Cybercrimes and Cybercriminals Stories involving computer crime have

been reported in the media. The media has often described computer

criminals as “hackers” and has sometimes portrayed them as “heroes.”

The public’s attitude toward computer crimes has evolved, mainly because of our increased dependency on the Internet.

A "Typical" Cybercriminal Some think of a typical computer criminal

as a person who is a very bright, technically sophisticated, young white male. – as portrayed in the popular movie War

Games. Donn Parker (1998) distinguishes

between “hackers” (as nonprofessional or “amateur” criminals) and professional criminals.

A Typical Computer Criminal (continued) Parker clams that computer hackers,

unlike most professional criminals, tend: not to be motivated by greed; to enjoy the “sport of joyriding.” He describes “typical computer hackers”

as exhibiting three common traits: precociousness; curiosity; persistence.

A Typical Computer Criminal (continued) Forester and Morrison (1994) note

that typical computer criminals can be:

1. (amateur) teenage hackers; 2. professional criminals; 3. (once) loyal employees who are

unable to resist a criminal opportunity presented by cybertechnology.

Some Notorious Cybercriminals Kevin Metnick: “Public Cyberenemy No. 1”; Robert Morris: the “Internet Worm”; Onel de Guzman: the ILOVEYOU Virus; “Mafia Boy”: cyber-attacks on e-commerce sites; “Dimitri”: an assault on Microsoft Corp.; “Curador”: identity theft in cyberspace; Notorious “hacker cults” include groups such as:

Chaos, Legion of Doom, Cult of the Dead Cow.

The Evolution of “Hacker” Pekka Himanen (2001) notes that

the term “hacker” originally applied to anyone who: "programmed enthusiastically“; believed that “information sharing is

a powerful positive good.” The term “hacker” now has a

negative connotation.

Hackers vs. “Crackers” Himanen also notes that a hacker

need not be a computer enthusiast. A hacker, in the original sense of

the term, could be an “expert or enthusiast of any kind.” For example, someone can be an astronomy

hacker. Hackers are now sometimes

distinguished from “crackers.”

Hackers vs. Crackers (Continued) The Hacker Jargon File defines

a "cracker" as one “who breaks security on a system.”

Crackers engage in acts of theft and vandalism, once they gain access to a computer.

“White Hat” vs. “Black Hat” Hackers

Some use the expressions white hat and black hat to distinguish between the two types of hacking behavior.

“White hat hackers" engage in “non-malicious” forms of hacking.

“Black hat hackers" engage in behavior described above as "cracking."

Malicious Hackers and “Hacking Tools” on the Internet Michael Simpson (2006) notes that many

malicious hackers do not possess outstanding technical skills, but know how to locate sophisticated “hacking tools” that can be downloaded from the Internet for free.

Many of them also know how to take advantage of “holes” in computer systems.

Sophisticated programmers refer to these individuals as “script kiddies” or “packet monkeys” because they copy code from knowledgeable programmers as opposed to creating the code themselves.

Counter Hacking or “Hacking Back” (Active Defense Hacking) Can counter hacking or “hacking

back” (at hackers) be justified? Counter hacking has been done both

by individuals and corporations. Counter-hacking attacks are typically

directed against those suspected of originating the hacker attacks.

Counter Hacking (Continued) Counter hacking can be either

preemptive or reactive. Both forms are controversial, but

preemptive counter hacking is more difficult to defend.

Is counter hacking an act of self-defense, or is it simply another case of “two wrongs making a right”?

Counter Hacking (Continued) Because counter hacking can cause harm

to innocent individuals, some question whether it can be defended on moral grounds.

Kenneth Himma (2004) notes that in cases of hacking back against distributed denial of service (DDS) attacks, many innocent persons are adversely affected because the attacks are routed through their computer systems.

Counter Hacking (Continued) Hackers can use the computers of

innocent persons as “host computers” to initiate their attacks. This technique is called “IP spoofing.”

Victims assume that the attacks originated from the host computer, rather than from the actual computer that initiated the attack.

So when victims hack back, they can unintentionally cause the intermediate computer to be assaulted by bogus requests for service.

Hacking and the Law Should all forms of hacking be illegal? Can some forms of traditional hacking be viewed

as an expression of individual freedoms and thus be defended on Constitutional grounds in the US?

Advocates for “hacker’s rights” note that traditional forms of hacking played an important role in computer developments and breakthroughs.

Many of today’s “computer heroes” and many successful entrepreneurs in the computer industry could be accused of having been hackers in the past.

Hacking and the Law (Continued) Non-malicious hackers enjoy support

from civil liberties organizations and from many in the computer community.

