Traditional Problems Associated with Computer Crime Individuals seeking a crime have always displayed
a remarkable ability to adapt to changing technologies, environments, and lifestyles. This adaptability
has often placed law enforcement at a disadvantage, struggling to keep up with criminal innovations.
Indeed, the law enforcement community has often failed to recognize the criminal potentiality of
emerging technologies until it is almost too late. This trend has proven to be true in contemporary
society. Fortunately, much computer-related crime involves nonspecialist users (e.g., child
pornographers, narcotics traffickers, and predators). In fact, the earliest computer crimes were
characterized as nontechnological. Theft of computer components and software piracy were particular
favorites. Hacking, DDoS attacks, phishing, Botnets, and other technologically complicated computer
crimes came later. Although the advent of technology has vastly changed the modus operandi of certain
criminal elements throughout history, current advances have changed the very physical environment in
which crime occurs. As such, the law enforcement community is experiencing unprecedented periods of
uncertainty and ineffectiveness. Many of these problems are associated with the comprehension of the
nature of the emerging technology, while others involve questions of legality and sovereignty.
Unfortunately, legislative bodies and judicial authorities have been slow to respond to such inquiries,
and law enforcement has been forced to develop investigative techniques without adequate legal
foundations. At the same time, the lack of technological knowledge, allocated resources, and
administrative apathy traditionally associated with the law enforcement community hampers even the
most mundane investigation. So, while the investigators of computer-related crime must display levels of
ingenuity comparable to sophisticated criminal entrepreneurs, traditional investigators and policymakers
are ill-equipped to do so.
Physicality and Jurisdictional Concerns The physical environment that breeds computer crime is far
different from traditional venues. In fact, the intangible nature of computer interaction and subsequent
criminality poses significant questions for investigative agents. For example, what forensic tools are
available for identifying entry points in data breaking and entering? Certainly, seasoned investigators
recognize the utility of prymark analysis in home burglaries. But few recognize the how-to’s and whatfor’s in abstract, intangible environments. In many cases, such differences in technique, and even
approach, are further complicated by the lack of precautionary boundaries and restraints—both physical
and virtual. Indeed, the intangibility of such environments creates unlimited opportunities. The lack of
physical boundaries and the removal of traditional jurisdictional demarcations allow perpetrators to
commit multinational crime with little fear (or potential) of judicial sanctions. For the first time, criminals
can cross international boundaries without the use of passports or official documentation. Whereas
traditional criminal activity required the physical presence of the perpetrators, cybercrime is facilitated
by international connections that enable individuals to commit criminal activity in England while sitting
in their offices in Alabama. In addition, electronic crime does not require an extensive array of
equipment or tools. It does not require vehicular transportation, physical storage capability, or laborintensive practices, all of which increase the potential for discovery and enforcement. In addition, this
shift from a corporeal environment, where items can be seen, touched, smelled, and so on, to a virtual
world, where boundaries, concrete barriers, and physical items are inconsequential, has further
insulated the criminal from law enforcement. In fact, the sheer intangibility of crime scenes has all but
crippled many criminal investigations. A further concern regarding the physical intangibility of computer
crime involves the traditional lack of cooperation inherent in law enforcement investigations. Issues of
funding, political platforms, and the like have traditionally reduced communication and cooperation
among jurisdictions. These issues are further compounded when international components are