Cyber Crimes & Law enforcements

Challenges

Justin Chung

Essay Question: Consider whether the topic of cybercrime is challenging

because of those elusive cybercriminals who challenge law enforcement
agencies and evade detection by utilizing the advanced technology to
commit cybercrime in various ways (Pittaro, 2007).

In the past two decades, the rapid developed technology has improved the
availability and accessibility of the Internet and has facilitated social interaction
between individuals (McFarlane & Bocij 2003; Jaishankar & Sankary 2005). It
not only blends in the life of individuals and communities, but also provides
people unprecedented way of communication (Baer, 2010). Nowadays, people
in different places of the world can communicate instantly through a diversity
of devices, such as iPhone and tablet, or sharing photos and text messages via
whatsapp. However, the incredible advanced technology provides a loophole
for criminals to commit cybercrime, for example, causing emotional or physical
harm to others by threatening or harassing (Recupero, 2008). Hence, there are
people argue that whether those elusive cybercriminals challenge the law
enforcement and evade detection by utilizing the advanced technology to
commit cybercrime in various ways (Pittaro, 2007). To demonstrate the
aforementioned phenomenon, this paper will analyze three major challenges of
cybercrime, namely (1) difficulties in identification, (2) encryption, (3)
transnational cybercrime.

Jaishankar and Halder (2011) define cybercrime is an offence committed by any
individuals or groups who use modern telecommunication network to
intentionally cause mental or physical harm on the victims, or for the purpose
of personal desire, such as damaging the reputation of another or gaining
benefit from cybercrime in which they commit. Cybercrime can be classified
into various types of criminal offences because there is no universal
classification of cybercrime. The typical examples of cybercrime are hacking,
phishing and AD clicker. According to Nation Crime Agency, hacking refers to
criminal use various malicious software to illegally access others computer;
phishing means a victims personal information is swindled by some bogus
email which usually disguised as official authority; AD clicker occurs when a
victim clicks a specific link which is designed by a criminal for directly
accessing a victims computer.

Difficulties in Identification
Firstly, in terms of the difficulties of identification, Lee (2014) stated that the

quantity of household data stored in various devices is approximately 3.3

terabyte. It could be afflictive when collecting infinite raw data from the
Internet in the course of investigation (Holt & Blevins, 2008). For example,
investigation of cybercrime has been revolutionized by digital forensics. Digital
forensics refers to analyze and discovery evidence in digital device. However,
despite the advanced forensic techniques assist cybercrime investigation, the
reality is that the circulation of multitudinous data in network traffic makes the
acquisition of evidence and identification of perpetrators extremely difficult.
Also, the scope of evidence in cybercrime is immense because it can be stored
in various electronic storage and mobile devices (Ritter, 2006). Perpetrators can
make use of the aforesaid advantage to evade detection and investigation.
Therefore, it is challenging and complicated to identify specific suspects and
cyber evidence during investigation due to the large scope of network data
(Mora & Kloet, 2010).

The other fundamental component constitutes the difficulties of identification
is anonymity. Bowker and Gray (2004) mentioned that there is an increasing
tendency of cybercrime because the cybercriminals can simply utilize
anonymous identities to hide behind the curtain of the Internet. Perpetrators
usually anonymize their users identities to communicate through using
anonymizing remailer and other secure web-based services (Brown, 2015).
Anonymizing remailer operates as a barrier between the sender and the
recipient in the course of sending email. It can withdraw identifying
information from the email so as to anonymously deliver the email. For
instance, the Payback website at www.thepayback.com intentionally conceals
personal information of the sender for them to send emails anonymously (Bocij,
2005).

The following three cyberstalking cases illustrate how culprits make use of
anonymity. Cyberstalking means a criminal threaten or harass another person
in the Internet and this cyberstalking behavior usually occurs in repetitious
pattern, such as stalking a specific target, sending abundant harassing emails or
making threatening phone calls to victim (Reno, 1999). There is a tendency that
perpetrators can obtain victims personal information through various
brokerage websites. Originally, they aim to help people find family members
but on the contrary it offers opportunity to offenders who want to launch
cyberstalking (Reno, 1999).

