The first step in combating any type of high-tech crime is to inform the public of its dangers and educate them on ways in which they can protect themselves. As the popular phrase states, “knowing is half the battle.” The best way to raise public awareness would be through a community public education campaign. At a minimum, the campaign should: (1) define what Internet fraud, illegal file sharing and online harassment are; (2) explain why it is illegal; (3) explain ways the citizens can fall victim; (4) explain what citizens should do if they are a victim; (5) explain ways that citizens can protect themselves; and (6) emphasize the importance of digital hygiene. Digital hygiene refers to the common practices the information security community suggests everyone should do in order to ensure a more secure cyberspace. The practices include having a strong password, only opening attachments or links from trusted sources, consistently updating one’s anti-virus software and upgrading ones operating system. This is especially pertinent to children who suffer the most from online harassment (Gregorie, 2001).
One of the key principles of community policing holds that the most effective police strategies occur when the community takes an active role in fighting crime. The same is true, if not necessary, in combating high-tech crimes. This is especially true for Internet fraud which overwhelmingly poses a threat to local businesses. Accordingly, any strategy that is implemented must include the participation of key actors in information technology (IT). An illustrative example that we should look to adopt in our own local IT community is Microsoft’s Cybercrime Center (MCC). The MCC employs a team of engineers whose job is to seek out, analyze, report and battle cybercriminal activity wherever it exists (Wait, 2013). Moreover, the MCC provides space for its engineers and law enforcement to meet, discuss strategies and collaborate. A broad-based public-private partnership provides one of the most effective strategies against high-tech crimes.
Finding and establishing partnerships with other law enforcement and government agencies is also necessary. This not only will extend our ability to fight crimes further way from our community but also provide tools, coverage and knowledge for any gaps that we may have in our own strategies. This is especially true for illegal file sharing as the files can be distributed local or in jurisdictions across the world. For example, in November 2014, the FBI in collaboration with Europol arrested 17 people in 17 countries on charges of Internet fraud and illegal file sharing (Greenberg, 2014). The arrests led to the seizure and shutting of hundreds of websites that the suspects alleged used to orchestrate their criminal activities.
Although, high-tech crime is a relatively new form of criminal activity, this has not stopped criminal from being among the earliest adopters of technology to facilitate their actions. We cannot afford to be a step late. Accordingly, we need to secure resources for the training and employ of a computer forensic specialist or specialist unit. This specialist(s) would be available to perform the necessary forensic work needed to investigate, secure, and analyze evidence of high-tech crimes so that it can be used against their perpetrators. In addition, this specialist can also be used to train community businesses and citizens on anti-crime procedures and best practices.
As in the world of physical criminal investigations, we need information. We need to know when a crime is occurring, where it is occurring, to whom and how. We also need the ability for victims to alert us of high-tech criminal activity so that we can devise ways to quickly respond. Accordingly, we need an effective mechanism for the community to report crimes or the threat of crimes. We should therefore create a high-tech crime victim hotline, similar to the 911 system. For example, the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) allows victims of high-tech crimes to inform law enforcement in a manner that is simple and secure (FBI, 2014). Once the IC3 receives and processed a complaint it will either refer it to a local law enforcement agency or the relevant federal or international authority.
Resources
Federal Bureau of Investigation – FBI. (2014, Oct. 6). IC3: The Front Door for Reporting Internet Crime. Retrieved on December 8, 2014, from http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/ic3-the-front-door-for-reporting-internet-crime
Greenberg, A. (2014, Nov. 7). Global Web Crackdown Arrests 17, Seizes Hundreds of Dark Net Domains. Retrieved on December 8, 2014, from http://www.wired.com/2014/11/operation-onymous-dark-web-arrests/
Gregorie, T.M. (2001). Cyberstalking: Dangers on the Information Superhighway. Retrieved on December 8, 2014, from http://www.victimsofcrime.org/docs/src/cyberstalking---dangers-on-the-information-superhighway.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services – COPS. (2006, May). A National Strategy to Combat Identity Theft. Retrieved on December 8, 2014, from http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e03062303.pdf
Wait, P. (2013, Dec. 4). Microsoft Launches Cybercrime Center. Retrieved on December 8, 2014, from http://www.informationweek.com/government/cybersecurity/microsoft-launches-cybercrime-center/d/d-id/1112893
