Introduction
Cybercrime refers to any crime that is committed with the help of a network and a computer. These crimes can be committed with the help of various devices such as phones, digital assistants, and even tablets. Cybercrimes are committed by individuals and teams with an aim to harm the victim or create a loss for the victim. Some major cyber crimes include hacking, phishing, and child pornography. These crimes can be committed across borders, resulting in the difficulty to apprehend the perpetrators. Governments and other private organizations have been known to engage in cybercrimes too. Espionage is one of the cybercrimes that governments commit against other countries using the internet (Britz, 2004).
There exist various international legal systems that try to hold people responsible for international cyber crimes. For instance, the International Criminal Court the mandate to try individuals that engage in cyber-warfare that spans across different countries. These organizations are there to restore sanity in the virtual world of internet. These systems are; however, faced with numerous challenges that hinder their efforts. Some of the challenges include the inability to locate the criminal’s location, lack of a means to identify the perpetrator, and the lack of jurisdiction in the case that the criminal is operating from a different country.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Most of the cyber crimes mentioned above occur on social media. Nowadays, almost everybody is a member of a certain social media. Perpetrators take advantage of this availability to commit cybercrimes. Most people on social media websites are not conversant with safety measures to avoid being victims of cyber crimes. This provides the perpetrators with enough fodder to engage in their criminal activities. The problem of cyber crimes has thus continued to worsen with the increased use of social media. Some of the ways the criminals commit their crimes using social media are through data mining, phishing, and fraud (Marcum, 2014). These crimes are committed with so much ease that the trend is worrying. Some of the challenges of policing are addressed below.
Topic I: Routine Activity Theory (RAT)
This is a theory forwarded by Marcus Felson and his counterpart Lawrence Cohen. The theory can be categorized under criminal opportunity theories since to explain the causes of a crime. Marcus and Felson argue that a crime is not affected much by poverty, unemployment or inequality. This moves the explanation of crime from the offender to involve also the victim (Hutchings & Hayes, 2009). Crime occurs even at times of abundance. The theory argues that prosperity actually offers more opportunities for the commission of crimes.
Social causes play a very minimal role in the causation of crime. The routine activity theory focuses on the situation leading to the crime and the behavior of the offender. The quality or appearance of the victim can also motivate the crime such as in the case where the offender views the victim as attractive or vulnerable. According to the theory, crime can occur by simply a three factors converge. These are the availability of an appropriate target, the absenteeism of a guardian, and lastly, the presence of a motivated offender. Below is an explanation for the three things necessary for a crime to be committed in daily routine.
A. Suitable Target
The presence of a suitable target is the first condition proposed by the theory for a crime to occur. A target, in this case, does not only refer to a person, but also a place and object or even an animal. The presence of a suitable target is not always found everywhere or randomly distributed. The perpetrator must possess the ability to locate such a target before committing the crime. The offenders do not wander around aimlessly in search of a target. On the contrary, they have routine behaviors that easily lead them to their targets. The suitable targets also engage in routines that bring them to the offenders. The suitable target wanders from the guardian are making it an attractive target.
An attractive target is one that is easy to attack. It is also a target that will provide the most benefit to the offender. Offenders try to strike a balance between the efforts to get a target and the gains that they expect from the target. When the risk is low, the target becomes even more attractive because the offender understands that they can commit a crime with a very low chance of litigation against them. The availability of criminal opportunities and the behaviors and actions of the victims fuel the problem of virtual crimes on the internet.
Cybercrimes thrive due to the abundance of suitable targets for offenders on the internet. Many people that use social media sites do not understand security measures to avoid being victims of virtual crime. These are the people that end up providing private information to the perpetrators thus making their commission of cyber crimes easier. Despite the education of people on internet security, many others do not understand the dangers and end up being victims of these crimes (George, 2014).
Social media platforms are increasingly growing in the number of users. This presents more opportunities for the offenders to strike. Cybercrime policing agencies and individuals do not have the ability to provide for a large number of users. Factors that render such users as vulnerable or attractive can be either situational or specific to the crime. What this means is that a criminal can go for a certain particular thing or commit a crime depending on the situation without going for something specific on the target.
