Introduction
Several questions are often asked when it comes to the use of information technology to commit crimes and the possibility of deploying the same technology in detecting and apprehending people who commit cyber crimes. Computer forensics is a strategic field, especially for organizations that need to protect their information technology systems from possible security breaches and steps to take when such breaches occur. This paper argues that a lot of technical issues still present in the use of information technology for gathering evidence on cyber crimes, in spite of computer forensics being widely used in unearthing evidence in a substantial number of cybercrimes. This paper presents research about the deployment of computer forensics in solving cyber crime. The paper brings out a number of cases concerning crimes in the cyberspace to elaborate on the diverse approaches of computer forensics. Here, the paper focuses on the use of computer forensics in politics and money scheme related cases.
Overview of computer forensics
The use of scientific knowledge, especially computer and information technology, is critical in the collection and analysis of information on particular incidences that occur in the cyber environment. The contemporary developments in the cyber environment result in the ease with which transactions are made. It also results in the ease with which people advance criminal activities by utilizing the computer networks. Therefore, computer forensics is a relatively new field that entails the search for information and evidence that link certain people to certain crimes. It is important to note that computer forensics as a field is not only used to detect crimes that occur within the cyberspace, but it also helps in detecting and analyzing crimes that occur outside the cyberspace. As a relatively new discipline, computer forensics is meant to enhance efficiency in the criminal justice system by aiding in linking crimes to suspects using computer technology. Therefore, the legal elements combine with the technological elements to enhance a detailed analysis of information relating to crime. The information is collected from different technological devices like computer networks and systems, mobile devices, and the wireless communications. However, standardization has not yet been achieved in computer forensics. This makes it hard to deploy computer forensics across all the criminal justice systems in the world. The comprehension of the technical and legal aspects that go into computer forensics is a critical step for the criminal justice systems that want to embrace computer forensics (Baggili 81-82).
Bennett (159) observes that conducting forensic exercises is a difficult undertaking. In addition, it might not result in the correct and accurate linkage of crime to offenders in a number of cases. There are other sets of legal enforcements, like the Fourth Amendment, that can impede the continuity of the forensic practices by making it difficult for computer forensic experts to conduct their exercise (Manes and Downing 124).
Cases that attract computer forensics
According to Watney (42-43), crime in the contemporary society is mainly accomplished through the electronic platform. The development of the electronic platform as a result of the advancement in information and communication technology makes it hard for the players in the criminal justice system to conduct investigations of crimes. There is a wide range of crimes that are committed by people today because of the presence of a wide range of information and communication technology tools. Therefore, the escalation of crime in the cyberspace necessitates the deployment of computer forensics as a way of apprehending the large number of criminals who keep enhancing crime by utilizing the larger electronic platform (Vacca 4). Crime easily spreads across different countries in the world because of the expansiveness of the computer network systems. This is why different states continue to advance surveillance at the state level as a way of enhancing national security. Different countries increasingly incorporate aspects of control in the cyberspace to tame crime (Watney 43-44). It is in line with the contemporary developments that the United States has reiterated the need to cooperate with other countries in the world to apprehend the cyber criminals who take advantage of the global interconnectedness of the computer systems and networks to commit crime. The balance between the privacy concerns and civil liberties has been given priority in the cooperative cybercrime treaty that pulls a substantial number of countries together (“Senate Ratifies Treaty On Cybercrimes” 8).
Based on the fact that states make use of computer networks to establish security networks, breaches in the security networks by other states result in increased surveillance by states through computer forensics in order to establish the extent of such breaches (Watney 42). However, it is also important to note that computer forensics is used in civil and criminal cases where the gathering of evidence is mostly done through the aid of computer technology.
Civil vs. Criminal
Vacca (4) observes that the process of acquisition, examination, and application of digital evidence is important in detecting and apprehending cyber criminals. Therefore, computer forensics has been intensely deployed in apprehending cyber crimes across the United States. Unlike the old forms of crimes, crimes in the contemporary times can hardly be committed without leaving behind the digital or electronic trail. This is one of the indicators that computer forensics is vital in enhancing criminal justice. People who commit crimes often use digital tools to enhance communication. Therefore, tracing the information that is passed through these devices is one of the critical leads for the investigators, attorneys, and judges who are working in the criminal justice system. They find it easy to establish cases and make judicial determinations through the acquisition of information from the computer networks and systems (Garfinkel 370).
