There is now in our present day the extreme need to increase the understanding among IT managers, policeman, lawyers, lawmakers, and even law breakers of what constitutes crime in the cyberspace business environment. The coming of computer technology has delivered a wide range of advantages and opportunities; some of these not surprisingly are criminal in nature (Thompson, 2015).
While reading an article about crimes enabled via internet, I was astonished at this statement because it was both concise and very true. What constitutes a cybercrime? A formal definition is criminal activities carried out by means of the internet. An informal and easy to understand definition would be crimes committed online.
Ok, so for the most part the United States has fully completed the task of assuring traditional crime criminals of what will or will not be tolerated. Over the years they have implemented laws that support this demand and enforce this demand. Has the same approach been taken with activities of cybercriminals? Many would argue that there are laws in place for these activities but I think that we can all agree that there is minimal implementation and media attention devoted to this cause. The question now is how should they be enforced?
First it is my opinion that people need to first view the nature of traditional crimes versus cybercrimes. For instance in the case of identity theft, we know that a thief would traditionally attain credit card information or even social security numbers. This person could be anyone with access to financial information. This could be a postal worker or even a neighbor checking your mailbox in your absence. Identity theft imposters don’t need mass education for what they do, they simply target you and plan ways to attain your identification and misuse your identity to their advantage.
Cybercriminals have the same intentions but utilize computer gimmicks that require a little more knowledge and expertise. For instance in August of 2008 and extreme occurrence of identity theft took place among an interracial party of people. They drove by, or loitered at, buildings in which wireless networks were housed, and installed sniffers that recorded passwords, card numbers, and account data. This was the result of inadequately securing a wireless network (Bosworth, 2014).
A continually occurring incident of identity theft is the fraud faced by social media users. It taught users that even on social media sites like Facebook they couldn’t let their guard down. The user’s identity is often stolen, and acquaintances sometimes emails requesting money with the use of the user’s known Facebook profile. The downside of using any social network is that with limited government oversight, industry standards or incentives to educate users on security, privacy and identity protection, and as a result users are exposed to identity theft and fraud. (Lewis, 2015).
To conclude, this is where lawmakers and law enforcers must step forward and uphold that which has been written to prosecute cybercriminals. Just as criminals resisted identity theft and came to understand that stealing mail for identity theft was unlawful, cybercriminals must now believe that this same law pertains to their actions and that even receiving traffic from a network unlawfully is punishable. Some of these investigations are difficult because they may involve jurisdiction issues. Jurisdiction issues can be confusing for law enforcement agencies that are not familiar with identity theft or do not have departmental procedures for receiving and investigating complaints of identity theft (Dadisho, 2015), but this is still not an accurate enough reason create a more solid approach to implement cybercrime penalties. Cybercriminals like any other criminals must understand that this will not be tolerated even in their “non-transparent” industry!