The government and business sectors view hacking activities in any form as an invasive activity.

Many see hacking as a form of trespass. Current legislation against trespass in

cyberspace has taken the side of business, government, and law enforcement agencies.

Criteria for Determining Computer Crimes

When is a crime a computer crime? The problem of criteria.

Are all crimes involving the use or presence of a computer necessarily computer crimes? Gotterbarn asks whether a murder

committed with a surgeon’s scalpel is an issue for medical ethics or just an ordinary crime.

Criteria for Determining Computer Crimes (Continued) Do we need a separate category of

computer crime/cybercrime? Some crimes have involved technologies,

but do not require separate categories of crime.

For example, people: steal televisions, but we don't have a category

of television crime; use automobiles to commit crimes, but we

don't have a category of automobile crime.

Criteria for Determining Computer Crimes (Continued) Consider three hypothetical

scenarios:  Scenario 1: Lee steals a computer device

(e.g., a printer) from a computer lab; Scenario 2: Lee breaks into a computer lab

and then snoops around; Scenario 3: Lee enters a computer lab that

he is authorized to use and then places an explosive device, which is set to detonate a short time later, on a computer in the lab.

Criteria for Determining Computer Crimes (Continued) Each of the acts described in the scenarios

is criminal in nature. But should they be viewed as computer crimes?

One might argue that it would not have been possible to commit any of the three crimes if computer technology had never existed.

But these criminal acts can easily be prosecuted as ordinary crimes involving theft, breaking and entering, and vandalism.

Defining Computer Crime Forester and Morrison (1994) define a

computer crime as: a criminal act in which a computer is used

as the principal tool. [Italics added] This definition rules out the crimes

committed in our three scenarios as “computer crimes.”

Is Forester and Morrison's definition of computer crime adequate?

Defining Computer Crime (Continued) Consider Scenario 4: Lee uses a computer

to file a fraudulent income-tax return. Arguably, a computer is the principal tool

used by Lee to carry out the criminal act. Has Lee committed a computer crime? He could have committed the same crime

by manually filling out a standard (hardcopy) version of the income-tax forms by using a pencil or pen.

Defining Computer Crime (Continued) Roy Girasa (2002) defines "cybercrime" as

a generic term covering a multiplicity of crimes found in penal code or in legislation having the "use of computer technology as its central component."

What is meant by "central component?" Was a computer a central component in

Lee's filing out the income tax return?

Towards a Coherent Definition of Cybercrime We define a (genuine) cybercrime as a

crime in whichthe criminal act can: be carried out only through the use of

cybertechnology, and take place only in the cyber realm.

Like Forester and Morrison's definition, this one rules out the three scenarios involving the computer lab as genuine cybercrimes.

It also rules out the income tax scenario.

Genuine Cybercrimes Using our definition of cybercrime,

we can identify specific cases of genuine cybercrimes.

We can also differentiate three broad categories of (genuine) cybercrime: cyberpiracy, cybertrespass, cybervandalism.

Three Categories of (Genuine) Cybercrime

1. Cyberpiracy - using cybertechnology in unauthorized ways to:a. reproduce copies of proprietary software and proprietary information, or b. distribute proprietary information (in digital form) across a computer network.

2. Cybertrespass - using cybertechnology to gain or to exceed unauthorized access to:

a. an individual's or an organization's computer system, or

b. a password-protected Web site.

3. Cybervandalism - using cybertechnology to unleash one or more programs that:

a. disrupt the transmission of electronic information across one or more computer networks, including the Internet, or

b. destroy data resident in a computer or damage a computer system's resources, or both.

Examples of the Three Categories of (Genuine) Cybercrimes

Consider three actual cases: 1. distributing proprietary MP3 files on the

Internet via peer-to peer (P2P) technology; 2. unleashing the ILOVEYOU Virus; 3. launching the denial-of-service attacks

on commercial Web sites. We can use our model of cybercrime

to see where each crime falls.

Categorizing (Genuine) Cybercrimes Crimes involving the unauthorized

exchange of proprietary MP3 files would come under the category of cyberpiracy (Category i).

The crime involving the ILOVEYOU Virus falls under cybervandalism (Category iii).

The denial-of-service attacks on Web sites falls under the heading of cybertrespass (Category ii), as well as under Category (iii). It spans more than one cybercrime category.

Distinguishing Cybercrimes from Cyber-related Crimes Many crimes that involve the use of

cybertechnology are not genuine cybercrimes. For example, crimes involving pedophilia,

stalking, and pornography can be carried with or without the use of cybertechnology.

Nothing about these kinds of crimes is unique to, or requires the use of, cybertechnology.

