Browse through the curated selection of our completed assessments to get a sense of the quality and depth of our work. Whether you need guidance, inspiration, or just want to evaluate our work, this page is your go-to resource.
This paper talks about issues concerning the collection of digital crime evidence and some steps that can be taken to rectify these issues. In order to ensure the proper handling of evidence, first responders should make sure that they clear the area, and document everything before anything else. Photographs are useful in ensuring proper reassembly, and knowledgeable technicians can make sure that evidence is collected properly with lower risk of tainting evidence. Challenges arise when digital crimes, like cyberstalking leave limited information on the perpetrator or the crime, or when the crime crosses jurisdictional lines. In order to address these issues, states and countries need to work together and come up with more unified legislation. People should also take steps to ensure they know how to protect themselves.
Like any crime, digital crimes require proper evidence collection procedures during an investigation in order to ensure evidence is not tainted. Digital crimes like cyberstalking have similar protocols with some differences. Law enforcement, and especially investigators of digital criminal evidence, face certain challenges when collecting evidence of digital crime, or when cyber-crime faces the issue of overlapping jurisdiction. There are however, steps that can be taken to ensure proper handling procedures and documentation of evidence. There are also some ways to overcome challenges when faced with an overlap of jurisdiction in a digital crime case.
One of the greatest challenges (in general) that law enforcement agencies face when investigating a digital crime is ensuring that the evidence is properly handled and doesn’t get tainted. This means that steps must be taken by first responders to ensure that the evidence is documented correctly and collected in accordance with protocol. The first step is for the first responders to make sure that the evidence is doesn’t get tampered with, so they should make sure to clear the area of anyone who isn’t authorized to be there. They must also make sure that there is no danger, like faulty wires or traps set up that could alter or destroy evidence on the device. Another thing to think about is making sure that there is a technician present who is knowledgeable about computer systems and software as well as legal requirements for the collection of digital evidence (Taylor, Fritsch, & Liederbach, 2015). Investigators should photograph all evidence before touching anything, and throughout the process of collecting evidence to ensure that they have proper documentation and adequate evidence, should anything get destroyed or tainted. Photographing before touching anything also helps to ensure that the system can be reassembled properly later on.
One example of challenges that come up during an investigation is a case of cyberstalking. In today’s world of technology, there are so many ways that we can communicate with others, that we know or that we don’t know. It is relatively easy to set up an online account for email through Yahoo, Google, or a number of similar programs. With these come the option of creating an instant messenger (IM) name. You can create these things for free, coming up with a unique username and password, and then you can send messages. IM works by connecting to a server, sending your connection information like your IP address and port number to the server, and then the message is sent directly to the other user (Tyson & Cooper, n.d). This poses a challenge when someone begins using an application like this to stalk another person and threaten them. It is difficult to collect evidence in a case like this, because of the anonymity of being able to create a username without having to provide your actual personal information. There is no verification procedures when singing up for an account, that would make you verify your information. This would mean that when you take a complaint to law enforcement officials, you would need to bring printed out copies of the messages this person sent you (Hitchcock, 2003). The investigators would then need to look to the messenger or email service providers in order to get IP information, which could then help them get the user’s internet service provider. Then they would have to get a subpoena or a search warrant in order to obtain the physical evidence used during the harassment, like a computer system.
In keeping with this example, say that the perpetrator lives in a different jurisdiction than the victim. In this case the steps to investigate become more challenging. Ghosh, Olloman and Boscovich (2011) mention that there is no unified legislation worldwide that covers digital crime. Each country has their own statutes and differing scopes of legislation in accordance with these types of crimes. They also mention that each state may face issues in which their law enforcement agencies can not prosecute outside of their jurisdiction.
So how can we work with these issues? When they come across what is called a multiple-location computer crime, law enforcement agencies must practice minimization procedures. Minimization procedures are steps taken in order to make sure that there is minimal intrusion into the operations of the network being investigated (Taylor, Fritsch, & Liederbach). There are steps being taken in order to make this process easier, and efforts to make more unified laws. The International Telecommunications Union and the Council of Europe’s Cybercrime Convention are two agencies that are trying to promote cooperation among differing jurisdictions in the investigations of cybercrimes (Ghosh, Olloman, & Boscovich). The FBI, Secret Service, and ICE do have some overlapping jurisdictional functions when it comes to investigating some digital crimes.
The ultimate question here is in how to make it easier for investigators to work together in different jurisdictions to investigate such crimes. The first step to ensure that this becomes a reality is to make legislation across the world more unified. This is a difficult task to achieve, but it can be done by getting major law enforcement agencies in each country together to come up with the best ways to enforce laws and create legislation that meets everyone’s needs. This would mean that each state would also have to become more unified in terms of legislation. It is also up to users to protect themselves. Education can help ensure that people are aware of the best ways to protect themselves. Being informed can make a huge impact on digital crimes, because more people would know how to take preventative measures, and how to implement them. It is important that law enforcement agencies work together across state lines and different jurisdictions to ensure that people are being protected, evidence collection is handled properly, and cases can be prosecuted.
Digital crime investigation faces many challenges, but it is important to make sure to follow protocol and ensure proper evidence collection is followed. Law enforcement agencies must find ways to work together when an issue arises involving jurisdictional challenges. It is important that users know how to protect themselves, as well as what to do in the event that they become a victim of digital crime. Education programs designed to provide this information should be one of the priorities of law enforcement, as well as how to create more unified legislation across state lines as well as across the world. Evidence collection should be handled by trained technicians who are knowledgeable about digital crime investigations and procedure for collecting digital evidence. These are just a few of the many things that can be done to ensure that a digital crime instigation is handled properly, from collection of evidence to prosecution.
Ghosh, A., Olloman, G., & Boscovich, R. (2011). Cybercrime Knows No Borders. Infosecurity, Reed Exhibitions Ltd. Retrieved from http://www.infosecurity-magazine.com/magazine- features/cybercrime-knows-no-borders/
Hitchcock, J. A. (2003). Cyberstalking and Law Enforcement. The Police Chief 70, p. 16-27. Retrieved from http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=dis play_arch&article_id=166&issue=122003
Taylor, R. W., Fritsch, E. J., & Liederbach, J. (2015). Digital Crime and Digital Terrorism, Third Edition. Pearson, Inc.
Tyson, J. & Cooper, A. (n.d.). How Instant Messaging Works. Howstuffworks. Retrieved from http://computer.howstuffworks.com/e-mail-messaging/instant-messaging2.htm
All orders at our writing service are delivered exceptionally for research purposes.