In the first case (Remsburg v. Docusearch, 2003), the victim, Amy Lynn Boyer
was murdered by Liam Youens. Liam Youens had been obsessed with Boyer for
two years and start to cyberstalk her by establishing a website called Amy Boyer
prior to the murder (Pittaro, 2007). Youens stated in the website that how his
sincere love toward Boyer was subject to rejection by Boyer (Pittaro, 2007).
According to the judgement, Youens contacted Docusearch, an online agent for
obtaining others personal information anonymously, to gather Boyers
employment information. After Docusearch successfully obtained Boyers
workplace address, Youens killed Boyer by shooting her with a handgun. The
second case is about the offender threatened a 28-year-old woman by
repeatedly posting her personal information in different online chat rooms and
bulletin boards anonymously (Rene, 1999). Also, the message signified that she
wish to be raped. Subsequently, there were men who came across to her
apartment saying they wanted to rape her. The third case is about the
defendant harassed a co-worker continuously by utilizing anonymous remailer
(Rene, 1999).

According to these three cases, it can be observed that the constant technical
development provides anonymous identities for the offenders to evade the
investigation and prosecution, and transcend the law enforcement (Petrocelli,
2005). As there are various communication ways in cyberspace, such as chat
room and bulletin board, the cybercriminals can simply post personal
information and humiliating hearsay about the victim without their users
identification (Petrocelli, 2005). Besides, the brokerage websites which provide
assistance for searching personal information are subject to abuse by culprits
(Pittaro, 2007). In additions, proxy server is another common anonymizing
method to conceal online activity (Spence-Diehl, 2003). Offenders can
manipulate their identities by establishing a proxy server when connecting to
network. Therefore, it is challenging that the internet not only facilitates the
communication of individuals, but also fosters the perpetrators to commit
cybercrime in different methods. With the aforesaid advantages, the
perpetrators can easily evade from being arrested and convicted (Bowker &
Gray, 2004).

Encryption
Secondly, encryption can place investigators in vulnerable position when they
analyze evidence during investigation (Ashford, 2015). In the course of
searching evidence at crime scenes, it is difficult to locate flash storage devices

such as Micro Secure Digital card. Because of advanced technology, flash

storage can be integrated with common personal items such as jewelry and toys,
many offenders take this advantage to hide the evidence (Young, 2009). Even if
those hidden devices are found, it could be frustrating because the data stored
in those devices may have been encrypted (encryption is converting data in
cipher for preventing people access without permission) (Brown, 2015).

For example, steganography is one of common encrypting technique to conceal
data inside the code of ordinary files such as video or audio (Graham et al., 2011).
It usually combined with cryptography (data written in secret code) and stored
in media files. As media file is very common and do not arouse immediate
suspicion, it is perfect to stored encrypting data in large size media file (Li et al.,
2011). Also, when intercepting network traffic, it is always unavailing if the
storage devices have been implemented solid encryption. As a matter of fact,
because there is infinite database stored in internet, combing with the use of
steganography, it is impossible to detect and decode the encrypting data which
circulates in network traffic (Dell SecureWorks, 2015).

Besides, law enforcement agencies can coerce defendant to disclose decrypting
data, failing to comply will be subject to imprisonment (Cyber Crime Act,
2001:s2). However, if the penalty for contempt of court were less than the
offence itself, defendant would not reveal decrypted data due to their rational
choice (Brown, 2015). In addition, Apple and Google are initiating latest
encryption technology for their users (Apple, 2015). Although it can improve
security on smart phones, it places malicious offenders at superiority. Even the
companies themselves have no authority to unlock their users smart phone to
disclose the personal information (Comey, 2014). Therefore, offenders can
easily manipulate and deliver cybercrime evidence without any risk of
detection.

Transnational Cybercrime

Thirdly, as far as transnational cybercrime is concerned, the jurisdiction and
power of law enforcement agencies is limited on its own territory and nation
state. Transnational cybercrime places law enforcement agencies in a serious
disadvantageous position due to jurisdiction limitation (Petrocelli, 2005). In
particular, trans-border element complicates the investigation of cybercrime
substantially (Brown, 2015). In order to demonstrate this challenge, two cases

will be discussed in order to illustrate how challenging transnational

cybercrime is.

