While Susan Brenner is a professor of law at the University of Dayton law school, Leo Clark is a law practitioner with the Washington Federal. The author’s main audience is the academic society, especially the students of cyber law. The increased rate of cybercrime calls for a rethinking of how society should enforce its criminal laws (Brenner, 2004). They argue that the existing method of crime prevention, especially police-based enforcement, cannot protect society from cybercrimes (Miquelson-Weismann, 2005). Therefore, the authors propose a new model that employs fines and criminal sanctions. With this model, it is proposed that the old models will be supplemented.
Broadhurst teaches computer science at the Queensland University of Technology in Brisbane, Australia. The purpose of this article was to address the opportunities for criminals provided by the rapid expansion of online communication and to find out better ways of coping with this form of crime. In his methodology, Broadhurst evaluates the existing forms of mutual legal assistance to review the internal efforts applied to fight cybercrime. He found that detrimental and malicious programs and codes targeting computer-computer communications are the main forms of cybercrime. He calls for an urgent need for reforms in response to cybercrime.
Somme was a research fellow at the London School of economic when he published this article. He specialised in information security. The primary audience is scholars in law and computer science and the police. He argues that the best response to cybercrime can only be understood within the broader context of the issues facing the criminal justice system. By concentrating on the situation in the UK, Sommer argues that both the police and the justice system fail due to over-expectations from each other.
The authors teach law at Texas Christian University’s Department of Sociology, Criminal Justice, and Anthropology. The audience includes the police, scholars, the justice system, and the public. The authors report the findings of research they conducted using surveys. They intended to determine the degree of preparedness cooperativeness, perceptions, and information insemination in the police department in regards to coping with cybercrime. They found that there is a need for rethinking the way cybercrime is controlled.
By the time of publication, the author was a researcher at the University of Dublin’s department of computer science, where he developed an interest in computer forensics and security. The audience includes the police, criminal justice system, and scholars. In this article, Ciardhuáin presents a model for investigating cybercrimes. The model combines the conventional models and generalizes them to address certain issues that are missing in them. Then, he compares the model with others before putting it into practice.
The author is a police officer attached with Cleveland Police, Middlesbrough, UK. He addresses scholars in computer law, fellow investigators, and the general public. He presents a model for cybercrime investigation that guides the practices of investigations within the community. This model also takes into consideration the stages of cybercrime and the logical steps for investigations. It also covers the mainstream law and jurisdiction and applies it in cybercrime investigations (Lichtenbaum & Schneck, 2002).
Hinduja is a law professor at the School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University in East Lansing, Michigan. He intends to address the student community and practitioners in law and crime investigations. He presents survey research he had conducted across the state of Michigan in an attempt to assess the needs of the crime control department in the state and law enforcement at the local levels about cybercrime. The results indicated that computer-based crime is a significant social crime in the community, but the department of police and investigations is yet to develop effective methods of dealing with this crime (Katyal, 2003).
Wall was a leading researcher in cybercrime and computer security at the time of publication. In this article, he seeks to add to the debate about law enforcement to govern cyberspace by dealing with cybercrimes. The article reviews the current methods of policing the internet and explores the modern terrestrial methods of policing to determine their effectiveness in dealing with cybercrime (Swire, 2009).
Hunton is a UK office or police attached to the Cleveland police. By the time of publication, he had been in the police force for more than 20 years. His audience is primarily the public. In this article, Hunton presents a model for cybercrime investigation that integrates and consolidates the network internet technology and the complex process of crime investigation. He ties this model with the existing principles of investigation and the processes used in law enforcement.
Moitra is a distinguished professor of law and technology at Max-Planck Institute of criminal law, Germany. The purpose of developing this article was to examine the limitations in the current law enforcement, which make it inadequate to deal with cybercrime. The article proposes that the only way states can control this crime is by removing the current hierarchical model and replacing it with a conceptual model of distributed security that aims at applying criminal sanctions to reduce the degree of crime.
References
Brenner, S. W., & Clarke, L. L. (2005). Distributed Security: A New Model of Law Enforcement. John Marshall Journal of Computer & Information Law, 2(1), 14-19
Brenner, S. W. (2004). Toward a Criminal Law for Cyberspace: A New Model of Law Enforcement. Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. 30(3), 1-12.
Broadhurst, R. (2006). Developments in the global law enforcement of cyber-crime. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 29(3), 408 – 433
Burns, R. G., Whitworth, K. H., & Thompson, C. Y. (2004). Assessing law enforcement preparedness to address Internet fraud. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(5), 477–493
Ciardhuáin, S. O. (2004). An Extended Model of Cybercrime Investigations. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 3(1), 42-48
Hinduja, S. (2004). Perceptions of local and state law enforcement concerning the role of computer crime investigative teams. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 27(3), 341 – 357.
Hunton, P. (2010). Cyber Crime and Security: A New Model of Law Enforcement Investigation. Policing, 4 (4): 385-395.
Hunton, P. (2011). The stages of cybercrime investigations: Bridging the gap between technology examination and law enforcement investigation. Computer Law & Security Review, 27(1), 61–67
Katyal, N. K. (2003). Digital Architecture as Crime Control. Yale L.J. 112(12), 2261-2269.
Lichtenbaum, P., & Schneck, M. (2002). Response to Cyber attacks: Balancing Security and Cost. Int’l L. 36(4), 39-44.
Miquelson-Weismann, M. F. (2005). Convention on Cybercrime: A Harmonized Implementation of International penal Law: What Prospects for Procedural Due Process. J. Marshall J. Computer & Info. L. 23(2), 329-338.
Moitra, S. D. (2005). Developing Policies for Cybercrime – Some Empirical Issues. Eur. J. Crime Crim. L. & Crim. Just, 13(3), 435-464.
Somme, P. (2004).The future for the policing of cybercrime. Computer Fraud & Security, 2004(1), 8–12.
Swire, P. (2009). No Cop on the Beat: Underenforcement in E-Commerce and Cybercrime. J. on Telecomm. & High Tech. L. 7(3), 107-118.
Wall, D. S. (1998). Catching Cybercriminals: Policing the Internet. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 12(2), 201-218