Challenges Policy Makers face to Counter Cybercrime

Pfleeger (2005) reminds us that modern cyber-criminals can often be individuals that are difficult to detect.  They “wear business suits, have university degrees, and appear to be pillars of their communities.”  In addition to this, because of the wide spread accessibility to the internet and communications, it makes it easier for these criminals to operate in groups spread across the globe.  The international issue is a major cause for concern because there is no single authoritative group that has the power to prosecute individuals committing these crimes within various countries.  In his article titled “Redefining Borders: The Challenges of Cybercrime” (Speer, 2000) discusses some of these challenges and how the legal system is slowly adapting to provide various solutions.  Multi-lateral agreements and the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) are tools which can enable countries to assist each other and process extradition; however this is often a long and costly process which yields disappointing results in apprehending the offender.

In their article on Cyber Crimes, (Sinrod & Reilly, 2000), claim that “law enforcement officials have been frustrated by the inability of legislators to keep cyber-crime legislation ahead of the fast-moving technological curve.”  They go on to inform us that competing interests of individual rights such as free speech and privacy need to be looked at when protecting the integrity of public and private networks.  This leads us to consider how much of an intervention will be needed by laws and regulations set forth by the United States government in order to tackle these problems.  While laws have changed significantly since Sinrod & Reilly’s article, the challenges outlined here have hampered the current legislation which is not able to deal with many cybercrime concerns adequately.

Public demand is increasing for more comprehensive cybercrime laws.  Many people have been the victim of such crimes and awareness has been raised as to their severity.  Conkrite et al (2011) affirm that the “industry knows best” approach for cyber-security has been inefficient.  The Public’s level demand for cyber-security is higher than most firms’ individual demand’.  In the last year, congress has failed to enact major cyber security legislation; however South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley is devoted to improving current legislation.  In South Carolina last year a stolen state employee password allowed a hacker to breach the South Carolina tax system gaining information on nearly 4 million individual and 800,000 business tax filers.  Chabrow (2013).  Haley is up for reelection next year and due to public demand, she “can’t afford not to keep address cybersecurity head-on.”  Public demand will continue to affect policy to help improve the current laws, which have improved in many ways; however there is still a lot of work to be done in order to effectively provide individual protections needed in US legislation.

References:

1. Pfleeger, P., & Fleeger, S., L. (2007). Security in Computing Fourth Edition. Upper Saddle River: NJ. Prentice Hall.
2. Chabrow, E. (2013).  Politician Feels People’s Pain over Breach.  Bank Info Security.  Retrieved from: http://www.bankinfosecurity.com/blogs/politician-feels-peoples-pain-on-breach-p-1407/op-1
3. Cronkrite, M., Szydlik, J., Park, J. (2011).  The Strategies for Critical Cyber Infrastructure (CCI) Protection by Enhancing Software Assurance.  The Proceedings of the 5^th International Conference on Information Warfare and Security pp66-75.  Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Eobsx_gvPywC&oi=fnd&pg=PA68&dq=The+Strategies+for+Critical+Cyber+Infrastructure+(CCI)+Protection+by+Enhancing+Software+Assurance
4. Sinrod, E., J., & Reilly, W., P. (2000). Cyber-Crimes: A Practical Approach to the Application of Federal Computer Crime Laws, 16 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 177, 194
5. Speer, D. (2000). Redefining Borders: The Challenges of Cybercrime.  The challenges of cybercrime. Crime, Law and Social Change, 34(3), 259-273.  Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: 403872181).