It is easy to detect the transactions made by an individual by relying on digital forensics provided that the transactions are carried out through the support of the digital electronic tools. While it is easy to apprehend criminals through the use of technology in what is referred to as computer forensics, it is critical to note that there are complexities related to relying on digital forensics in making judicial determinations in criminal cases. Corroborative evidence often comes from the digital devices that are used by the offenders, thus tracking these devices and accessing the content of communication in these devices is one way through which the evidence concerning the crimes committed is gathered. In most cases, the victim’s devices are used to track all forms of communication that point to the crime committed. One of the challenges that bring out the complexity is the presence of diverse technologies that present the problem of compatibility. An example is the ability of Bernard Madof to track the victim’s information in the money laundry scheme. However, it was impossible to translate the data because of the technology platform on which the crime was performed. It became apparent that Madof took advantage of the gap in technology development to commit the crime (Garfinkel 371).
The civil law oversees the relationship between private parties. Crimes are often committed in the course of cooperative relationships between individuals and organizations, or business dealings between individuals and organizations. Therefore, computer forensics can also be applied in the determination of civil cases. Some offenses that are committed in the cyberspace can be classified as both civil and criminal depending on the nature of evidence that is established. What is important in civil and criminal cases is the availability of evidence to link the suspects to the offenders. In this case, the electronic evidence that is provided through the use of computer forensics acts as a basis on which judicial determination is made in civil and criminal cases (Maras 29-31).
Misdemeanor vs. Felony
One of the inherent complexities in the determination of cases of fraud is the difficulty in establishing objectivity as far as the access and use of information on computer networks is concerned. This stirs up the issue of a misdemeanour versus a felony. It is important to separate between the genuine users of the computer networks and the people who use the cyberspace to advance felony. The increase in the cybercrime incidences in the United States and the world over has resulted in a substantial amount of investment in cyber space security. An example is the 2008 cyber security breaches in the US. Two pieces of legislation in the United States that are accused of enhancing harsh conviction of the cybercrime offenders are the Cyber Security Enhancement Act, which is one of the latest laws, and the USA PATRIOT Act that was enacted earlier. In other words, the federal laws that govern the use of the cyberspace have faults and need to be reassessed to provide a fairground on which computer crimes can be dealt with (Skibell 909).
The most essential thing in the enhancement of cyber security and the prevention of over-criminalization of the supposed cyber offenders is the need to review the cyberspace legislation in the United States to differentiate between the sets of breaches that are conducted in the cyberspace and the ascertainment of the intention of the cyber users accused of such crimes. This is critical in the accurate classification of cyber crimes into either misdemeanours or felonies, instead of the current modalities of classification that result in the categorization of most of the suspects as felons (Skibell 944).
Galbraith (320) reiterates the need to sieve information as part of the strategy of minimizing unfair accusations of people who use the cyberspace. He also notes that the law that deals with cyber crime cases has to ensure that there are regulations when it comes to the use of different online platforms by different people. Even the publicly accessible websites need to be regulated to reduce the chances of unlawful use of the online platforms. This is a regulatory mechanism that is preventive in nature, instead of pieces of law like the CFAA that are responsive in nature.
Conclusion
Research indicates an increased in the deployment of computer forensics in the justice system of the United States. From the research conducted in the paper, it is worthwhile to note that computer forensics gain acceptance in both criminal and civil litigations because of the increased use of computer and other technology tools. Therefore, it is easy to track the codes of communication and recover electronic evidence to link people to all kinds of crimes. However, the gaps in technology are bound to advance the complexities in computer forensics.
Works Cited
“Senate Ratifies Treaty On Cybercrimes.” CongressDaily 2006: 8. Academic Search Premier. Web.
Baggili, Ibrahim. Digital Forensics and Cyber Crime: Second International ICST Conference, Icdf2c 2010, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2010, Revised Selected Papers. Berlin: Springer, 2011. Print.
Bennett, David. “The Challenges Facing Computer Forensics Investigators In Obtaining Information From Mobile Devices For Use In Criminal Investigations.” Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective 21.3 (2012): 159-168. Print.
Galbraith, Christine D. “Access Denied: Improper Use Of The Computer Fraud And Abuse Act To Control Information On Publicly Accessible Internet Websites.” Maryland Law Review 63.2 (2004): 320-368. Print.
Garfinkel, Simson L. “Digital Forensics.” American Scientist 101.5 (2013): 370-377. Print.
Manes, Gavin W., and Elizabeth Downing. “What Security Professionals Need To Know About Digital Evidence.” Information Security Journal: A Global Perspective 19.3 (2010): 124-131. Print.
Maras, Marie-Helen. Computer Forensics: Cybercriminals, Laws, and Evidence. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning, 2012. Print.
Skibell, Reid. “Cybercrimes & Misdemeanors: A Reevaluation Of The Computer Fraud And Abuse Act.” Berkeley Technology Law Journal 18.3 (2003): 909-944. Print.
Watney, Murdoch. “State Surveillance of the Internet: Human Rights Infringement or e-Security Mechanism?” International Journal of Electronic Security and Digital Forensics 1.1 (2007): 42-54. Print.