B. Absence of a Guardian
The second condition for a crime to occur according to the routine activity theory is that a guardian that has the ability to foil the criminal activity from taking place must be absent. A capable guardian, as with the target, does not have to be a person. It can even be a thing as long as it has the ability to prevent the crime from occurring. The guardians can also be either formal or informal. This implies that the guardian could be somebody or something set specifically to prevent crime or something whose main role is not to stop crime, but it stops it anyway. A good example is that of a watchman and neighbors. If a criminal was to break and enter into private property, the watchman could formerly stop them. The neighbor could stop them too, but informally.
Perpetrators are always scouting around for victims whose guardians are not present. The presence of a guardian can discourage an offender from committing a criminal act. The absence, on the other hand, makes it easy to commit the crime and thus motivates the offender to carry ahead with the plan. Criminal activities thrive when they are faced with little or no opposition. A guardian can be present but ineffective with the duty of preventing the crime. This occurs when the guardian does not offer much resistance or the offender is able to go around it. A good guardian is able to stop all levels of threats from the offender or be discouraging enough such that the offender decides not to stage the attack in the first place.
The same principles of a guardian apply in cyber crimes. In the case of the internet, a guardian can be a parent, a firewall, an antivirus or even a service provider. These individuals or things have the mandate to ensure that the individual that might be a target of a crime is protected. Internet users are often time advised to take security measures to ensure their online safety. Some of the things they are advised to do are to desist from offering private information online such as on social media, avoiding installation of unknown software, and clicking on links that are not trusted. Also, there are various software that have been developed to act as guardians to the users, which include firewalls and antivirus models (Hutchings & Hayes, 2009).
Another problem that plagues social media in relation to the absence of guardians is the presence of children. The children access the internet without the supervision of their parents. They offer easy targets to perpetrators since they are easier to coarse or commit cybercrimes against. The lack of guardian or effective guardian, therefore, creates a challenge to policing of cyber crimes on social media. This challenge is partly due to the failure of people to utilize available guardians to avoid being victims of cyber-attacks.
C. A Motivated Offender
The last thing that is necessary for a crime to be committed is the presence of a motivated offender. In this aspect, the theory views the crime from the offender’s viewpoint. A crime can only be committed if the offenders are actually willing to commit the crime. And for the offender to be willing to commit the crime, they must obtain a suitable target that also has no protection from a guardian. These three aspects, therefore, go hand in hand to motivate the commission of the crime. Without either of them, the crime might not be committed.
The assessment done by the offender is what determines if the crime will take place. For instance, if the offenders assess that the risks are low, the target is attractive or vulnerable, the gains are many, and the guardian is absent, they may resort to committing the crime. The offenders ensure the victims are in a situation where crime can be done against them. The theory also states that anyone can be an offender provided that they have the opportunity. This means there are premeditated crimes and those that occur spontaneously without prior planning.
In the case of cyber crimes, the offenders are responsible for the commission of a crime. Some of them might be premeditated, while the other occurs at the spur of a moment. For instance, if an offender coincidentally finds access to a social media account that the owner forgot to log out of, the offender can use the account for malicious things or steal private information held in the account. The offender might not have planned to commit the crime, but just finds themselves an opportunity and makes use of it.
Social media platforms are laden with numerous possible offenders who only need the opportunity to initiate an attack on the target. The number cyber crimes that are perpetrated via social media are numerous and thus hard to police and control. Furthermore, some of the offenders are pros at cyber crimes and are able to cover their tracks well. This makes it difficult for the people responsible for policing to identify their locations and identities (Gaines & Miller, 2013). Several offenders have managed to defy many internet laws and multiple times due to their abilities to sensor their identification information.
Topic II: Space Transition Theory
The space transition theory states that people’s behavior is different as they move from one particular space to another. This means that people’s behaviors are different as they moved from physical space into the online space. The behavior one display in real life is completely different from that that is seen online. People would behave differently when physically surrounded by other individuals and yet differently when virtually surrounded by other individuals online (Jaishankar, 2007). The theory was advanced by an experienced criminologist named Jaishankar. His aim was to create a theory on cybercrime that explains the nature and behavior of people that are carried on to the cyberspace. The behaviors could sometimes be positive and other times negative, thus being categorized as cyber crimes.
While cyberspace offers the opportunity for self-expression in new ways, it also offers a platform for the commission of a crime. People that are unable to commit crimes in the real world could be deeply involved in cybercrimes. Once they are online, they become different people. The illusion of invincibility also promotes the commission of cybercrimes by individuals. The ability to hide one's identity while online makes it hard to enforce laws on the offenders. They, for example, use names and pictures that do not belong to them. Their behavior online is also different from that in physical space, making it even harder to relate them to their online characters.
