Computer based Crimes- Identity theft essay

Scientific and technical progress, creating new technologies – informative, in short spaces revolutionary transformed the processes of collection, treatment, accumulation, storage, search and distribution of information, and also informative processes. These changes formed the sphere of activity, related to creation, transformation and consumption of information – informative sphere of world association, and in a great deal predetermine further development of public and economic relations in the whole world. If before the rates of development of humanity were determined accessible to its energy, now it is make by accessible to its information. And as not once happened in history of humanity, when drawn on scientific accomplishments not only in blessing but also in harm people, the new sphere of activity did not become an exception. The main aim of this paper is to discuss questions connected with computer based crimes and to define their main characteristics.

Development and perfection of information technologies, expansion of hardware production and purview computer technique, availability of similar devices, and main – the presence of human factor as satisfaction of own ambitions or thirst of making money generated new kind of publicly dangerous acts in which computer information is illegally used or it becomes the object of encroachment. System research of some object or phenomenon, as a rule, is begun with the clear getting a clear idea of its place in more large system. A substantial help is herein rendered by the lead through of its classification. It touches to a full degree the study of such difficult phenomenon as a crime in the field of computer information.

I think that it is necessary to define the term “computer crimes” in this paragraph, because it will help us to continue our research and be more detailed in different questions explanation. According to Benson and Rosenthal (1997) “the rapid emergence of computer technologies has spawned a variety of new criminal behaviors and an explosion in specialized legislation to combat them. While computer crimes include traditional crimes committed with a computer, the term also encompasses offenses against intellectual property and other crimes that do not fall within traditional criminal statutes. The diversity of computer-related offenses thus demands a broad definition. The Department of Justice defines computer crimes as “any violations of criminal law that involve[s] knowledge of computer technology for their perpetration, investigation, or prosecution.”

Since appearance of the World web in it stretched the networks of thousand swindlers. It is easily to become their victim and even participator, because computer criminals have different schemes of work. In according to above stated facts one of the most actual issues for today is a problem even with the term “computer crime” definition.

Generally accepted determination it is not yet offered in science of criminal law. Thus, it should be noted that its absence is not only a theoretical problem; it also considerably complicates activity of law enforcement authorities on counteraction crimes in the field of the use of computer technique.

It is impossible to let pass on that in scientific literature a term interpreting “computer crimes” sufficiently wide: under computer crimes often people understand crimes which have as a subject or as a method of crime computer technique, information and electronic information treatment. According to Balkin, Grimmelmann, Katz, Kozlovski, Wagman, & Zarsky, (2006) we see that coming from such determination, any crime can be consider computer crime and among them we see a theft, espionage, illegal collecting of information which make a commercial secret, et cetera, if it is accomplished with the use of computer. Such understanding of computer crimes is wrong because it does not allow reflecting their essence and specific, delimit from other crimes in which a computer is only a mean or object.

In spite of variety of computer crimes, practically all methods of their feasance have the individual, inherent only by it signs on which it is possible to recognize and classify them on separate general groups:

1. Withdrawal of facilities of computer technique.

2. Illegal access to computer information:

– Crimes, accomplished in regard to computer information, being in global computer networks or at an address to them.

– Crimes, accomplished in regard to computer information, being in computer, being not a computer in the classic understanding of this word (such, as a pager, cellular telephone, cash register and so on).

3. Making or distribution of the harmful programs (viruses, the programs – housebreakers and others).

4. Intercept of information.

5. Violation of copyrights (computer piracy).

Generally accepted in a criminal law is a presence at the article of crimes against property of three signs: physical, economic and legal. Establishment of these signs for computer information is the most acceptable method of its determination as the article of crime. Benson and Rosenthal (1997) emphasized that physical sign is a specific of computer information as the article of crime consists in impossibility of its attributing to material or to the non-material objects. Information as a non-material object joins in the system of public relations by a financial transmitter. Otherwise speaking, physical sign of computer information as the article of crime consists in its transmitter, which, as a rule, is understood as an object, thing, properties of which are used for a transmission, storage and treatment of information. The carriers of computer data are diskettes, optical and hard disks et cetera.

Determining carrier of computer data, it is necessary to take into account that one of descriptions of the modern stage of computerization is development of electronic communication means.

Therefore, some researchers put a question about status of information which is passed on system of connection.

Information in these systems is passed by signals which also are the financial transmitters of information transfer.

For example, electric signals in public-call flow lines can be the carriers of data in computer networks. Just the same understanding of carrier of computer data will allow determining as elimination or distortion of computer information not only cases affecting devices of computer but also on signals, transferable between computers. Thus, by the physical sign of computer information as the article of crime there is a presence of transmitter – object or signal, physical, chemical or other properties of which are used for storage, transmission and treatment of information, by a recognizable computer.

Information as an economic sign has the article of crime, price, which, eventually, is determined by its maintenance and personal interest of user in its receipt. Economists mark that as a commodity information has a number of specific properties: not destroyed in the process of the use; at a transmission to the user it is not lost for a producer; vagueness and subjectivity of information utility; special mechanism of its senescence, because it is not becomes old, but loses actuality. A value of information is different: information can be valuable in (as a result of the protracted work of plenty of specialists) fact, and it can be valuable on purpose, (for example, its presence is a necessary condition for the performance of certain objective).

