Introduction
The society we live now is strongly dependent on information technology. However, despite the many benefits that come along with it, it also makes the society vulnerable to the activities of people who use the technology for wrongful purposes or personal interests. Information technology has bred world-class hackers who are responsible for significant damages and disruptions to information systems. However, hackers are not the only criminals in the information technology sector; there are also terrorist’s organizations that use information systems to plan and facilitate their activities. In definitional terms, cyber-terrorism is an unlawful attack against networks, computers, and where information is stored with the purpose of coercing or intimidating a government or people (Cottim, 2010). The leading form of threat in the information technology sector is, in fact, the cyber-terrorists; who attack technological infrastructure with the purpose to boost their terrorism plans.
Cyber-terrorism takes place in a cyberspace- a virtual world of computers and computer networks. The local police have a jurisdiction over the cyber-terrorism. However, they do not have enough knowledge and skills to investigate cyber-terrorism. In most cases, they rely on the expertise from the federal government which is the one that mostly deals with international cyber-crimes (Wall, 2007). The police involvement in cyber-terrorism is subtle because they miss the first response role. Most of the police executives agree that, currently the police are “behind the curve” in their involvement with the crime. The jurisdiction on cyber-terrorism has created a lot of challenges as acknowledged by many security agencies. This is because an act of cyber-terrorism committed by a perpetrator thousand miles away becomes a challenge to local police since police departments work within a given jurisdiction, but cyber-terrorists know no boundaries (Wall, 2007). Therefore, the jurisdiction theory is determined by the place in which the crime was committed.
Cyber-terrorism is a crime that can be prosecuted by FBI in a federal court. For example; according to security focus journal, in 2004, the FBI agents arrested a man from Louisiana –Jeansonne - for allegedly tricking a few MSN TV users into installing and running a malicious e-mail attachment, which in turn reprogrammed the user’s set-top boxes to dial the 9-1-1 emergency number. The man was charged under the provision of federal computer crime statute because the attack caused a threat to public health and safety. In that case, the provision of federal computer crime gives the FBI agent a mandate to prosecute cyber-terrorism crime.
With the increased cases of cyber-terrorism around the world, many states have put in place laws that govern the crime. In India, an amendment was made on laws under the information technology act, 2000 to define the term “Cyberterrorism” U/Sec. 66F. It was the first time the Indian constitution defined the term and stipulated a punishment for the latter. In America, the Cybersecurity Act of 2012 was the latest attempt by the congress to counter threats on cyber-crimes and attacks.
The examples of recent cyber-attacks that were launched as large scale terrorism include Hannaford Bros, a grocery retailer. In 2007, Hannaford Bros suffered a four-month long cyber-attack where over 4.2 million credit and debit cards numbers and other crucial information were accessed by hackers who installed a malware program on the grocery store servers instead and accessed company’s database. The mastermind for the hacking was a man named Albert Gonzales, who created shadowcrew.com (Cottim, 2010). Another example of a cyber-attack was called ‘operation aurora’ in which Yahoo was the subject. The attack originated from China and was conducted by a group called Elderwood that was based in Beijing, and that had links with the People Liberation Army. The group used advanced threats that were persistent from mid-2009 up to December 2009. The above examples are just few among many other cases (Cottim, 2010).
In the case where the cyber-terrorism act is not against the law, the person who performs the crime will not be prosecuted. This is especially the case when the country that the hacker resides in does not have any laws against hacking. For example, in the year 2000, millions of computers were affected by a virus called “Love Bug” that was traced back to Philippines by the United States law enforcers. The virus had caused a lot of damages, and the United States wanted the extradition of the suspect, but they failed because of lack of laws against hacking in the Philippines (Cottim, 2010).
In most cases, local police work hand-in-hand with the FBI to fight against cyber-terrorism. This is however not deep into the task because police jurisdiction is very limited. Local police, usually, hands over cyber-terrorism cases to the FBI if the particular case under investigation is beyond their jurisdiction; or if it involves millions of dollars and finally if it is a case that has international components.
Conclusion
Jurisdiction limitation seems to be the biggest factor or issue hindering progress in the fight against cyber-terrorism. The fact that cyber-attacks can be carried out from anywhere in the world makes the investigation and taking the offenders to court a very difficult task that can only be achieved through international cooperation (Cottim, 2010). In addition to that, there is a need to train the local police and the same time equipped them with skills and resources needed to investigate and bring offenders to justice.
References
Wall, D. S. (2007). Policing cybercrimes: Situating the public police in networks of security within cyberspace. Police Practice and Research, 8(2), 183-205.
Cottim, A. A. (2010). Cybercrime, Cyberterrorism and jurisdiction: an analysis of Article 22 of the COE Convention on Cybercrime. The Future of Law & Technology in the Information Society, 2.