In the first case (United States v. Gorshkov, 2001), the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) faced a challenge about transnational intrusion from Russia.
According to the judgement, several United States enterprises claimed that the
hackers illegally intruded their computer system to steal the confidential
information. After a series of investigation, the FBI only found that the hackers
situated in Russia. Accordingly, the U.S Justice Department sent a request to
Russian Federation for demanding the detainment and interrogation of the
hackers (Brenner, 2012). However, the Russian did not respond to FBI because
there is no extradition treaty between United State and Russian Federation.
Therefore, the Russia Federation had no obligation to extradite the hackers to
the United States for prosecution (Brenner, 2012). Whereas the FBI cannot rely
on extradition, they then created a counterfeit company, Invita, to induce the
hackers attended a job interview in order to prosecute them in United State
(Brenner, 2012). Fortunately, they accepted the request. They were asked for
demonstrating their hacking technic in the Invita Computer which had already
been installed keyloggers (programs that record the input information from
keyboard). After the FBI obtain the hackers username and password, they
unlawfully assess the hackers unofficial company sever in Russia for gaining
the cybercrime evidence (Brenner, 2012). Although the hackers were subject to
imprisonment in United State, Russias Federal Security claimed that the FBI
violated Russian law (Article 272 of the Criminal Code of the Russian
Ferderation) on the ground that the conviction was completely based on illegal
hacking within Russian border (Brunker, 2002).

The second case is about the Rome Air Development Center (Rome Labs)
network was installed password sniffer programs by the hackers (Brenner, 2012).
They illicitly assessed Rome Labs confidential databases through the aforesaid
programs. Since Rome Labs was the United States Air Force's premier
command and control research laboratory, it aroused highly attention of Air
Force Office of Special Investigation (AFOSI). The AFOSI then conducted the
investigation of that invasion accordingly. As a result, they found that it was
attacked by two hackers. However, it was extremely difficult to identify the
perpetrators because they had circulated their trace through various computer
systems in multiple countries before the intrusion (Brenner, 2012).

According to the aforementioned cases, it can be observed that transnational

cybercrime challenges law enforcement agencies in two aspects. Firstly, it is
difficult to arrest a perpetrator abroad (Brenner, 2012). In the first case, as there
is no extradition treaty between Russia and the United States, the Russian
Federation has no obligation to turn the suspect over to the United States. Even
if the extradition treaty exists among them, executing extradition is usually
arduous because the legal procedure is very complicated (Brenner, 2012). In
addition, the U.S Justice Department stated that many countries will not
extradite their own citizens even if they are extraditable (United States
Department of Justice, 2015). Therefore, the FBI in first case can only rely on
extralegal method to arrest the suspect. However, if the hackers did not come
to the job interview, the FBI cannot arrest the suspect within the territory in
United States. Secondly, identifying suspects in the course of transnational
cybercrime is a strenuous task because they are always untraceable as they can
circulate the worldwide network. It is illustrated in the second case. Besides,
the extralegal method in which the FBI used in the first case would harm the
sensitive diplomatic relationship between Russia and the United States.

In addition to the aforesaid challenges, investigating authorities also face
trans-border challenge when intercepting network traffic during the course of
investigation (Brown, 2015). For example, subject to Regulation of Investigatory
Powers Act, 2000, law enforcement agencies are entitled to intercept and
monitor communication data in particular network. Nevertheless, the legal
regulations on data may vary from countries to another. It is essential for law
enforcement agencies to keep pace with global legislative development as well
as the imposition of prohibition between nation-states (Vincent & Hart, 2011).
Therefore, some countries have been enacted their legislations for authorizing
domestic investigators and prosecutors to distantly intercept data from foreign
jurisdiction (Brown, 2015). However, it may encroach on state sovereignty of
another nation state (Brown, 2015).

