Greatest challenge facing law enforcement agencies
Powerof anonymity is the greatest challenge facing law enforcementagencies in their quest to investigate cyber stalking, exploitation,and obscenity. Anonymity helps an individual to conceal his or hertrue identity by adopting different screen names as well as usingvarious Internet service providers (Brenner, 2012). There are twoforms of anonymous services on the Internet. One form enable a personto create a free electronic mailbox through a website confirmationor authentication of such person information is rarely done. Thesecond form incorporates mail servers that identify information andallow transportation of headers from electronic mail hence, acyberstalker can easily forward mails while hiding his or heridentity. Anonymous use of public access points makes it extremelyhard for agencies to investigate a cyber crime such infrastructuresmake it almost impossible to trace the perpetrator of such a crime.Identification of a cyber crime perpetrator still remains a hugeproblem despite the use of video surveillance systems by variousinvestigators and agencies. According to Shinder (2011), acyberstalker continually advance his or her harassment since he orshe is aware that his or her victims are unable to identify thesource of threats or harassment that they face. Following this, manyperpetrators of cyber crime continually pursue their victims at homeand at workplace since they have detailed information about them.Such perpetrators get easy access to their victims’ personalinformation that is readily accessible on numerous websites.
Overlapping of jurisdictions
Overlappingof jurisdictions also pose several challenges to agenciesinvestigating cyber crimes. Before any agencies embark oninvestigating a cybercrime case, it must have jurisdiction.Jurisdiction issues mostly depend and vary from one state to another.Most judiciaries tend to handle or investigate only cases that are intheir state. There exist several differences in regulations and lawsof various countries other countries further lack laws for variousexploitation crimes and obscenity (Shinder, 2011). As a result, lawenforcement agencies find it hard to investigate cyber crimes acrossinternational borders. In other circumstances, many foreign lawenforcement agencies find it hard in phrasing the properinvestigative questions. Jurisdictional limitations further frustratelocal law enforcement agencies. There is a high likelihood of a localauthority finding huge challenge in investigating a cyber crime if acyberstalker is located in a different state or city from that of thevictim. Such an agency may also find it hard to get help fromout-of-state agencies when no actual violence has taken place andwhen the crime is limited to harassing e-mail messages. Jamal (2010)findings show several cases that have been referred to the offices ofU.S Attorney and FBI because of the difference in location of boththe perpetrator and victim of a cyber crime. Such referral takesplace since local agencies find it hard to pursue such aninvestigation. Courts also face challenge in determining when theyhave jurisdiction over any activity carried on the Internet. This isbecause Internet is neither confined to a single geographical areanor divisible along territorial boundaries into distinct localnetworks in a neat and proper manner. Internet does not conform tolocal and national jurisdiction since it is international.
Again,laws differ from one state or nation to the next for instance, anact considered as a crime in one location may not qualify to be acrime in another locality. In connection to this, it is become hardto track down a perpetrator of cyber crime if he or she is in alocation that does not qualify his or her acts as a crime.Undoubtedly, jurisdictional issues have a high likelihood of slowingdown as well as blocking the enforcement of cybercrime laws in anenormous manner.
Collaboration of states when a cyber-crime is carried out across state lines
Statesshould have the ability to work with one another whenever acybercrime is carried out across state lines. It is necessary toinvestigate and handle a crime in a proper manner despite the type ofjurisdiction involved. This, in turn, helps victims of such a crimefind justice while perpetrators face the necessary consequences.Undeniably, police force should work together in order to curb cybercrimes. Nations that have strong cyber attack offensive capabilitiesshould come together and form international agreement with an aim oflimiting any future threat of cyber attacks. These nations shouldacknowledge the existence of a shared risk to a common resourcehence, become more inclined in sharing in the protection of such aresource. They should develop international cybersecurity standardsand thereafter build a common computer infrastructure (Jamal, 2010).Such an infrastructure plays a key role in supporting various systemsnecessary for curbing cyber crime eventually, NercNet will beexpanded to other key nodes and nations. A shared infrastructurewould further lay a robust framework for information sharing hence,party nations would easily access and understand various platforms ofphysical information technology. Nations will have a higherlikelihood of accepting shared responsibility for the availabilityand protection of network infrastructure system if there is anagreement to share responsibility for network failures.
Brenner,S.W. (2012). Cybercrimeand the Law:Challenges,Issues, and Outcomes.New Hampshire: UPNE.
Jamal,H. (2010). Reducing the Threat of State-To-State Cyber Attack againstCritical Infrastructure through International Norms and Agreements.LawEnforcement,2, 1-29.
Shinder,D. (2011). What Makes Cybercrime Laws So Difficult To Enforce.Retrieved fromhttp://www.techrepublic.com/blog/it-security/what-makes-cybercrime-laws-so-difficult-to-enforce/.