These crimes are better understood as examples of cyber-related crimes.

Cyber-related Crimes Cyber-related crimes can be

further divided into two sub-categories:

cyber-exacerbated crimes; cyber-assisted crimes.

Cyber-exacerbated vs. Cyber-assisted crimes We can distinguish between a crime in

which cybertechnology is used to: (a) file a fraudulent income-tax return, (b) stalk people or to distribute

pornography. In (a), a computer assists in a way that

is trivial and possibly irrelevant. In (b), cybertechnology has played a

much more significant (i.e., an exacerbating) role.

Crimes Involving Cybertechnology

Crimes involving cybertechnology can be classified in one of three ways:

Cyber-specific crimes (i.e., genuine cybercrimes);

Cyber-exacerbated crimes; Cyber-assisted crimes.

Figure 7-1: Cybercrimes and Cyber-related Crimes

Cybercrimes

Cyberspecific

Cyberpiracy Cybertrespass

Cybervandalism

Cyberrelated Crimes

Cyberexacerbated Cyberassisted

Cyberstalking Internet Pedophilia

Internet Pornography

Income-tax cheating (with a computer)Physical assault with a computerProperty damage using a computer hardware device (e.g., throwing a hardware device through a window)

Identity Theft: A Cyber-related Crime Cybertechnology has contributed significantly to

the rise in identity-theft crimes. Identity theft involves assuming another person’s identity

by using that person’s name, social security number, credit card numbers, and so forth.

Identity thieves can use that information to make purchases or transactions under the victim’s identity.

Identity theft, like other cyber-related crimes, does not require cybertechnology, but identity-theft crimes have increased dramatically because of computers and the Internet.

So, identity theft seems to be a cyber-exacerbated crime.

Identity Theft as a Cyber-related Crime (Continued) A number of factors have contributed to the rise

in identity-theft crimes via cybertechnology. For example, lax security and carelessness

involving information in computer databases has made it easy for some identity thieves to acquire personal information about their victims.

Bank of America lost computer tapes containing data on 1.2 million federal employees in 2005.

ChoicePoint, Inc. and Lexis-Nexis disclosed that the dossiers of more than 170,000 Americans on the companies’ databases had been illegally accessed by criminals, and that at least 750 had their identities stolen (Simon 2005).

Identity Theft as a Cyber-related Crime (Continued) In 2005, an MCI laptop containing the

names of 165,000 current and former MCI employees was stolen from the car of an MCI analyst, parked in front of the analyst’s home garage.

The information in stolen databases contains the addresses and social security numbers of individuals, as well as other information that identity thieves need to open up credit card accounts.

Identity Theft as a Cyber-related Crime (Continued) Many kinds of identity-theft scams have been

carried out on the Internet. One common example is a scheme involving

email that appears to be from a reputable business.

For example, you may receive e-mail that looks like it was sent by eBay, Amazon, or PayPal.

The emails often look legitimate because they include the official logos of the companies they claim to be.

Some messages inform you that your account is about to expire and that you need to update it by verifying your credit card number.

Identity Theft as a Cyber-related Crime (Continued) How can a potential victim differentiate

legitimate email sent from businesses like eBay or PayPal from that sent by identity thieves?

Typically, email from identity thieves will not address the potential victim by name. This often indicates that the e-mail is not

from a legitimate source. Many emails sent from identity thieves

are generated through spam via a technique referred to as “phishing.”

Corporate Espionage as a Cyber-related Crime Corporate espionage has been made easier

by cybertechnology, which provides corporate spies with data-gathering opportunities that were not previously possible. Corporations sometimes inadvertently supply

spies with valuable “inside information” by posting information about their products and their missions on company Web sites that are freely accessible to the public.

Corporate-espionage crimes need not involve the use of cybertechnology, but its use has exacerbated those crimes.

Corporate Espionage as a Cyber-related Crime (Continued) The U.S. Congress passed the Economic

Espionage Act of 1996, making it a federal crime to profit from the misappropriation of someone else’s trade secret.

Although the Economic Espionage Act is not exclusively a computer crime law, it specifically includes language about “downloads,” “uploads,” “e-mails,” etc.

Corporate Espionage as a Cyber-related Crime (Continued) Some economic analysts worry that

economic espionage, especially in the high-tech industry, threatens the American position in a global market.

Ironically, cybertechnology has made it much easier for spies to carry out their espionage operations against the very corporations that develop that technology.

Organized Crime as a Cyber-related Crime Career criminals, including those in

organized crime, now use cybertechnology to carry out their crimes. For example, gambling and drug

trafficking have moved to the Internet. Scams involving Internet adoption and

Internet auctions have increased.