One could argue that if the international legal systems are harmonized,
transnational cybercrime will be effortlessly to tackle. But the answer is
impossible. Given the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime (2001)
became effective on 1st July 2004. This convention aims at harmonizing various
domestic criminal laws among different countries to deal with transnational
cybercrime (Brenner, 2012). However, it has only been ratified by 47
nation-states (Council of Europe Treaty Office, 2015). Also, Russias National

Coordinator for the Shanghai Cooperation Organization stated that the result
of Convention on Cybercrime is unavailing because it violates the Russian
Constitution by empowering foreign investigators to obtain data from Russian
border without Russian official permission (Kizekova, 2012). Moreover, even if
all international legal systems were harmonized, the slow process of enacting
legislation could not keep pace with the rapid developing technologies (Brown,
2015). Therefore, transnational cybercrime remains a cosmopolitan challenge all
over the world.

Conclusion
In conclusion, three critical challenges have been analyzed in this paper. In
terms of difficulties in identification, offenders usually evade investigation and
detection by utilizing different anonymizing methods to conceal their network
identities, such as anonymous remailer, proxy server and posting comment on
bulletin board. Also, the infinite data which flows in network traffic challenge
law enforcement agencies during investigation. For the matter of encryption, it
duplicates the difficulties when investigators collect evidence which has been
encrypted by sophisticated criminals. Other than encryption by cybercriminals,
international smartphone manufacturers like Apple and Google which
deliberately enhance their products security by encryption. On the one hand
this tendency tightens their security, and on the other hand it places law
enforcement agencies at an inferior position during investigation. Also the legal
punishment for contempt of court may less than the cybercrime in which
criminals commit, they may not be willing to divulge the decrypted data. In
terms of transnational cybercrime, the jurisdiction of domestic law subject to
its own territory is challenging. When legal enforcement agencies identify and
extradite foreign cybercriminal, and intercepting trans-border network, it
involves complicated legal procedure and huge effort to deal with those matters.
Moreover, due to the impossibility of harmonizing the international legal
frameworks, and the slow process of legislative development, transnational
cybercrime is still an arduous problem. Therefore, the topic of cybercrime is
definitely challenging.

Reference

Apple (2015). iOS security: iOS 8.3 or later, iOS security guide white paper.
Available online:
https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf [Accessed
27/9/2015]
Ashford, W. (2015) Law enforcement officers weigh in on encryption at
Infosecurity Europe, Available online:
http://www.computerweekly.com/news/4500247458/Law-enforcement-of
ficers-weigh -in-on-encryption-at-Infosecurity-Europe [Accessed
22/9/2015]
Baer, M. (2010) CS and the internet landscape we have constructed. Virginia
Journal of Law & Technology, 15, 153-172. Bocij, P. (2005) Reactive stalking:
A new perspective on victimization. The British Journal of Forensic
Practice, 7(1), 23-45.
Bowker, A., & Gray, M. (2004). An introduction to the supervision of the
cybersex offender. Federal Probation, 68(3), 3-9.
Brenner, W. (2012) Cybercrime and the law: challenge, issues and outcomes.
Boston: University Press of New England Brown,
C.S.D. (2015) Investigating and prosecuting cybercrime: Forensic dependencies
and barriers to justice, International journal of cyber criminology, 9(1).
Available online:
http://www.cybercrimejournal.com/Brown2015vol9issue1.pdf [Accessed
25/9/2015]
Brunker, M. (2002) FBI agent charged with hacking. The NCBNews, 15 August
[Online]. Available at:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3078784/#.VhGcSdwdBuA [Accessed
30/9/2015]
Comey, J. B. (2014) Going Dark: Are Technology, Privacy, and Public Safety on a
Collision Course? Director Federal Bureau of Investigation. Available
online:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/going-dark-are-technology-privacy-a
nd-public-saf ety-on-a-collision-course [Accessed 30/9/2015]
Council of Europe Treaty Office (2015) Convention on Cybercrime, certs no.: 185.
Available online:
http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ChercheSig.asp?CL=ENG&C
M=&NT=18 5&DF=&VL [Accessed 30/9/2015]
Cyber Crime Act (2001) Dell SecureWorks (2015). Stegoloader: A stealthy

