Question 1
There are number of federal agencies that are established to enforce law and prosecute crimes that are related to computer violation, computer fraud and computer crime. These agencies include Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIP), U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Division and Department of Justice’s Computer Crime and Intersexual Property section. These agencies also offer training to ensure that the law enforcement members are able to address the computer and electronic crimes and advanced technology crimes. These agencies conducts complex investigation, on the crime allegation, prevents and prosecutes crimes that are associated with digital technology and computer in specific (Massingale, 2009).
These agencies have developed various training program for the investigating and prosecuting officers in the field of computer fraud and computer crimes. These training programs mainly focus on the fundamental areas such as data analysis and recovery, electronic crime scene investigation, application of internet as investigation device, and also training for instructors. The computer crime investigators are also trained to acquire advance knowledge on computer networking and software. These skills and knowledge are considered as imperative to computer crime investigators (Taylor, 2006). The training also focuses on the skills of the computer forensics skills for the potential computer crime prosecutors and investigators.
Question 2
According to Fourth Amendment it stipulates that law enforcement rules and regulations must spell out all the duties and powers of State law enforcement officer. All these, are in the United States constitution that binds law enforcement officers during searching. There are different laws that are involved during search warrants. The first law is Knock-And-Announce rule that guides officers not to immediately force on their way into residence without knocking (Massingale, 2009). The law spells that the officers are supposed to knock and announce their identity as well as intent.
The second law is known as No-Knock law which is a search warrant that spells all officers has no need to knock or identify them. This warrant has been frequently used in cybercrimes mostly in major cities. These laws are used and well related with computer crimes since very useful and critical information is store in computers such as evidence or criminal activity. Therefore, during such searches the law enhancement officers are allowed to conduct them without any warrant. In short, the officers may conduct or carry out a warrantless search in most private premises. However, the investigators must ensure that the search will not violate anybody or Fourth Amendment (Taylor, 2006).
Question 3
Through knowledge and vigilance, the law enforcement agencies are able to develop the response to the cybercrime. The agencies should carry out strategies such as conducting awareness campaigns, advocating the use of farewell to the computer devices, ensure that the agencies websites are working effectively, and monitoring internet connections. The agencies should ensure that the provision of the internet connection should be free from spyware and spams. The agencies should also conduct security auditing more frequently to ensure that the internet users are complying with the rules and regulation that constrains them from computer crimes (Taylor, 2006).
The agencies should frequently conduct computer crime awareness, so that the internet and computer users could be aware of the types of scam that are common. The online news sites, emails and online retailers are more frequent of being invaded with the scams. In addition the computer users should be informed with the importance of installing firewalls in their computers. The installation of firewalls can be an effective tool to limit the access of the unwanted viruses or spyware to the computer files (Massingale, 2009). The law enforcement agencies also should ensure that their contact lines are accessible to the computer crime victim on 24/7 hours basis. These strategies can be effectively implemented to ensure that the issues of computer crimes are mitigated.
Question 4
The Fourth Amendment guarantees the law enforcement officers to obtain rights when computers crimes are committed to search and seize any digital evidence that may be of any help for the protection of cybercrime. The law spells two basic procedures of obligating a seizure or search in digital evidence with an aim to prove a case in computer crimes. The basic methods are with warrant and without warrant. The law ensures security for persons, effects and houses in contradiction of unreasonable searches as well as seizures. All he rights of computer crimes are under chapter one of the 4th Amendment.
For instance, if there's tough proof supporting that cyber-crimes were committed and therefore the suspect's computer contains harmful illegal imports that may compromise someone's life, then this may be a substantial reason for a warrant to be issued. By applying the two basic methods of the Fourth Amendment, search and seizure has been considerably determined, the law enforcement officers find it easy to draft a warrant and conduct a search and seizure of any digital evidence, giving a way to prosecute the offenders (Massingale, 2009).
Question 5
The main issue is however, the Fourth Amendment ought to apply to government copying of computer files. I object this approach to be sensible once it is applied to the copying of computer files. The intervention with and handling of the computer may be required to form the copy that can usually be used to conduct a search, however, the particular act of copying the information is not itself a seizure. I understand that this can be completely different approach than the one you are taking, in this you think that the act of copying constitutes a seizure (Massingale, 2009). During the search the law enforcement officers find that the procedure of recovering evidence from a computer is dissimilar from the practice of retrieving proof from a physical container.
Therefore, the courts need to see those major differences. However my sense is that we tend to find us within the same place. Use of the instrumentality analogy is another fascinating question. In my view, the analogy is beneficial in some contexts, however not others. I believe the analogy is true for deciding whether or not someone contains a cheap expectation of privacy within the contents of their computers. The courts have control that we tend to usually have an inexpensive expectation of privacy in our closed containers, and that i assume constant rule is correctly applied to our computers (Taylor, 2006).
References
Massingale, J. G. (2009). Digital surveillance: Laws, security and related issues. New York: Nova Science Publishers.
Taylor, R. W. (2006). Digital crime and digital terrorism. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
