 2010, ‘Towards an Overregulated Cyberspace’, Masaryk University Journal of Law & Technology, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 173-190. Zheng, R., Qin, Y., Huang, Z., & Chen, H. 2003, ‘Authorship Analysis in Cybercrime Investigation’, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 2665, 59-73. Zhigang, Y. 2011,‘Cyber Variants of Traditional Crimes and Criminal Law Responses’, Social Sciences in China, vol. 32 no. 1, pp. 66-79. Read More