Law enforcement agencies face many challenges that deal with cybercrime. One of the greatest challenges facing law enforcement agencies in investigating exploitation, cyber stalking, and obscenity is the power of anonymity. Anonymity gives the perpetrator an advantage over his/her victim of not knowing. The perpetrator could be around the corner, in the next cubicle at work, or in another state; possibly being former friend or lover, a total stranger met in a chat room, or someone just playing a practical joke.
The problem with this is some online crimes can quickly turn to real life crimes,possibly ending up as a homicide, a crime that originally started over the internet as “following” and “badgering” (Taylor, Robert W; Fritsch, Eric J; Liederbach, John;, 2015). Predators have many ways to contact their victims over the internet while remaining anonymous, one of the most common forms of harassment is unsolicited hate mail, or obscene or threatening e-mail. Predators can also cause a lot of havoc in a chat group through flooding a target's Internet chat channel to disrupt conversation. A predator can also post messages in newsgroups to start malicious rumors.
More complex forms of harassment include mail bombs, sending the target a devastating virus, or spamming the target with electronic junk mail. A predator’s true identity can be masked by using different services that provide anonymous communications over the Internet. To be sure, anonymity provides important benefits, including protecting the privacy of Internet users. Unfortunately cybercriminals can exploit the anonymity available on the Internet to avoid accountability for their conduct. If the predator can be identified the next step for law enforcement is to pinpoint jurisdiction.
Running head: Challenges in Cybercrime 3 Challenges that overlapping of jurisdictions pose in the fight against cybercrime. Jurisdiction pertains to which agency or court has the authority to administer justice in a particular matter, and to the scope of those agencies' and courts' authority (Shinder, 2011). Cybercrime has no boundaries on the internet, crossing over jurisdiction within seconds, the individual committing the crime may not even be aware that he/she is in alien jurisdiction. Law enforcement agencies must determine geographic jurisdiction of a cybercrime case, before investigation starts.
Difficulty arises when the perpetrator is located in another city, state, or even country than their victim. Laws differing from state to state and nation to nation, make it difficult to control or investigate such crimes. Even when law enforcement agencies are willing to pursue a case across state lines, it may be difficult to obtain assistance from out-of-state agencies when the conduct is limited to harassing e-mail messages and no actual violence has occurred (Rouse, 2000-2015). The federal law may limit the ability of law enforcement agencies to track down stalkers and other cyber criminals in cyberspace.
In particular, the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 (CCPA) prohibits the disclosure of subscriber records to law enforcement agencies without a court order and advance notice to the subscriber (See 47 U. S. C. 551(c), (Privacy/Data Protection Project, 2005). As more and more people turn to cable companies for Internet services, the CCPA is posing a significant obstacle to the investigation of cybercrimes, including cyberstalking. Propose Salient Solution(s) for Overcoming the Challenges.
Cybercrime is not a city, state, or a country issue, cybercrime is a global issue that touches every person that utilizes the internet around the world. Laws differing from state to state and nation to nation, make it difficult to control or investigate cybercrime. With this being said the Running head: Challenges in Cybercrime 4 most salient solution would to make cybercrime laws the same across the globe. While this may seem challenging and much needed negotiation from government agencies to government agencies globally this will ensure success in working together as a global nation to fight against cybercrime.
Discuss whether or not law officers from different states should have the ability to work with one another when a cyber-crime is carried out across state lines. State and local agencies are discouraged by jurisdictional limitations of cybercrime. In many cases, the predator may be located in a different city or state than the victim, making it more difficult (and, in some cases, impossible) for the local authority to investigate the crime. Even when law enforcement agencies are willing to pursue a cybercrime case across state lines, it may be difficult to obtain assistance from out-of-state agencies when the behavior is partial to harassing e-mail messages and no actual violence has occurred.
Many cybercrime cases are referred to the FBI and U. S. Attorney's offices because the victim and suspect were located in different states and the local agency was not able to pursue the investigation (Taylor, Robert W; Fritsch, Eric J; Liederbach, John;, 2015). Running head: Challenges in Cybercrime 5 References Privacy/Data Protection Project. (2005, 05 11). Retrieved from University of Miami School of Medicine: http://privacy. med. miami. edu/glossary/xd_ccpa. htm Rouse, M. (2000-2015). Cyberstalking .
Retrieved from TechTarget: http://searchsecurity. techtarget. com/definition/cyberstalking Shinder, D. (2011, 01 26). What Makes Cybercrime Laws so Difficult to Enforce. Retrieved from Tech Republic / US: http://www. techrepublic. com/blog/it-security/what-makes- cybercrime-laws-so-difficult-to-enforce/ Taylor, Robert W; Fritsch, Eric J; Liederbach, John;. (2015). Sex Crimes, Victimization, and Obscenity on the World Wide Web. In R. W. Taylor, E. J. Fritsch, & J. Liederbach, Digital Crime and Digital Terrorism 3rd Edition (pp. 176-212). Upper Saddler City, NJ:.