The space transition theory fills a gap of trying to understand the system of crimes that take place online and their motivation. There are traditional theories that try to define cybercrime, but this has shortcomings owing to the revolutionary phenomenon of cybercrime that is different from the conventional crimes. The space transition theory offers information on the possible anatomy of cyber crimes which are different from crimes that occur in physical space. Below are some of the postulates of the space transition theory and their explanations.
A. Uniting of Criminals via Cyberspace
The cyberspace offers a place where criminals can be recruited easily. Criminal techniques and information can also be disseminated easily by the use of the internet. When people that are like minded to do crime meet, they can form strong coalitions that are able to perform numerous cybercrimes. The internet offers a safe haven where these individuals can be grouped to achieve a particular evil motive. There have been several internet syndicates involving many people from different countries that have committed cybercrimes with the help of each other. This convergence of offenders makes it hard to enforce policing against cyber crimes.
Frustrated people from organizations can sometimes destroy a company entirely. This could be through spying, espionage, or leaking of confidential information. Numerous social networks are also caught up in the bandwagon. Many of the online social bodies are not regulated, which makes them get overrun by offenders (George, 2014). The unregulated platform offers the offenders with gaps that can be exploited to carry out their criminal activities. The lack of regulation means that everything goes on social media with hardly any censorship.
Cybercriminal make use of social media platforms to communicate their plans and share ideologies. The evolving social Media, therefore, create a threat to internet security and governance. Physical security is also put at risk. Criminals that are strangers are likely to unite in virtual spaces to commit crimes in the physical spaces. Similarly, associated criminals in the physical space can also unite to deliver virtual attacks on the internet. These combinations of perpetrators make it hard to determine the effects of each of them and to try them accordingly. United cyber criminals also might also use the internet to warn each other when law enforcement officers are about to catch up with them. This gives them a chance to escape.
B. Lack or Misdirection of Physicality
People that have repressed criminal behaviors in physical spaces are prone to commit a crime when they are in cyberspace (Jaishankar, 2007). They cannot commit these crimes in the physical worlds because of the positions they hold and the status they want to keep in the society. The material and social risk of being a criminal in the physical world is too large for some people that they decide not to choose a life of crime. When they get to the internet; however, the risks are low, thus encouraging them to engage in a life of crime.
There is usually a conflict of what is considered normal in cyberspace and what is considered normal in physical space. Values also tend to be different between these two spaces. For instance, what would be considered bad in the physical world can be okay when it comes to the internet. This conflict of norms causes a misunderstanding in cyberspace and can lead to the commission of cyber crimes. Offenders usually feel the online laws are more relaxed than physical ones, thus prompting them to commit a crime.
The virtual nature of the internet also provides cover from being discovered as would have been in the physical world. Offenders are able to perform attacks from the comforts of their homes and leave the internet in case they feel threatened. This translates into less risk for the offenders who always have a chance to escape. The nature of the internet can also make the offenders anonymous making them difficult to locate and arrest for their crimes (Britz, 2004).
Today’s social media platforms only require one to be joined, and they can immediately start using the services. There is no verification of a person’s exact identity when joining most of these virtual social spaces. People are able to use names that are not theirs or even their nicknames. People can even hide their locations or use the wrong location to misdirect others. The lack of sufficient regulation of social media poses challenges with the policing of cyber crimes. Offenders can be on social media, but their true identities are unknown since it was not confirmed when they joined.
C. Dissociative Anonymity and Identity Flexibility
Dissociative anonymity refers to the quality of being anonymous online with no possibility to associate the online offender with a physical person. This can be used by an offender to act out their needs or emotions on cyberspace which could be unpleasant. The anonymity provided by the internet could, for example, provide people a platform to abuse others online; something that they could not do in real life. This dissociative anonymity could also allow people to be honest and open about what they feel. This would not be possible in face-to-face encounters because the lack of dissociative anonymity in that dimension.
Cyberspace also allows people to have flexible identities. It is common for people to have multiple identities online or change regularly depending on their needs. The individual presented online is not always similar to the individual behind the computer screen. Cybercrime offenders like to use this quality of the internet to make sure they are untraceable (Jaishankar, 2007). They could perpetrate attacks using multiple aliases or use one and abandon it when they feel they are at risk of being caught. Law enforcers are always left with no evidential characteristics to determine the offender’s true identity.
