Further Musings on Digital Crime
Adam Shostack posted a response to my Thoughts on Digital Crime blog entry. Essentially he questions the "bandwidth" of the law enforcement organizations I listed, i.e., their ability to handle cases. The FBI CART Web page says "in 1999 the Unit conducted 2,400 examinations of computer evidence." At HTCIA I heard Mr. Kosiba state that thus far, in 2004, CART has worked 2,500 cases, which may involve more than one examination per case. The 50+ CART examiners and support personnel and 250 field examiners have processed 665 TB of data so far this year! The CART alone spends $32,000 per examiner on equipment when they are hired, and another $12,500 per year to upgrade each examiner's equipment.
This is a sign that the DoJ is pouring money into combatting cyber crime. Of course local and state police do not have the same resources, but especially at the state level we are seeing improvements.
If more resources are being plowed into cybercrime, what is the likelihood that law enforcement will decline from prosecuting juveniles? I believe being a teenager isn't a viable way to escapae prosecution either. During HTCIA I attended a talk by Rick Aldrich, former AFOSI legal advisor. He explained how it has been traditionally difficult to prosecute juvenlile offenders in federal court. The state of California, however, has a special unit set up to investigate and prosecute juvenile cybercriminals. Other states who identify underage intruders now look for ways to get California to prosecute these offenders, due to California's system.
The last way to avoid a trip to the pokey is to hack from overseas locations. A visit to Cybercrime.gov shows plenty of active prosecutions for "hacking," including some foreigners. It's true that the people least likely to be prosecuted are those who physically reside in a country whose law enforcement agencies dislike working with the US government. However, even a country like Romania is working to catch intruders. I still believe all of this does not bode well for low- to mid-level cyber crininals -- you will be caught. Justice may be slow but it does not appear to give up. I have one caveat -- there must be evidence to support a prosecution. If a victim doesn't collect the sorts of high-fidelity data which can show damage and link it to the intruder's action, it's difficult to attract law enforcement's interest.
This is a sign that the DoJ is pouring money into combatting cyber crime. Of course local and state police do not have the same resources, but especially at the state level we are seeing improvements.
If more resources are being plowed into cybercrime, what is the likelihood that law enforcement will decline from prosecuting juveniles? I believe being a teenager isn't a viable way to escapae prosecution either. During HTCIA I attended a talk by Rick Aldrich, former AFOSI legal advisor. He explained how it has been traditionally difficult to prosecute juvenlile offenders in federal court. The state of California, however, has a special unit set up to investigate and prosecute juvenile cybercriminals. Other states who identify underage intruders now look for ways to get California to prosecute these offenders, due to California's system.
The last way to avoid a trip to the pokey is to hack from overseas locations. A visit to Cybercrime.gov shows plenty of active prosecutions for "hacking," including some foreigners. It's true that the people least likely to be prosecuted are those who physically reside in a country whose law enforcement agencies dislike working with the US government. However, even a country like Romania is working to catch intruders. I still believe all of this does not bode well for low- to mid-level cyber crininals -- you will be caught. Justice may be slow but it does not appear to give up. I have one caveat -- there must be evidence to support a prosecution. If a victim doesn't collect the sorts of high-fidelity data which can show damage and link it to the intruder's action, it's difficult to attract law enforcement's interest.
Comments