Organized Crime in Cyberspace (Continued) Racketeering-related crimes are often

considered "old-style" crimes. New forms of hacking-related crimes tend

to grab the headlines. Some cyber-related crimes carried out by

professionals may be undetected because professional criminals do not typically make the same kinds of mistakes as hackers, who often tend to be amateurs.

Organized Crime in Cyberspace (Continued) Richard Power (2000) believes that

youthful hacker stereotypes have provided a convenient foil for professional criminals.

Unlike hackers, professional criminals, who do not seek technological adventure and whose skills are better, are less likely to get caught .

Programs and Techniques Designed to Combat Cybercrime in the U.S.

Programs and techniques used in the U.S. include:

Entrapment and “sting” operations; Keystroke monitoring; Carnivore; Echelon; Total Information Awareness Project.

Entrapment on the Internet Detective James McLaughlin of Keene, NH posed as a

young boy in boy-love chat rooms. Under this alias, McLaughlin searched for adults using

the Internet to seek sex with underage boys. Gathering evidence from conversations recorded in

Internet chat rooms, McLaughlin was able to trap and arrest an adult on charges of child molestation.

Philip Rankin, living in Norway, communicated with McLaughlin under the assumption that the police officer was a young boy.

Rankin agreed to travel to Keene, NH to meet in person at a Dunkin Donuts restaurant.

When Rankin arrived at the restaurant, McLaughlin arrested him.

Entrapment on the Internet (Continued) Several cases of child molestation have been

investigated by the FBI where pedophiles have crossed over a state line to meet and molest children they met via an Internet forum such as a chat room.

Sometimes police officers have entered chat rooms posing as young girls to lure unsuspecting pedophiles.

In 2003, a sting operation was conducted in which a policeman posing as a 13-year old girl in an Internet chat room arrested a 22-year old man on charges of attempted (second-degree) rape of a child.

Keystroke Monitoring Software Law-enforcement agencies have used

use a technology called keystroke monitoring to track down professional criminals.

Keystroke-monitoring software records every key struck by a user, as well as every character of the response that the system returns to the user.

Keystroke Monitoring (Continued) Keystroke-monitoring software can

trace the text in electronic messages back to the original sequence of keys and characters entered at a user's computer keyboard.

It is especially useful in tracking the activities of criminals who use encryption to encode their messages.

Carnivore and Echelon Carnivore is a controversial

"packet sniffing" program that monitors the data traveling between networked computers.

Echelon is the federal government's once super secret system for monitoring voice and data communication worldwide.

The Total Information Awareness (TIA) Project TIA was proposed by the Information

Awareness Office (IAO) of the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

The objective of TIA is not only to detect criminals but also to identify and monitor potential terrorists.

The TIA database could look for patterns implicit in data that includes financial, medical, travel, and other records.

In 2003, the U.S. Congress suspended funding of the domestic surveillance portion of TIA.

The name of the program has since been changed to “Terrorist Information Awareness.”

The Patriot Act and Enhanced Government Surveillance Techniques

The USA (United and Strengthening America) PATRIOT (Provide Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act was passed by the U.S. Congress in October 2001.

It was renewed (in a slightly modified form) in March 2006.

The Patriot Act gives increased powers to law enforcement agencies to track down suspected terrorists and criminals.

Patriot Act (Continued) The Electronic Communications Privacy Act

authorized the government to attach pen registers and trap-and-trace devices to a suspect’s phone.

When a suspect makes a phone call, a pen register displays the number being dialed; when he receives a phone call, the trap-and-trace-device displays the caller’s phone number.

A pen register used on the Internet can reveal the URLs of Web sites visited by a suspect.

The Patriot Act allows police to install Internet pen registers without having to demonstrate probable cause.

Patriot Act (Continued) The Patriot Act is an extension of the Foreign

Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which established legal guidelines for federal investigations of foreign intelligence targets.

The Patriot Act amended FISA to permit domestic surveillance as well.

Some applaud the enhanced domestic surveillance provisions made possible by the Patriot Act.

Others fear that the government’s increased powers to conduct “sneak and peek” operations will have overall negative consequences for a nation that values both freedom and the presumption of innocence.

Patriot Act (Continued) Section 215 of the Patriot Act allows FBI

directors to obtain library and bookstore records of individuals.

It also allows the FBI to impose a “gag order” that prevents those who provided them with this information from disclosing to the affected parties that they were the subject of an investigation and that information about them had been acquired by the FBI.

Patriot Act (Continued) The American Library Association (ALA),

as well as a coalition of publishers, authors and booksellers, have opposed this aspect of the Patriot Act.