The lack of deterrence factors in the virtual world of cyberspace provides the offenders with the opportunity to commit a crime. Deterrence factors and control measures if the enforcement of cyber crime policing is to be achieved. The sense of protection and invisibility would have to be eliminated in order to deter crime. People that perform online crimes cannot be heard or seen making it difficult for the enforcers to apprehend them. In the case that their identities are known, their locations might be unknown. The person may not be physically present because the offender is hiding behind the cover of dissociative anonymity.
Topic III – Monitoring Crime Virtually
There is a complex relationship between the police and technology. The relationship is very complex, but offers the necessary techniques and mechanisms for the police to monitor crime virtually and act whenever necessary. Monitoring crime virtually offers intelligence that can be used to nab the offenders. The act of monitoring crime, however, requires sophisticated technology or for the officers to blend in on the internet (Knetzger & Muraski, 2008). Some virtual spaces can also not be monitored which offers offenders a space to commit the crimes.
The police force is created to deal with the physical disorder that takes place in the real world. The structures, training, and action are developed to maximize the chances of maintaining order in the physical world. The virtual dimension, thus offers inherent challenges to these officers. The officers are undertrained on the use of technology and specifically how to track and apprehend criminals that lurk in the virtual world. The localized physical nature of the forces means they are not up to date with the latest trends in the use of technology and the internet. This translates to a failure or ineffectiveness in cybercrime policing.
There is hope however for policing with the emergence of specially trained officers that can deal with cyber crimes. These officers have a better grasp of technology and are advanced at monitoring of crime virtually. Despite their abilities and knowledge, they are still faced with challenges in enforcing cybercrime laws. Their responses are not yet on par with the criminal activities that take place online. The criminals are also advanced in their ability to avoid detection. They are always utilizing the latest technologies and concepts which make it difficult for the enforcers to catch up with them (Shinder, 2011). The challenges stem from a number of reasons such as jurisdictional issues, rampant cyber crimes because people do not view some of their actions as crimes, and the lack of advanced ways to detect and detain offenders.
A. Jurisdictional Issues
Several things are taken into consideration before a cyber criminal can be prosecuted or even arrested. Just as in any other crime, there is a criterion for the arrest and trial of a cybercriminal. Some of the things that need to be taken into consideration in crime include the type of crime committed, damages caused by the crime, the geographical area or responsible government, and the branch of law created to deal with that specific crime among many others. There are also guidelines on how the sentence of the crime should be served, where, and for how long. While this is well developed in regular crimes, cyber crimes offer a challenge to law enforcement.
Cyber criminals are most times not in the physical location where they commit a crime. For instance, an offender can be in a different country and commit a cyber-offense in a different country. This causes issues with jurisdiction when enforcers try to arrest him or decide on the sentencing. Laws are different in different places such as states, cities, and countries. This creates inherent difficulties in implementation of the laws. The fact that a person can be in one place but commit a crime in totally different place brings a headache to law enforcers that might not have jurisdiction in the different areas (Wall & William, 2007).
An illegal act in a certain place might not be illegal in another place. This overlapping of laws in cyberspace complicates the processes of offender arrest and prosecution. If the offender is in a location where they are not going against the law by committing a particular cybercrime, they are immune to arrest. This is true even if the crime they committed is legal where the victim is situated. The law enforcers where the offender is located cannot charge them because whatever they are doing is not considered offensive at that place. The law enforcers at the point where the crime is being committed can also not apprehend the offender because they do not have the jurisdiction to do so.
B. Radical Non-Intervention Theory
The theory argues that it is better to tolerate minor offenses so as to avoid labeling the offender. Cybercrime is a fairly new and unknown type of crime which came with the advent of computers and the internet. What this implies is that some people still don’t see cybercrimes as real crimes or as crimes at all. The virtual nature of these crimes leads many to believe that they are harmless. They are tolerated as minor offenses that do not need intervention from law enforcers. In line with the radical non-intervention theory, actions are not taken against petty offenders to avoid labeling them.
Failure to mitigate cyber crime offenders leads to the involvement in more severe cybercrimes. Simple offenders such as those that abuse people on social media can quickly escalate to major offenders like those that are involved in financial frauds and sabotages. A large number of cyber crimes today make it hard for policing (Schmalleger& Worral, 2010). Some of the minor offenses, therefore, end up being tolerated as the enforcers focus their resources on the major ones. The small offenders, therefore, thrive and continue causing harm in the form of cybercrimes.