In my opinion, the way how information received about attacks is important. This jump fully can be conditioned by large distribution of the high-quality systems on finding out unauthorized encroachments, if the question is exactly about breaking, but not spam, so-called scareware and to that to the similar attacks, to base on the social engineering. So, partly it can be question of not «amount of robberies», but «quality of signaling» – the systems of notification became better. For example, in California now there is a law on which a company is under an obligation to report that it was broken up. And many more services and departments in which it is possible to appeal with complaints about an internet-swindle became in principle widespread. A question is yet and in that, how processes this statistics. In Britain all suffices conservative: the real cases are simply fixed here, when breaking and man happened gave swindlers some sum of money or financial harm was inflicted other easily determined appearance.

Williams (2006) said that police in United States and in all other world founds subdivisions on a fight against computer crimes, and makes it the large stake of offences, investigated these departments. National Cybercrime Training Partnership (NCTP) – engulfs local, at the level of the states and federal law-enforcement organs of United States. International Association of Chiefs of Police ”“ IACP, comes forward as receiving party at Annual conference of law enforcement authorities on informative management, by a theme to which there are IT- safety and cybercrime. European Union created an organ by the name Forum on cyber crime. Great number of countries signed Convention of Council of Europe on cyber crime, which tries to standardize the European laws, touching criminality in the Internet area. Every organization and authors of any law dispose own opinion of that is consider cybercrime and that no. These determinations can differ in a greater or less degree.

Describing laws we should mention that understanding of importance of problems of jurisdiction is necessary nowadays. Other factor, hampering hard and rapid determination of cybercrime, is a jurisdiction dilemma. McQuade (2006) concentrated on facts that the laws of different jurisdictions are determined by terms in different ways. And for the workers of law enforcement authorities, investigating crimes, and for network administrators, persons interested to participate in the prosecution of criminals, committing crime against their networks, it is necessary to familiarize with the applied laws. In most cases in the USA it means the study of local decisions or laws of the states which were broken. In general, criminal behavior behaves to jurisdiction of that territory, where it happened. For example, if someone attacked you, you registered a crime wherein an attack happened actually. As cybercrimes accomplished more frequent in virtual «space», which we name by a cyberspace, it becomes more problematic to understand, what law must be used. In many cases a criminal and victim is divided by hundreds, at times thousands of miles, and leg one never stepped on territory of the state, and even countries other. Grabosky (2006) was sure as laws geographically depending on jurisdiction can radically differ, an action, declared out of law in one locality, can be fully legitimate in other. What can be done, if someone in the state of Californium, having liberal laws on obscenity, makes pornographic pictures, accessible over the internet to someone in the state of Tennessee, the laws of which are far more conservative? To jurisdiction of what state does it behave? Do you can successfully to pursue someone for the commission of crime as of right of the state or country, wherever this person never been? By a turning point, in this case the matter of the USA serves as a landmark against Thomas and Thomas.

We know that Local law enforcement authorities – they are municipal departments of police and offices of circuitous sheriffs – identically accountable for the account of statements about crimes, registered by their organs, crimes, on which they conduct investigation and arrest criminals. There is no set, standardized system of conduct of records, every agency can found the own database, using for it different software from a great number, produced specially for law enforcement authorities, or even to do reports by hand, as it by was years done by constabulary agencies to computerization of local law enforcement authorities.

Why is it so important to develop the model determination of cybercrimes? If we will not use identical – or, at least, substantially not different – determinations, single fitting for cybercrimes IT- personnel, users of computers and victims, constabularies, detectives, accusers and judges will be impossible. Brenner (2007) explained that the capture of reliable statistical data, intended for the analysis of methods of feasance of cybercrimes and tendencies of cybercrimes will be also impossible. Yar (2006) explained that the analysis of criminality allows law enforcement authorities more effectively to distribute resources and to develop its own strategies for fight. Frequently, hardness the leaders of law enforcement authorities to ground the requirements of additional assignations in a budget ( on the specialized personnel, teaching, equipment etc.) without reliable statistical information. Standard determinations and talking for itself statistical information is also needed for wide illumination in society of cybercrime’s problem and bringing in of public to the fight against it. Analysis of criminality – basis of its warning; classification of meeting types of crimes, finding out of the most typical time and place of their feasance, exposure of conformities to law of their feasance, is needed for development of strategies of their successful prevention.

The senate of the USA ratified international convention on cybercrimes with purpose to facilitate their investigation.

Convention of Council of Europe on cybercrimes, which started acting in 2001, is accepted in 41 country, including Canada and Japan has an own purpose. Purpose of convention creation is to drive to the concordance laws on computer crimes which in different countries differ from each other.

Coming from the considered problems it is possible to make an effort define possible ways of problem’s decision. Society self comes to the conclusion that a trust and safety behave to main supports of informative society. For providing of effective counteraction of this type of crimes efforts only at national level are not enough. Development, standardization and standardization of legislation and programmatic facilities, is needed, allowing to determine a location and establishment of personality of criminals, illegal using computer networks and global telecommunication systems, as countries try to do it signing European convention on a fight with cybercrimes.

It was also desirable to accent attention on the decision of problem of standardization of legislation of countries, participating in an informative exchange. Without single requirements to proofs not a single court of not a single country acknowledges proof information, if they will be collected in other country on laws, contradicting laws of inquiring country. For this purpose it is necessary already now to conduct the analysis of problem of interface of national legislation of separate countries in part, regulative questions informative safety, with that to provide compatible classification of offences in the field of informative safety and responsibility, arising up in connection with the feasance of actions, classified as criminal.