They argue that denying librarians and booksellers the liberty to inform individuals and their attorneys that they had been forced to release records violates citizens’ First Amendment right to free speech.

Patriot Act (Continued) In December 2005, it was reported that the Bush

Administration had been monitoring the e-mails and phone calls of U.S. citizens who were communicating with individuals outside the U.S.

Opponents argued that the Bush Administration’s practices violated the law because no court order was requested in conducting surveillance on U.S. citizens.

It is legal for the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct wiretaps on non-U.S. citizens, but the NSA is not authorized to intercept the communications of Americans without first getting a court order.

National and International Efforts to Fight Cybercrime Problems of jurisdiction arise at both

the national and international levels. Jurisdiction is based on the concept

of boundaries, and laws are based on "territorial sovereignty" (Girasa, 2002).

Cyberspace has no physical boundaries.

Jurisdictional Problems in Cyberspace (Within the U.S.) Consider the scenario (described in

the text) involving the Virtual Casino. Suppose it is legal to gamble online

in Nevada but not in Texas. A Texas resident “visits” a gambling

Web site, whose server is in Nevada. If the Texas resident “breaks the

law,” in which state did the crime take place?

Jurisdictional Problems in Cyberspace (Outside the U.S.) Hypothetical Scenario: International Law

Suits Involving Microsoft Corporation. Suppose that Microsoft Corporation

develops and releases, globally, a software product that is defective.

The defect causes computer systems using it to crash under certain conditions.

These system crashes, in turn, result both in severe disruption and damage to system resources.

Jurisdictional Problems in Cyberspace (Continued) What recourse should consumers

and organizations who purchase this product have in their complaint against Microsoft?

In the US, there are strict liability laws.

But disclaimers (and caveats) are often issued by manufacturers to protect themselves against litigation.

Microsoft Scenario (Continued) Suppose that several countries in

which Microsoft has sold its new product also have strict liability laws.

Should Microsoft Corp. be held legally liable in each country in which its defective product has been sold?

Should that corporation then be forced to stand trial in each of these countries?

Microsoft Scenario (Continued) In the case involving the ILOVEYOU Virus,

several nations wanted Onel Guzman extradited to stand trial in their countries.

Using the same rationale, would it follow that Microsoft should be tried in each country where its defective product caused some damage? Consider that if Microsoft were to be found guilty

in these nations' courts, the economic results for that corporation could be catastrophic.

International Laws and Treaties to Combat Cybercrime In 2000, the G8 (Group of Eight) Countries

met to discuss an international treaty involving cybercrime.

The Council of Europe (COE) has considered some ways for implementing an international legal code that would apply to members of the European Union.

The COE Council has released drafts of an international convention of "Crime in Cyberspace."

International Laws and Treaties (Continued) The COE Convention on Cybercrime

addresses four types of criminal activity in cyberspace:

Offenses against the confidentiality, availability, and integrity of data and computer systems;

Computer-related offenses (such as fraud); Content-related offenses (such as child

pornography); Copyright-related offenses.

Some Tools/Technologies Used to Combat Cybercrime Two kinds of tools/technologies

that have been used to fight cybercrime are: encryption (described in Ch 6); biometrics.

In the 1990s, the Clipper Chip, a controversial encryption technology, was criticized by both the ACLU and Rush Limbaugh.

Biometric Technologies Biometrics can be defined as:

the biological identification of a person, which includes eyes, voice, hand prints, finger prints, retina patterns, and handwritten signatures (Power, 2002).

Irma van der Ploeg (2004) notes that with biometrics tools, a person’s: iris can be “read” in the same way that a

person’s voice can be printed. fingerprints can be “read” by a computer

that is “touch sensitive” and “endowed with hearing and seeing capacities.”

Biometric Technologies (Continued) In 2002, an iris-scanning device, which is

a type of biometric identification scheme, was first tested at London's Heathrow Airport.

The scanning device captures a digital image of one's iris, which is then stored in a database. The digital image can be matched against

images of individuals, including those entering and leaving public places.

Facial Recognition Programs At Super Bowl XXXV in January 2001, face-

recognition technology was used by law-enforcement agencies to scan the faces of persons entering the football stadium.

The scanned images were instantly matched against electronic images (faces) of suspected criminals and terrorists, contained in a central computer database. Initially, this was controversial; after September

11, 2001, it was widely supported.

The EURODAC Project European Proposals to use of

biometric identifiers have also generated controversy.

The Eurodac Project is a European Union proposal to use biometrics in controlling illegal immigration and border crossing in European countries.

In 2002, a decision was made to go forward with the Eurodac proposal.