Many people view cyber crimes as having no victims. In a real sense, cyber crimes can be extremely harmful just as in the physical worlds. The effects of cyber crimes can affect either an individual or entire corporation. In some cases, cyber crimes can cause jeopardy to entire countries. An example is a case where government websites are hacked and confidential material stolen. Every cybercrime needs to be treated as a crime and policing delivered because just like physical crimes, harm is caused to the victims.
C. Innovative Ways to Avoid Detection and Detainment
The technology is constantly advancing. This provides the cyber offenders with the necessary capacity to not only commit their crimes but also avoid detection or detainment. Offenders are finding new ways to attack people virtually with the use of this technology and to make their previous criminal activities easier. Personal, financial, and all other forms of information are increasingly being easier to obtain by the offenders due to these advances. The offenders are also innovating and creating systems to make their activities easier while at the same time censoring their identities. What's more, is that social media is also undergoing evolution to suit the user’s needs which make it difficult to investigate cybercrimes.
The nature of evidence in cybercrime is also a challenge to policing. The evidence in such crimes is not similar to that in the real world. Digital evidence that is used in the litigation of cybercrimes can be changed easily or lost. This is because the information is very fragile; a collection of just ones and zeros that are represented various means such as magnetization. Offenders can be able to get rid of implicating evidence before the law catches up with them thus eliminating the basis for their trial (Knetzger & Muraski, 2008).
Crimes committed in the physical world often have references and have probably been committed before. This is not the case in cybercrimes. While law enforcement focuses on understanding and prosecuting cyber crimes of yesterday, cybercriminals have already evolved and are committing crimes of tomorrow. The ever changing landscape of cybercrimes presents challenges to law enforcers who also have to move and adapt to the prevailing means and technologies. It is for this and many other innovative ways adopted by criminals that make cybercrime policing difficult.
Conclusion
Law enforcement agencies are increasingly adopting social media with the aim of solving the cyber crimes. One way this is accomplished is through monitoring of the online community. The law enforcers can also use the social media platform to communicate with the general public in the aim to fight cyber crimes. Important information can also be shared with other enforcers and the citizens through social media. This includes crime tips, crime reports, and everyday news that can be of assistant in solving and mitigating cybercrimes. They nevertheless face limitations in their quest to ensure justice in cyber-related crimes. These challenges range from lack of resources to detect and apprehend the offenders, to jurisdictional issues that make it hard for them to arrest the offenders once they have been identified.
While the enforcers strive to bring sanity to cyberspace, every single person also needs to understand how to act appropriately to minimize or eliminate cybercrimes. When on social media, people should be careful not to reveal important information or be hacked. There are several viruses that also infect computer devices, leading to data corruption, theft and destruction of computers. The challenges facing policing of cyber crimes in social media can be litigated by cooperation among nations, vigilance of social media users, and the creation of more effective policing techniques.
References
Britz, M. (2004). Computer forensics and cybercrime: an introduction. (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Gaines, L. K., & Miller, R. L. (2013). Criminal justice in action (7th Ed.). Belmont, California: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
George, T. (2014). The next big cybercrime vector: social media. SecurityWeek . Retrieved from http://www.securityweek.com/next-big-cybercrime-vector-social-media
Hutchings, A., & Hayes, H. (2009, March). Routine activity theory and phishing victimization: who gets caught in the ‘net'?. Current Issues in Criminal Justice , 20 (3), 3-5. Retrieved from http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/handle/10072/28075/55533-1.pdf?sequence=1
Jaishankar, K. (2007, July). Establishing a theory of cyber crimes. International Journal of Cyber Criminology , 1 (2), 7-9. Retrieved from http://www.cybercrimejournal.com/Editoriaijccjuly.pdf
Knetzger, M. R., & Muraski, J. A (2008). Investigating high-tech crime . Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Marcum, C. D. (2014 ). Cyber crime . New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Schmalleger, F., & Worrall, J. L. (2010). Policing today . Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Shinder, D. (2011). What makes cybercrime laws so difficult to enforce. TechRepublic . Retrieved from http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-security/what-makes-cybercrime-laws-so-difficult-to-enforce/
Wall, D.S., & Williams, M. (2007). Policing diversity in the digital age: maintaining order in virtual communities. Criminology & Criminal Justice , 7 (4), 391-415.
