What are the difficulties law enforcement is having in detecting, investigating and prosecuting cases of cyberstalking and cyber-exploitation? Consider the following as you answer

What are the difficulties law enforcement is having in detecting, investigating and prosecuting cases of cyberstalking and cyber-exploitation?

Consider the following as you answer the question:

• What are the limitations of Law enforcement (L.E.)  entities in cyberstalking investigations?
  • what tools do they need to be successful?
• What are the limitations of Law enforcement agencies in cyber-exploitation investigations?
• Do the current laws help L.E. investigate and prosecute cyber-crimes?

Students are expected to critically analyze, evaluate, and report on a cybercrime or cybersecurity topic listed in the Tentative Schedule. The report will be broken down into three different parts referred to as mini papers (60 points each) 180 total points. The report must be double-spaced, with 1.0-inch margins, using Times New Roman 12 point type and at least two pages long, a minimum of 1300 words. Of the total works cited ( that is, three references)  one should be from academic journals or books published by an academic press. Sources cited and the references listed should be in APA format and the references located at the end of each mini paper. The instructor assigned the topic under Assignments in Canvas for each mini paper according to the dates specified in the Syllabus Tentative Schedule . Students have five days to complete the assignment

                                                                    note

Type II crimes encompass diverse behaviors; however, the common factors of these behaviors are (1) the use of networking and (2) a manifestation of social–psychological dynamics. Networking is a key factor because this is the medium through which the behavior is facilitated, most frequently by email but also through social networking sites, video- and photo-sharing sites, and Web site postings (particularly hate and pedophilia). The social–psychological factors take diverse forms. For example, cyberstalking and cyber threats induce fear, while harassment can induce anger. Cyberbullying can produce depression, embarrassment, shame, or sadness. Hate messages can produce discriminatory behavior, and pedophilia can engender exploitation and intimidation. Interestingly, these behaviors are similar to the common law definition of assault. As a U.S. government report of the problem observed, “Make no mistake: This kind of harassment can be as frightening and as real as being followed and watched in your neighborhood or in your home.”20

The manifestation of virtual crimes against persons is the product of several factors. For instance, virtual crimes against persons are easy and convenient. The offense may be committed immediately without leaving home, and gratification is instantaneous. The offender may also take action without physically confronting the victim. For instance, a person who posts a mean or hurtful message, picture, or video on a social networking site can harm another person without ever having to physically interact with that person. In turn, they may gain status from people within their virtual social network.

In all likelihood there are people who have a propensity to commit a retaliatory act of some form, but do not because of reluctance to confront another physically. It is therefore probable that some of those people would act on that propensity through social networking. In fact, a national study of youth found that children are experiencing greater levels of online harassment, largely from their peers, and are increasingly engaging in harassing behaviors themselves.21 Thus, the problem of inter-personal crimes committed online is likely to continue to increase.

Some state and local law enforcement agencies also have been frustrated by jurisdictional limitations. In many instances, the cyberstalker may be located in a different city or state than the victim, making it more difficult (and, in some cases, all but impossible) for the local authority to investigate the incident. Even if a law enforcement agency is 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. A number of matters have been referred to the FBI and/or 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.

Cybercriminals can cross national or international boundaries at will via a computer, and information and property can be easily transmitted through communications and data networks. As a result, law enforcement agencies are forced to try to work with local officials, foreign governments, and other agencies of the federal government—something that they have been quite reluctant to do in the past. As one report noted, a law enforcement official could secure a search warrant for a computer in the United States and, as a result of the search, remotely access a computer in Canada, which irrespective of the warrant is potentially a crime in Canada. Furthermore, certain cybercrimes that are illegal in this country are perfectly legal in other countries (i.e., gambling, prostitution, and underage sexual relations). As a result, Congress has passed some laws that make certain offenses a crime regardless of whether they are legal in the host country. Additionally, the ICE agency has developed relationships with foreign law enforcement agencies through Operation Predator, including Australia, Denmark, Finland, Japan, the Netherlands, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. These relationships have led to the arrest of more than 1,900 individuals worldwide.172

Identification of Suspects

We all tend to enjoy the feeling of anonymity that the Internet provides, allowing us to conduct business and communicate without fear of “somebody listening” to our personal communications. Individuals who actively collect pornographic materials share information and resources on methods to hide or minimize the likelihood of detection. Several Web services offer free anonymous e-mail and Web accounts along with proxy tools that hide the actual location of a computer. Further, it is quite difficult to trace some communications over the Net, especially with the availability of access on numerous college campuses and Internet cafes. Many criminals assume the identity of someone else to conduct their online crimes, such as theft of e-mail addresses and hacking into someone else’s computer to conduct business (making that computer a zombie). Another service provided by some ISPs are mail servers that purposefully strip identifying information and transport headers from electronic mail. By forwarding mails through several of these services serially, cybercriminals can make the message almost completely anonymous. The sending of anonymous communications is thus relatively easy for the criminal and makes it difficult for law enforcement to identify the suspect responsible for the crime.

Issues with Evidence and Detection

The problems of evidentiary collection and analysis are fully discussed in Chapters 12 and 13; however, a few problems in this area deserve mention. As you are aware, computer data are easily destroyed, deleted, or modified. The discussion of the morphing of images and the purposeful alteration of material has already reached the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the technical capability to collect, preserve, and analyze such evidence is not widely distributed in the law enforcement community. Finally, the fact that people can use their computers to conduct both lawful and unlawful activities or to store both contraband and legally possessed material presents another significant issue.173 Termed commingling, one computer can be used in multiple fashion, by multiple users, and be connected to multiple other machines. As such, investigations would naturally have to cross boundaries, invade computers that were not necessarily involved in the criminal act, and involve people who might be upset at the intrusiveness of the investigation.

Enforcement of the laws against child pornography often leads law enforcement officials to use sting operations over the Internet to catch pedophiles and find child pornography. As such, issues of entrapment have been raised by civil rights groups. In one case, postal inspectors posed as an organization that dealt in sexual freedom and hedonism. They seized several mail lists of individuals in raids of pornography distributors. Then they sent out a sexual attitude questionnaire and a membership application to people on the mail list. The suspect completed and mailed in the sexual survey with his membership fee, noting that he would like to receive additional material and that he was interested in sexual depictions of preteenagers. He was then mailed another survey and a list of “pen pals” who shared his sexual interests. The suspect began corresponding with one of these pen pals, an undercover postal inspector. Over a period of 27 months, the suspect received “two sexual attitude surveys, seven letters measuring his appetite for child pornography, and two sex catalogues.”174 He was assured in the mailings that the materials were completely legal. Over the course of the investigation, he corresponded eight times with the inspectors and eventually ordered the magazine “Boys Who Love Boys” from a Postal Service catalogue and a set of sexually explicit photographs of young boys from a Customs Service brochure. Upon verifying that the man had received the magazine, postal inspectors searched his home, found the illicit magazine, and arrested him for receiving it through the mail in violation of federal law. At trial, the man raised two defenses. First, he argued that he had been entrapped as a matter of law, but the court found sufficient evidence of predisposition to submit the issue to the jury. Second, he asserted that the government’s conduct was outrageous, thus violating his due process rights. The jury rejected his defenses and found him guilty of knowingly receiving through the mail sexually explicit material depicting a minor. He appealed his conviction to the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed the trial court, holding that the government’s actions did not constitute entrapment or outrageous governmental conduct, despite the government’s lack of reasonable suspicion to target the man as a predisposed consumer.175