information stealer, Dells secureworks counter threat unit threat

intelligence. Available online:
http://www.secureworks.com/cyber-threat-intelligence/threats/stegoload
er-a-stealthy-i nformation-stealer [Accessed 28/9/2015]
Get revenge with this collection of revenge ideas, pranks, practical jokes, and
letter packages that address personal and hygiene problems! (2015).
Available online: www.thepayback.com [Accessed 27/9/2015]
Graham, J., Howard, R. & Olson, R. (eds.) (2011) Cyber Security Essentials. Boca
Raton: Taylor and Francis Group.
Holt, T. J. & Blevins, K. R. (2008) Examining the stress, challenges, and
experiences of forensic examiners. Annual meetings of the Southern
Criminal Justice Association, New Orleans, LA.
Jaishankar, K. & Uma Sankary, V. (2005) Cyber stalking: A global menace in the
information super highway. ERCES Online Quarterly Review, 2(3).
Available online:
http://www.erces.com/journal/articles/archives/volume2/v03/v02.htm
[Accessed 30/9/2015]
Jaishankar, K. & Halder, D. (2011) Cybercrime and the victimization of women:
laws, rights and regulations, 1st edition. Hershey PA: IGI Global
Kizekova, A. (2012). Cyberspace Analysis. RSIS Commentaries, No. 033/2012.
Available online:
https://www.rsis.edu.sg/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CO12033.pdf
[Accessed 22/9/2015]
Lee, R. (2014) A triage and collection strategy for time-sensitive investigations.
Available online:
https://www.guidancesoftware.com/resources/Pages/webinars/A-Triage-a
nd-Collectio n-Strategy-for-Time-Sensitive-Investigations.aspx [Accessed
26/9/2015]
Li, B., He, J., Huang, J., & Shi, Y. Q. (2011) A survey on image steganography and
steganalysis. Journal of Information Hiding and Multimedia Signal
Processing, 2(2), 142-172.
McFarlane, L. & Bocij, P. (2003) Cyber stalking: defining the invasion of
cyberspace. Forensic Update, 1(72), 18-22 Mora, R. J. & Kloet, B. (2010).
Digital Forensic Sampling. Available online:
https://blogs.sans.org/computer-forensics/files/2010/03/statisticalforensic
triage.pdf [Accessed 23/9/2015]
Petrocelli, J. (2005) Cyber stalking. Law & Order, 53(12), 56-58 Pittaro, L. (2007)
Cyber stalking: an analysis of online harassment and intimidation.

International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 1(2). Available online:

http://www.cybercrimejournal.com/pittaroijccvol1is2.htm [Accessed
27/9/2015]
Recupero, P. R. (2008) Forensic evaluation of problematic internet use. Journal
of the American Academy of Psychiatry Law, 36(4), 505-514.
Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (2000)
Remsburg v. Docusearch [2003] 149 NH, 148 Reno, J. (1999) Report on cyber
stalking: A new challenge for law enforcement and industry from United
States Department of Justice. Available online:
http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/storage/Research-Digital-Library/cli
nton-adminhistory-project/11-20/Box-15/1225098-justice-appendix-b-vol-2
-3-4.pdf.pdf [Accessed 28/9/2015]
Ritter, N. (2006). Digital evidence: how law enforcement can level the playing
field with criminals. NIJ Journal, 254. Available online:
http://www.nij.gov/journals/254/Pages/digital_evidence.aspx [Accessed
1/10/2015]
Spence-Diehl, E. (2003) Stalking and technology: The double-edged sword.
Journal of Technology in Human Services, 22(1), 5-18.
United States v. Gorshkov (2001) WL 1024026
United States Department of Justice (2015) Criminal resource manual: 603
determination of extraditability. Available online:
http://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-603-determinati
on-extraditabi lity [Accessed 28/9/2015]
United States Senate (1996) Security in cyberspace appendix B: case study of
Rome Laboratory, Griffiss Air Force Base NY Intrusion. Available online:
http://fas.org/irp/congress/1996_hr/s960605b.htm [Accessed 1/10/2015]
Vincent, M. & Hart, N. (2011) Law in the Cloud. Law Society Journal, 50, 51-53.
Young, M. (2009). From Harmonica Flash Drives to Hidden USB Bracelets.
Available online:
http://www.trendhunter.com/slideshow/disguised-usb-drives [Accessed
25/9/2015]